• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

General political chat

Prince-1

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
How do people not see through him? The petty, insecure, jealous, thin-skinned, crass, weak, wannabe nature of this person?
I think everyone actually thought this WAS fake news because no one could be that stupid but nope...it was for reallz! And then he actually got upset with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and said that, "I thought that the prime minister's statement that it was absurd, that it was an absurd idea was nasty,".

Man I'm going to miss Trump when he loses in 2020 as he may be a lot of things (presidential is not one of them) but he is good for a daily laugh.
 

Laketravis

Premium Member
I think everyone actually thought this WAS fake news because no one could be that stupid but nope...it was for reallz!
The concept isn't as far-fetched as it may seem. The US bought Alaska from Russia for $7M. Some of that money was used to bribe Senators to go along with the deal. Harry Truman tried to buy Greenland from Denmark for $100m in 1946.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Actually, it's somewhat similar to a parliamentary system in this respect. You elect your MP, and then your MP votes for the Prime Minister of their choosing.
I can’t speak for other systems, but in the UK, the prime minister is him- or herself an MP and typically the leader of the party that gains a majority during the general election. It is the monarch who invites this MP to become prime minister after the election.
 

Prince-1

Well-Known Member
The concept isn't as far-fetched as it may seem. The US bought Alaska from Russia for $7M. Some of that money was used to bribe Senators to go along with the deal. Harry Truman tried to buy Greenland from Denmark for $100m in 1946.
Oh I know it has happened in the past but the way Trump did it is classic. The Truman administration did it under Cold War secrecy and no one learned about it for decades. Trump on the other hand doesn't actually go through proper channels and have his people quietly probe to see if there is any interest to the idea. Nope, he just tweets about it and then gets smacked down by the PM of Denmark and then he goes on an embarrassing man-child rant on how mean and nasty she is. Yep, exactly how Truman did it.
 
Last edited:

Ag11gani

Well-Known Member
I can’t speak for other systems, but in the UK, the prime minister is him- or herself an MP and typically the leader of the party that gains a majority during the general election. It is the monarch who invites this MP to become prime minister after the election.
Not alot of people realise that the Prime Minister doesn't have to be a MP. This was true when parliment was dissolved for the 2017 GE and there was no MPs, yet Theresa May was still Prime Minister. It is just convention that the Prime Minister is an MP.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Not alot of people realise that the Prime Minister doesn't have to be a MP. This was true when parliment was dissolved for the 2017 GE and there was no MPs, yet Theresa May was still Prime Minister. It is just convention that the Prime Minister is an MP.
Thanks for the clarification!
 

sedati

Well-Known Member
Getting people to buy into changes (no matter what the subject is), can often be an uphill battle. Just my opinion, but my guess is that they'd probably be willing to compromise a bit on some of this, if it meant that they could get enough supporters for the overall plan. (As you mentioned, maybe this can be some kind of meeting point.)
Here's my problem with that:
There is a gun problem to which the solution given by one side is "more guns- guns pretty much everywhere."
The other side asks for "less guns."
Meeting in the middle now equals more guns because the goal post has been shifted so far off into more guns.
So even if the other side goes equally extreme, what's the middle compromise between no guns and guns everywhere? Probably where we are now, but in truth, probably more guns.
 

Laketravis

Premium Member
There is a gun problem to which the solution given by one side is "more guns- guns pretty much everywhere."
I don't think that's true at all. Are you referring to the opinion of some that more people should have open-carry or CHL because that would somehow reduce gun violence? I know some feel that way but it hardy constitutes an entire "side" in your two-sided description.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
I don't think that's true at all. Are you referring to the opinion of some that more people should have open-carry or CHL because that would somehow reduce gun violence? I know some feel that way but it hardy constitutes an entire "side" in your two-sided description.
It is also quite presumptuous to believe there is a gun problem imo. Guns, and more powerful guns predate the mass shooting epidemic, yet we focus only on the tool.
 

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
We have a drunk driving problem, we create stricter laws, place more liability on proprietors, parents that host parties with underage drinking, we Lower the blood alcohol limit. We have a car safety issue, we require seat belts, we require companies to improve safety features, we require child seats and boosters we try to mitigate the dangers. We have a prescription drug epidemic, we are pushing for more limits, more doctor liability, a universal health records system, limit the amount that can be purchased.
Drugs, driving , drinking, yea the cars don't drive drunk, the beers themselves don't cause the accident the people do and thus we limit how they operate the cars and how they get the beer, in some way.

We have people killing other people with guns. And we do what? Nothing.
 

sedati

Well-Known Member
I don't think that's true at all. Are you referring to the opinion of some that more people should have open-carry or CHL because that would somehow reduce gun violence? I know some feel that way but it hardy constitutes an entire "side" in your two-sided description.
I'm referring to the reality of how things have progressed. Even after Sandy Hook and all the nightmares since. More guns.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
We do? What other laws are there pertaining to DUI/DWI other than blood alcohol limits?



Not true at all.
the irony is, the cities with the strictest laws, seem to be those with still the highest gun death totals. What does this tell us? People who want to harm others with weapons, will continue to do so. There are other issues at play here
 

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
the irony is, the cities with the strictest laws, seem to be those with still the highest gun death totals. What does this tell us? People who want to harm others with weapons, will continue to do so. There are other issues at play here
Really NYC native? You wanna go with that still?
 
Top Bottom