President Trump Addresses the Joint Session of Congress

[Teddy B 17,252]

Just now, bcking said:

I'm getting on a plane this afternoon for a week in the Amazon with my wife. A week long "ban" would be well timed if it happened today

No one ever gets banned here on VJ, we are simply forced to use built up vacation time.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Teddy B said:

No one ever gets banned here on VJ, we are simply forced to use built up vacation time.

I have heard though that some people were forced to take permanent vacations?

[OriZ 3,157]

1 hour ago, Teddy B said:

I think that number is probably very low. From what I've seen of people in my lifetime, I'd say that number is much higher.

Quit telling naitch he doesn't gave good moral character, I thought you two were friends

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Can't comment on my IQ (I don't know it), but glad we agree on your first sentence. 

 

Other people here are perfectly capable of reading my posts and responding in a reasonable way (regardless of whether they agree with me or not). Perhaps you should leave it up to them?

Now that you mention it I do pay Teddy a small retainer to handle anything that requires more than 4 lines and punctuation 

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I have heard though that some people were forced to take permanent vacations?

Yes, some peeps have built up much more vacation time than others.

 

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

Quit telling naitch he doesn't gave good moral character, I thought you two were friends

NB knows he can get as muddy as any of us in here, even if he's swimmin in the muddy right ditch.

 

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Now that you mention it I do pay Teddy a small retainer to handle anything that requires more than 4 lines and punctuation 

Yesterday was the first of the month, pay up brother.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

Yes, some peeps have built up much more vacation time than others.

 

NB knows he can get as muddy as any of us in here, even if he's swimmin in the muddy right ditch.

 

Yesterday was the first of the month, pay up brother.

would you please formulate a flowing response to let said Poster know

He said -- something to the effect of people that overlook Trumps poor treatment of women and dont care, have poor moral character. 

 

I pointed out that the people that voted for Bill Clinton 2x times must also. I thought the because of Bill's poor treatment of women part was obvious. 

 

I really dont give a rats patootie either way, just pointing out the obvious. 

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

would you please formulate a flowing response to let said Poster know

He said -- something to the effect of people that overlook Trumps poor treatment of women and dont care, have poor moral character. 

 

I pointed out that the people that voted for Bill Clinton 2x times must also. I thought the because of Bill's poor treatment of women part was obvious. 

 

I really dont give a rats patootie either way, just pointing out the obvious. 

Got it.

 

Him say um....

 

 

 

[OriZ 3,157]

43 minutes ago, bcking said:

I think they are a joke because, for the most part, people only really talk about them for Presidential elections.

 

If they want to gain more support they need to focus on add seats in the House or Senate. I agree with you that there are restrictions that make that difficult, and those restrictions should change (good luck with that considering the restrictions benefit the people in power that would need to vote to change them).

 

For all its faults (and of course each system has its own problems), a Parliamentary system like the UK and many European countries at least allow for the growth of smaller parties, which then leads to the formation of "coalitions". While they aren't always great, at least it forces politicians to work with people they disagree with at least some of the time. I also much prefer the concept of electing your local representative, and then the "party leader" becoming the head of government, but I realize that would destroy one of our "checks and balances" and therefore not "American". By virtue of the fact that the House and Senate have a majority of the same party as the President, this Presidency will be far more "productive" than the last. That has nothing to do with the quality of the man elected to be President.

No no no dude, we have that system in Israel too and it stinks. I don't know, maybe in the UK it works better, but all I have seen from this system is that it creates too many small parties, each pulling in different directions, making different demands, and if you don't give in to them and give them what they want you don't have a government, which usually means one of two things, sometimes both: You either give them what they want and have an incredibly bloated government and spending, or you don't and that causes instability and very frequent elections. I actually prefer the system in the US to a parliamentary system, but I do think there need to be more than 2 parties. 

[bcking 3,157]

22 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

would you please formulate a flowing response to let said Poster know

He said -- something to the effect of people that overlook Trumps poor treatment of women and dont care, have poor moral character. 

 

I pointed out that the people that voted for Bill Clinton 2x times must also. I thought the because of Bill's poor treatment of women part was obvious. 

 

I really dont give a rats patootie either way, just pointing out the obvious. 

Except that is not what I said. Seriously have you not gone back to actually read it? 

 

I said that people who voted for Trump fall into 2 camps. Those that agree with Trump's treatment of women (those who have poor moral character themselves) and those that disagree with Trump's actions but prioritized other issues over morality. I explicitly stated that people in Group 2 don't necessarily have poor moral character because they recognize the actions were wrong, but they just don't think morality is the most important issue for a President.

 

The same would apply to Bill Clinton. I'm sure there are people out there that think how he treats women is perfectly okay because he's just a "man's man" or whatever. Those people yes do have poor moral character themselves. There are others though that recognize that Clinton did some skeezy things, and he isn't a great guy, but they prioritized other issues over that. 

 

I made no claim as to how many people fall into each group because I have no idea.

Edited March 2, 2017 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, OriZ said:

No no no dude, we have that system in Israel too and it stinks. I don't know, maybe in the UK it works better, but all I have seen from this system is that it creates too many small parties, each pulling in different directions, making different demands, and if you don't give in to them and give them what they want you don't have a government, which usually means one of two things, sometimes both: You either give them what they want and have an incredibly bloated government and spending, or you don't and that causes instability and very frequent elections. I actually prefer the system in the US to a parliamentary system, but I do think there need to be more than 2 parties. 

Ya I agree it isn't without it's own problems. I just don't see how our American system will ever encourage more than 2 parties.

 

I also would prefer a President and Legislature that matches. I would rather have periods of government that I completely disagree with (like now) that actually get things done, than have constant roadblocks when the Head of Government doesn't allign with the elected representatives of government. Let a party make changes that they believe are in the best interest, and let the chips fall where they may. If things aren't succesful they will lose power in the next election. It seems more rational to me than when we get stuck with a President who wants one thing, and a House/Senate who wants something else. They block each other and nothing gets done.

[OriZ 3,157]

39 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

The original post I made using the word petulant and a couple of others in that same thread got me a week on the beaches of Ankara. I'm just glad the weather was nice.

Don't worry dude, I got retribution for ya on that one 

[OriZ 3,157]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

Ya I agree it isn't without it's own problems. I just don't see how our American system will ever encourage more than 2 parties.

 

I also would prefer a President and Legislature that matches. I would rather have periods of government that I completely disagree with (like now) that actually get things done, than have constant roadblocks when the Head of Government doesn't allign with the elected representatives of government. Let a party make changes that they believe are in the best interest, and let the chips fall where they may. If things aren't succesful they will lose power in the next election. It seems more rational to me than when we get stuck with a President who wants one thing, and a House/Senate who wants something else. They block each other and nothing gets done.

 

That's precisely my issue though with the other system too, because then it's bribe or blackmail time depending on the situation and how ya wanna look at it, so they won't let you get anything done either unless you give them what they want, and you need them because you need a certain number of mandates, and at least in Israel usually due to the number of parties to reach those mandates you usually need at least 6-7 parties to form a coalition, and they all want something out of ya or you're toast, it's insane.

Edited March 2, 2017 by OriZ

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, OriZ said:

 

That's precisely my issue though with the other system too, because then it's bribe or blackmail time depending on the situation and how ya wanna look at it, so they won't let you get anything done either unless you give them what they want, and you need them because you need a certain number of mandates, and at least in Israel usually due to the number of parties to reach those mandates you usually need at least 6-7 parties to form a coalition, it's insane.

Ya that seems a little out of hand.

 

At least in the UK when "coalitions" have occurred they have happened between two "large" political parties (There haven't been that many either, the last one before Cameron was Churchill). The parties with 7 or 8 votes rarely force anyone to do anything really. There aren't quite enough of them. Though that could change in the future. 

[Teddy B 17,252]

5 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Don't worry dude, I got retribution for ya on that one 

I haven's seen that poster around for a bit.

[OriZ 3,157]

7 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

I haven's seen that poster around for a bit.

He/she was sent to Ankara as well and probably decided not to come back 

Edited March 2, 2017 by OriZ