My topic deleted.

[absinthe]

I wrote a post raising another side to Trump and it's been deleted.
Thank you (not) for that. Thanks for encouraging a more international audience in the pub. I shall think twice before posting here again.
.

[John F]

Only three people have the necessary authority to delete a post by you: Lance, Chalkperson, and yourself. Chalkie hasn't been around for a long time, and Lance is unlikely to have done it. Could it be that you didn't save/submit your post before moving on to another topic? I've done that sometimes. That would seem more likely than that Lance or Chalkie intervened..

[absinthe]

Thanks for the response, John F. It must have been me not submitting it, then. Curious but these things happen.

I know that Mr Trump hasn't enamoured himself to many members in this pub and wondered if my post raised enough hostility to have it deleted - not that I was entirely praiseworthy of said POTUS.

.

[John F]

If your post had raised any hostility, I'm sure you would have heard about it in the Pub. It's pretty much no holds barred there. (And incidentally, Lance never reads anything in the Pub, or indeed anything not in the Chatterbox, so he wouldn't have seen your post let alone deleted it.)

[barney]

So post it again. I'm always trying to understand support for Trump (as opposed to dislike of his opponents, such as the Clintons).

[jserraglio]

Trump will be impeached by the House Dems right as rain, then will probably win acquittal by the GOP in the Senate trial that follows.

But in the process, until and unless the GOP caucus seeks safety in numbers and takes a united stand either to criticize Trump outright or to embrace his conduct unreservedly, Speaker Pelosi will pick them off one by one and run their proverbial "tits" thru a wringer — that won't be a pretty sight, to see GOP senators squirm if they deliver a full-throated defense of Trump's patent abuse of the Constitution, or likewise squirm if they accuse him of serious misconduct that does not warrant removal from office and thereby ignite a Twitter barrage that could in effect doom them with the GOP and spark a primary challenge next election cycle should Trump ever be reelected.

Speaker Pelosi has prepared a rock and a hard place for these Trumpsketeer trimmers, and some of them already are feeling their gionads crushed by the Clashing Rocks.

[barney]

How I hope you are right. But it just doesn't seem to matter, nothing affects Trump's base, and nothing he does disturbs the Republicans. They are totally corrupt in terms of the principles they abided by for decades; anything at all, so long as they stay in power. A really slimy group of people. Except, that as I have opined before, if the boot were on the other foot I doubt the Democrats would be any more principled.

[jserraglio]

Oh, I'm pretty sure Speaker Pelosi has factored in and already discounted the Trump (d)base, but in my view, her aims are far more strategic . . .

-- leaders tend to lead while trimmers trim. Pelosi is nothing if not a consummate leader.

-- The Dems may indeed be as venal as the GOP, but the Speaker. like the President, is obligated to rise above all that in a crisis. By dint of the office she holds, the Speaker represents all the American people.

-- as such, she's not about to let our Constitution be trashed by a petty tyrant like Trump. "All roads with you lead to Putin," she pointed out while pointing him out in their latest WH mtg, towering over him as if she, not he, wielded the power of the state.



-- she will insist that the GOP in Congress go on record validating Trump and then hang that vote around their unmanly flabby turkey necks in the next election cycle either by retaking the Senate majority or by shaving the margin so thin that McConnell will find it difficult to govern effectively. And who knows, her maneuvers may even help defeat Trump in that election.

-- as Speaker, 2nd in line to the Presidency, she has the unique power to force Leader McConnell to put this matter to a vote in the Senate and intends to use it.

The proverbial shoe is emphatically not on any hypothetically other foot, the circumstances here being totally unprecedented in our history. By the time this is over, if the Speaker has her way, at a minimum Trump will be a wounded-duck President angling for a 2nd term and the GOP will be wearing their shoes around their ears. I wouldn't bet against her.

From yesterday, when she solemnly took the gavel in the House to usher in the impeachment of a rogue presidency until this matter is finally resolved one way or the other, the eminence grise, if not the de facto President, of our nation is Nancy Pelosi.

[Belle]

I wouldn't be so sure about the outcome of any of this.

The world over, democracies are becoming unstable, minority governments: Australia had one until 18 May and only holds by a slender majority of 1, the UK is in minority (and probably will be so again), Canada, Israel, NZ as well as Germany (where Merkel had to wait the longest time to find out if she was still Chancellor). In Belgium in 2009 when we first arrived there they'd been without a government for 3 months!! There is little evidence of people voting for majorities in major democracies any more; they are fed up to the back teeth with the status quo. To retain power governments have to negotiate like the clappers with former enemies. It's disastrous for stable government and future planning and more reminiscent of Italian politics than anything else. And when they do vote for majorities (Macron, France) it quickly turns sour. They've had the most appalling street violence in that country.

In 1975 the majority Australian Labor government was thrown out by the Queen's agent, the Governor General, because of fiscal incompetence. The Liberal opposition refused to pass the supply bill in the Senate and the government could not pay its bills. (One of the federal ministers had been negotiating to borrow money from a dodgy middle eastern 'financier'). Even so, it caused the nation huge turmoil when people correctly saw their elected government thrown out by a non-elected entity. In my view they should have been able to complete their term in office and for the people to wear the consequences of their decisions. Right now, these 44 years later, the episode has become valorized as some tragic mistake for the Labor Party and the then PM is today regarded by many as being misunderstood hero of great vision and leadership. Yes, they should have served their full term!

Be careful what you wish for.

[Lance]

I just caught this post. I do visit here occasionally, and even post once in a great while. However, that said, no, I would never delete a post unless, of course, the language of a post would be offensive to others. This is an open forum. I am the only one on this forum able to delete posts.

[jserraglio]

I wouldn't be so sure about the outcome of any of this.

The world over, democracies are becoming unstable, minority governments: Australia had one until 18 May and only holds by a slender majority of 1, the UK is in minority (and probably will be so again), Canada, Israel, NZ as well as Germany (where Merkel had to wait the longest time to find out if she was still Chancellor). In Belgium in 2009 when we first arrived there they'd been without a government for 3 months!! There is little evidence of people voting for majorities in major democracies any more; they are fed up to the back teeth with the status quo. To retain power governments have to negotiate like the clappers with former enemies. It's disastrous for stable government and future planning and more reminiscent of Italian politics than anything else. And when they do vote for majorities (Macron, France) it quickly turns sour. They've had the most appalling street violence in that country.

In 1975 the majority Australian Labor government was thrown out by the Queen's agent, the Governor General, because of fiscal incompetence. The Liberal opposition refused to pass the supply bill in the Senate and the government could not pay its bills. (One of the federal ministers had been negotiating to borrow money from a dodgy middle eastern 'financier'). Even so, it caused the nation huge turmoil when people correctly saw their elected government thrown out by a non-elected entity. In my view they should have been able to complete their term in office and for the people to wear the consequences of their decisions. Right now, these 44 years later, the episode has become valorized as some tragic mistake for the Labor Party and the then PM is today regarded by many as being misunderstood hero of great vision and leadership. Yes, they should have served their full term!

Be careful what you wish for.

American idealism at its best remains undeterred by conventional scepticism and Old-World cynicism. We will not allow our basic liberties to be abridged by tyranny and its lawless acolytes.

[Belle]

Presumably that includes a vicious civil war. There were idealists there too, I'm told

Dear me, pardon my cynicism.

[jserraglio]

In several respects, the American Civil War never ended. It has simply been fought by other means.

Of course no one can be certain, but events, if they go against Trump, are likely to unfold this way:
— Trump to be impeached.
— Trump to be acquitted but his victory will be pyrrhic.
— Trump either loses the election;
OR
— he wins reelection but loses the Senate.

None of this results in civil strife unless Trump declares the election invalid and refuses to vacate the office. That event in my view would re-ignite the American Civil War. But he is far more likely to challenge an unfavorable result in the courts and trust his "Supremes" to reinstate him. So, no Civil War is in the offing, as I see events playing out.

[Belle]

In the case of the war which never ended it seems to me conciliation is the answer. But there is such a thing as 'loser consent' in a democracy and without that - without people accepting the will of the people - there are grounds right there for big strife. If you think the USA is different to all the other democracies I've described which are in minority positions then good luck to you. You're going to need it.

[jserraglio]

Indeed, America, as I see her, is different, and exceptional. But taking a longer view, we all will need luck, Mitochondrial Eve being what she is.

[lennygoran]

We will not allow our basic liberties to be abridged by tyranny and its lawless acolytes.

I'm getting nervous-the courts are taking too darn long-bring on Eisenberg, Bolton, Perry, etc. Regards, Len

"What’s happening next week

Congress will be on a weeklong break, but the committees and staff conducting the investigation will continue interviewing a number of important witnesses, making next week a crucial phase before public hearings begin.

Monday is a busy day, with investigators scheduled to talk to Robert Blair, an aide to Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff. They’re also supposed to talk to John Eisenberg, the top lawyer on the National Security Council, and his deputy, Michael Ellis.

On Tuesday, a White House budget official, Michael Duffey, is scheduled to testify; on Wednesday, investigators want to talk to T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a State Department adviser close to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

On Thursday — and this is a big one — it could be John Bolton’s turn. The former national security adviser would be the closest person to President Trump to testify. Multiple witnesses have said he objected to the president’s dealings with Ukraine. But his lawyer said he would not appear voluntarily, and it’s not clear how he will respond to a subpoena."

[Chalkperson]

Whilst I may not post on here, it does not mean I do not still keep an eye on things.

It takes a lot for a Topic to be deleted, in fact I think its 2-3 years since it last happened.

JohnF is right, check after posting that the Thread is up and online.

Most anyone who required censorship has gone, so rest assured it was not me, and Lance very, very rarely comes in here.

Post your thoughts again, variety is the spice of life, after all.

[Belle]

Indeed, America, as I see her, is different, and exceptional. But taking a longer view, we all will need luck, Mitochondrial Eve being what she is.

That very same 'difference' and 'exceptionalism' which saw the election of Donald Trump? You didn't seem to appreciate those qualities then!!! The reality TV maven with the fake-tan and improbable hair, the ill-fitting suits and look-at-me Las Vegas mindset wasn't the result of either exceptionalism or legerdemain but the last-gasp desperation from the forgotten people.

[jserraglio]

For the record, I'll decide what I do and do not appreciate without any unsolicited assistance.

To get an inkling of what American exceptionalism might actually entail, however, one might take the time to look at the relevant presidential speeches by JFK and Ronald Reagan or at the estimable intellectual history of the "New England Mind" detailed by Perry Miller, et al.

Re. the bloated phenom of Mr. Trump:

Like former Vice-President Aaron Burr who demagogued his own gaggle of perhaps thousands of "forgotten people" but who also disloyally plotted against the United States (for the details of Burr's 1805 Ohio River conspiracy, cf. David McCullough's 2019 book "The Pioneers"), Trump is an outlier. And like Burr, Trump will be tried and very likely acquitted, but also is likely to have his subsequent political career [in the 2020 election] destroyed in the process, just as Burr's career was destroyed after Chief Justice John Marshall acquitted him of treason.

As Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pointed out sagely to Mr. Trump's very face: "All roads, with you, lead to Putin." Like Burr, Trump's loyalties lie not with the United States, but elsewhere.

[lennygoran]

Joseph always wonder if putin has the goods on him with some secret recording? Len from wilmington delaware-saw the spectacular mum display yesterday at longwood gardens.

[jserraglio]

Maybe, maybe not. I don't discount the possibility that Trump has never encountered anything more substantial than his own matériel de corps.

[lennygoran]

Anyway to paraphrase Bentsen I say this with regard to the fireside chat comment-Trump I knew FDR and Trump, you're no FDR! Regards, Len

Republican Dan Quayle had his words used against him during the 1988 vice presidential debates after he likened his political experience to that of John F. Kennedy. Democratic opponent Lloyd Bentsen's response: "I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." Quayle's miffed comeback — "That was really uncalled for, Senator" — had to wait until the laughter died down.

[jserraglio]

Anyway to paraphrase Bentsen I say this with regard to the fireside chat comment-Trump I knew FDR and Trump, you're no FDR!

Right, but he does remind me of Aaron Burr absent Burr's battle ribbons for valor and his legitimate election as Jefferson's first vice-president.

Over time, I have come to believe that Trump is most likely an illegitimately elected president whose loyalties lie first and foremost with Vladimir Putin — precisely what Speaker Pelosi has been imputing to him for several weeks now.

The dubious notion bandied about on this thread that Trump, the new FDR, swept into office on a wave of "the last-gasp desperation from the forgotten people" is belied by a simple glance at the actual popular vote tally: Trump 62,984,828, Clinton 65,853,514. Trump could not put together even a plurality, let alone a majority from those putative 'forgottens' supposedly so grievously trampled upon by an uncaring elite.

That elite is largely a myth, a byproduct self-serving fantasies (styling oneself as a champion of the downtrodden) — so too are the so-called hordes of forgotten Americans that put Trump in office. What about all the affluent Americans who voted for Trump? There are a helluva lot of them where I live and they don't reside in trailer parks but in the toney exo-'burbs.

No, far more likely that Trump was "put-in" by Putin. Consequently, Trump holds the office of the Presidency by bastardy and he knows it, which is why he tried to muscle Ukraine to investigate the intelligence agencies that concluded Putin did in fact meddle in 2016 on his behalf.

[Belle]

For the record, I'll decide what I do and do not appreciate without any unsolicited assistance.

To get an inkling of what American exceptionalism might actually entail, however, one might take the time to look at the relevant presidential speeches by JFK and Ronald Reagan or at the estimable intellectual history of the "New England Mind" detailed by Perry Miller, et al.

Re. the bloated phenom of Mr. Trump:

Like former Vice-President Aaron Burr who demagogued his own gaggle of perhaps thousands of "forgotten people" but who also disloyally plotted against the United States (for the details of Burr's 1805 Ohio River conspiracy, cf. David McCullough's 2019 book "The Pioneers"), Trump is an outlier. And like Burr, Trump will be tried and very likely acquitted, but also is likely to have his subsequent political career [in the 2020 election] destroyed in the process, just as Burr's career was destroyed after Chief Justice John Marshall acquitted him of treason.

As Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pointed out sagely to Mr. Trump's very face: "All roads, with you, lead to Putin." Like Burr, Trump's loyalties lie not with the United States, but elsewhere.

The forgotten people have been abused, yes, over and over. By both parties. The one which used to care about these people now only cares about its pretty little privileges and the culture wars. Right now I have a mental image of vast numbers of noisy mosquitoes locked in a great big jar - until it finally runs out of air.

Speeches are one thing, action another. The two ought never be confused. But here's a recent speech I did agree with!! I'm quoting your former President:

“This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically woke … you should get over that. The world is messy, there are ambiguities, people who do really good stuff have flaws … one danger I see among young people, particularly on college campuses … and this is accelerated by social media is this sense … the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people. I Tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something … then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself. You see how woke I was. I called you out … That’s not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones you’re not going to get that far.”

[jserraglio]

The "forgotten people" living lives of quiet desperation surely exist but they were not the deciding factor in electing Donald Trump — the Russians were.

But whether they were instrumental or not, he's done little to nothing for them since, other than provide bigotry and circuses at his rallies.

The Obama/Pelosi Affordable Care Act has arguably done more for the downtrodden than all of Trump's executive orders combined. A program that Trump would've repealed if not for John McCain.

No significant economic legislation has passed during his term except for the tax cut which threw but a few crumbs their way.

[Belle]

The "forgotten people" living lives of quiet desperation surely exist but they were not the deciding factor in electing Donald Trump — the Russians were.

Absolutely priceless!! I'm probably triggering, so I'll stop now.

[lennygoran]

He and his are still trying to repeal the affordable care act. Len

[Belle]

He and his are still trying to repeal the affordable care act. Len

Yes, it's a huge dilemma. The British Health system is free and a total shambles. Millionaires get free medical care under their 'universal' system and my GP, who worked as a surgeon at St. George's, London (featured in '24 Hours in Emergency' reality TV program) tells me all about it.

When your system is referred to as "affordable care" that relates to individual Americans but not to the taxation system overall!! I've just had this same discussion this morning with my dentist, who had a few minutes free after my consultation. We talked about the ever-burgeoning obligation of the state to provide more and more for the people. In Australia we are HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS in debt. This is not only unprecedented but completely unsustainable. And a population of barely 25 million. Work out what that is per head of population!!

Having run a business myself I tend to look at the economics of most situations to see whether they are sustainable and/or affordable in the long run. It's the boiling frog, as regards debt, isn't it!!

[lennygoran]

Belle the rich getter richer-the rest of us are conned. The corruption of this trump and his cronies is right out there for the viewing-very sad. Len

[Belle]

Belle the rich getter richer-the rest of us are conned. The corruption of this trump and his cronies is right out there for the viewing-very sad. Len

Yesterday I was at the dentist and we had a bit of time before his next appointment so we 'chewed the fat' about political issues. (This is something we've done many times; he is 39.) Funding of state and private schools came up. Anyway, to cut a long story short, he was telling me about a couple of his friends who live in Sydney and who are trying to get their children into a 'selective' state school - moving house if necessary. These same friends told him they were very reluctant to spend the circa $30K per annum for private schooling when the culture of these same schools had become so toxic. When I asked him to explain he talked about bullying because people didn't have as much money as others, female competitiveness and bitchiness with regard to clothes, hair and fashion and at one school they had a "lift club" for students whose parents had elevators in their homes!!! Students were invited to join the 'lift club' if they qualified. I was mortified by these anecdotes and recalled what Jordan Peterson once said about the effect upon people of having attained wealth through absolutely no material effort of their own - 'inherited wealth ' - that it had serious adverse affects upon an entire generation. I think we are seeing a generation of super spoilt brats in Sydney private schools and these are one and the same out on the streets forming part of the Extinction Rebellion street demonstrations. One of them actually posed beside a helicopter; her father is Andrew Forrest - one of our most successful mining magnates and one of the top 10 richest Australians. His daughter needs a bloody good life lesson - or three (hundred)!!

[lennygoran]

Belle I'm not concerned about spoiled brats-it's trump-he's a true spoiled brat-his father kept giving him money as he ruined business after business-he faked bone spurs-he faked his taxes-now he claims the news is faked. Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

When your system is referred to as "affordable care" that relates to individual Americans but not to the taxation system overall!!

Assuming Obamacare's $700 billion/yr in healthcare subsidies is unaffordable for the govt, that makes the 2017 GOP tax cut of $1.5 trillion (2/3 of which in 2018 went to the wealthiest 20%) arguably obscene, not to mention how it sold out the downtrodden deplorables Trump demagogues at his every rally.

[Belle]

When your system is referred to as "affordable care" that relates to individual Americans but not to the taxation system overall!!

Assuming Obamacare's $700 billion/yr in healthcare subsidies is unaffordable for the govt, that makes the 2017 GOP tax cut of $1.5 trillion (2/3 of which in 2018 went to the wealthiest 20%) arguably obscene, not to mention how it sold out the downtrodden deplorables Trump demagogues at his every rally.

That being the case, we would expect him to get a thorough shellacking at the 2020 election. Trump is looking more and more like the North Korean leader who claps his hands at his own rallies - the single difference is that Trump uses his hands and fingers as though he is jiggling a tea-bag in very hot water!!

My husband soon has to have (possibly) 2 prosthetic knees; he's not bad enough yet but we've been getting some 'quotes' from our health insurance and a couple of surgeons. Despite paying $6,600 per annum for health insurance we have been told we will be an additional $2,000 to $3,000 out of pocket after this surgery. The only thing we're paying for, in effect, is to be prioritized if the situation deteriorates with my husband's knee/s and the procedure done in a private hospital of our choice. But financially it's far, far better to go on a 'wait list' and have this done in a public hospital. We have opted for the former because we cannot choose the surgeon. I cannot imagine how gruelling it must be to wait with agony for joint replacements in the public health system!! But many tens of thousands have to do this. A friend has just had a hip replacement and was in total agony and couldn't wait for the public system; she paid $40,000 in cash in advance of the procedure, then a complication developed and she's been put into a public hospital to find out what went wrong.

[barney]

"From yesterday, when she solemnly took the gavel in the House to usher in the impeachment of a rogue presidency until this matter is finally resolved one way or the other, the eminence grise, if not the de facto President, of our nation is Nancy Pelosi."

I think you are right about this, and I also admire her acumen. I liked in particular what you pointed out about the way she ridicules Trump (not hard to do, mind you).
I disagree with you about American exceptionalism. Unsurprisingly, only Americans believe this. The fact that enough of you voted for Trump for him to win the electoral college shows that you are at least at petty, indifferent, stupid, resentful and self-interested as the citizens of any other nation. I honestly believe he would stand no chance of success in a country like Australia or Britain where national braggadocio is not a way of life.
My brother, who is strategy manager for a small party in NZ, says Trump is brilliantly successful because he takes a simple message and sticks to it through thick and thin, ignoring any inconvenient truths. He thinks the Democrats have to do that too in 2020. "Corrupt, corrupt, corrupt" for example.

[Belle]

Double ouch, Barney!! I don't feel I could have gone that far in criticizing the US, which is still in my affections. Just use the short-form "deplorables" and we'll all understand.

[lennygoran]

I honestly believe he would stand no chance of success in a country like Australia or Britain where national braggadocio is not a way of life.

Barney do you guys have to deal with the unfair electoral college and gerrymandering-Hillary won the popular vote! Regards, Len

[lennygoran]

Just use the short-form "deplorables" and we'll all understand.

Belle don't tell Barney to do that-don't you realize how much that hurt Hillary! Regards, Len

[Belle]

I won't mention the war; I did once, but I think I got away with it. (Basil Fawlty)

[jserraglio]

I disagree with you about American exceptionalism. The fact that enough of you voted for Trump for him to win the electoral college shows that you are at least at petty, indifferent, stupid, resentful and self-interested as the citizens of any other nation.

Or even more so. But so what?

Like it or not, American exceptionalism has been around in one form or another since the 1620's; and even when breached, is ingrained in the national character. We don't toss out the Decalogue, do we, just because folks who profess they observe it, routinely lie, cheat, screw, kill, covet and steal?

[Belle]

Quite right; all politicians, of whatever stripe, routinely lie. As I've said before, the morality of a society runs vertically through all the strata/classes/professions/races rather than horizontally through one.

Who can ever forget the immortal lines in the Stanley Donen film, "Charade":

"Why do people lie?"
"Because they want something and they're afraid the truth won't get it for them".

[lennygoran]

"Why do people lie?"
"Because they want something and they're afraid the truth won't get it for them".

Gotta tweet this over to Trump-explains why he has to be impeached! Regards, Len

[barney]

Double ouch, Barney!! I don't feel I could have gone that far in criticizing the US, which is still in my affections. Just use the short-form "deplorables" and we'll all understand.

No, I explicitly do not mean that. It is more nuanced than that. But Trump brilliantly exploited the politics of division and resentment, and appealed to the lowest common denominator. Of course, many Democrat voters had unworthy motives, I am sure. But it wasn't a deliberately exploited genre.
You have to admit that Trump is a very far cry from Kennedy, "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country". And that gap, to quote someone of unmatched wisdom, is "very bad, very sad, very dangerous".
I too love America and Americans, in my experience a particularly generous and open-hearted people. Including friends on CMG and - thanks again, Brian - especially Maestrob who shouted me and my friend dinner at a lovely New York restaurant when we were there three years ago. I also think that despite its undoubted self-interest the US has been as good a world-leader as we could hope for over the past 75 years. From the Marshall plan to supporting rights and democracy - until Trump. I shudder to think of what the world will be like in 20 years when China has replaced it.

[barney]

Quite right; all politicians, of whatever stripe, routinely lie. As I've said before, the morality of a society runs vertically through all the strata/classes/professions/races rather than horizontally through one.

Who can ever forget the immortal lines in the Stanley Donen film, "Charade":

"Why do people lie?"
"Because they want something and they're afraid the truth won't get it for them".

Never saw the film or heard the line, but he's on to something!

[barney]

I disagree with you about American exceptionalism. The fact that enough of you voted for Trump for him to win the electoral college shows that you are at least at petty, indifferent, stupid, resentful and self-interested as the citizens of any other nation.

Or even more so. But so what?

Like it or not, American exceptionalism has been around in one form or another since the 1620's; and even when breached, is ingrained in the national character. We don't toss out the Decalogue, do we, just because folks who profess they observe it, routinely lie, cheat, screw, kill, covet and steal?

No, but that's not quite the analogy. I am not saying that America is exceptional despite its inadequacies, and that the inadequacies don't disprove the exceptionalism. I am denying that America is in fact exceptional - and certainly not now.

[barney]

I honestly believe he would stand no chance of success in a country like Australia or Britain where national braggadocio is not a way of life.

Barney do you guys have to deal with the unfair electoral college and gerrymandering-Hillary won the popular vote! Regards, Len

No, we don't. Our electoral boundaries are extremely carefully drawn by an independent body, which does adjust them every so often. In the 2019 federal election my seat changed from Knox to LaTrobe (outer Melbourne seats) because the boundary moved across a couple of streets. My home didn't move! But no one thought this was politically motivated tampering. And we have 150 electorates, voted for by preferential voting, and the government won by getting 76 seats. Which is exactly as it stands now. Preferential voting means you fill in more than your first choice but - say - 1 to 6. If your preferred candidate is knocked out, your second vote now applies, and so on. This I like because it allows non-dangerous protest votes - I can vote for a small party with no prospect of winning the seat without wasting my vote, because whichever of the major parties I favour I vote for next.

[Belle]

People accused Bjelke-Peterson of a 'gerrymander' in Queensland back in the day. I think this had something to do with altering the electoral boundaries at a sensitive time, but I cannot quite remember. As you say, it's not the role of political parties to draw electoral boundaries and thank god for that!! Your electorate is a swinging seat!! Our seat was redrawn before the 2013 election and it's gone from Liberal to Labor (my daughter-in-law is going to contest that seat at the 2022 federal election!).

Governments in Australia have been voted in despite not winning the 'popular vote'. If we had 'first past the post' voting then Labor would have been elected many more times than they have. The preferential system of voting means that you don't have to have garnered the majority of votes nationally. These are determined on a seat by seat basis, taking account of first, second, third preferences and so on. So, it's far more complex than meets the eye. In the last election barely more than 3 in 10 people voted Labor, particularly in Queensland. People vote for lots of 'other' candidates because they're fed up with the status quo - and I fully get that. They'd vote for a disrupter in Australia, like Nigel Farage, if one was available.

But we don't yell 'gerrymander' in this country; you're absolutely correct. And we have one very wonderful thing going for us: loser consent. We are philosophical when our own party loses and just celebrate democracy. This is one of the very great strengths of the Australian nation. Every time Labor has been elected, since I was 18, I have said "the real winner is Australian democracy" and I've gone along with the decisions they've made - even when we were paying 18.5% interest on our farm loan under Keating!!.

If Donald Trump has been able to redraw the electoral boundaries/college to suit himself then he can expect the same thing to happen to him next time!! More than one person can play that game.

[lennygoran]

No, we don't. Our electoral boundaries are extremely carefully drawn by an independent body,

Barney that does it-I'm moving to Australia-I know you have great gardens too! Regards, Len

[lennygoran]

If Donald Trump has been able to redraw the electoral boundaries/college to suit himself then he can expect the same thing to happen to him next time!! More than one person can play that game.

He's not bright enough to do that-he's relying on Putin! Regards, Len

[Belle]

If Donald Trump has been able to redraw the electoral boundaries/college to suit himself then he can expect the same thing to happen to him next time!! More than one person can play that game.

He's not bright enough to do that-he's relying on Putin! Regards, Len

Can you clarify what you mean? Are you suggesting Donald Trump didn't alter the electoral college/boundaries, as per my description (or similar)?

[barney]

If Donald Trump has been able to redraw the electoral boundaries/college to suit himself then he can expect the same thing to happen to him next time!! More than one person can play that game.

I don't want to preempt our American experts, but I don't think it is Trump that has gerrymandered boundaries. I think it is State republican parties when in government. I'm not quite sure why, but I believe it is not so easy for Democrats to do so. Can JohnF or Jserraglio or other elucidate further?