Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
BlueTX said:
The campaigns as currently run totally ignore most of the smaller states as well as the biggest because they are safely in the pocket of one party or the other in the winner-take-all scenario (which is not at all what the Founders envisioned). Campaigns are almost entirely focused on a handful or so of swing states. 70% of general election events took place in these states in 2016. I'd wager the percentage will be higher in 2020.

From a philosophical standpoint, it concerns me that a voter in North Dakota has more say over who is POTUS than you do as a resident of Louisiana. That citizen already has a disproportionate advantage over you (and me as a resident of Texas) in the US Senate. Further, it is bothersome that the state where the POTUS received the 3rd highest total of votes among all the states simply did not count. At all. The POTUS got 3 million votes in California. That's more than he received in total in nearly 20 other states and not one of them counted for anything.

As I see it, the EC is an antiquated system that was a poor compromise at the founding. It has not worked as envisioned from the very beginning and does not function today anything like envisioned in the late 1700s.
Click to expand...

The current systems discourages voter turnout if you live in a place like California or Alabama where your vote for all intents and purposes doesn't matter.

If every vote actually mattered I bet turnout would be much greater.
 
Grinch said:
Only reason I say keep it is to account for the smaller states who would be pointless if the electoral college is rid of. I like it because it means all candidates must tend to each states need atleast in my mind. If not the candidates would only care about Texas, California Illinois, New York, Penn and Florida. They wouldnt care less about what people in the Midwest, south think. Only reason I think it should stay.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Not sure why I got the shout out though. I'm lovely. Just ask me.

The electoral college is based on # of Reps plus Senate seats. Until about 100 years ago, the HOR grew as population did to keep the rep:voter ratios similar for all districts.
Now California has 53 reps for 39.5 million (or 1 per 745,000); Wyoming has 1 rep or 577,000. That is over 150K more Californians per district.

Low population states already get accounted for by the Senate. The House membership was meant to grow.
So, I'm okay with keeping the electoral college IF we adjust it to fit the population as was intended. If you only adjusted the electoral college, and left the HOR numbers as they are, that will leave low population states punching above their weight in the House and Senate.

The way is stands now with the electoral college, the low population areas are given consideration in the Senate, House and Presidency.
 
Last edited:
Grinch said:
Yeah like I said, im in the South so the weapon ban just doesnt sit well with me. I love to hunt at my camp to put meat in my freezer as well as go to the shooting range for fun. Free healthcare.. I only vote for myself/family. We all work and are very happy with my healthcare. The system is already taken advantage of by millions so I could only imagine if people can go as much as they want for a little cut wasting a spot in a hospital bed for someone who really needs it. Border/Immigration, im fine with people coming through the right way. More than happy to have a "mixing pot" in the states. Get a work permit, visa etc. I just find it baffling that people can come over, touch land and be given healthcare, education, etc. If you are truly escaping trouble in your own country, please just go through immigration route. In Louisiana, we get alot of that overflow from Texas, New Mexico etc so just tax money going to waste. It just didnt sit well with me the backlash the border patrol or wall funding/repair got. And defence budget, I know we spend excess. I would rather spend enough or more than needed than slashing it. My buddies got their first raise in years! I was so happy for them.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. A lot of the ways you feel about those various issues are understandable, but where I get confused is that in a lot of instances the concerns/reasons for not voting Blue don't tally with the reality of Dem policies.

For example on guns: None of the candidates support a ban on anything wider ranging than assault rifles. I assume you're not using an AR15 to hunt with? Indeed, neither Biden nor Bernie even supports a ban on those. Amy Klobuchar does though.

Re: Healthcare. I can see how people "taking advantage" of the system could be a concern. It's a concern here too - but nonetheless, even WITH that concern, the facts don't quite support it as being a major problem. The US government currently spends ~$1.1 trillion per annum on healthcare. The UK government spends ~$195 billion. So the spend is about 5.6x to cover a population about 4.9x the size... except that only about 37% of the population is covered by that spending, as opposed to (effectively) 100% in UK

On the border... I get having a problem with illegal immigration.. but NONE of the Dem candidates are open borders (despite the right wing rhetoric). The major difference is on what to do with people such as the DREAMers (who in spite of Trump's lies, he has no interest in helping) who are already there and being productive members of society. The primary reason people had a massive problem with the wall is that it involved spending tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars on something which EVERY expert and impartial assessor said wouldn't work. The only thing which has actually been shown to impact illegal immigration is improving the situation in the country those people are coming from... and yet the same people who are so vehemently opposed to immigration are usually also against foreign aid. The current administration has actually made the illegal immigration situation WORSE by actively reducing processing "bandwidth" at ports of entry...

Finally on the military... it's great that your friends got a raise, and I'm sure it's richly deserved, but that's a consideration on a micro level. I get the "I'd rather spend too much than too little" thing... but currently the US is spending more than the next TEN highest spending countries... 8 of whom are allies... Seems like the status quo is wayyyyy past the "too much/too little tipping point".
 
[
BirkenheadBlue said:
Thanks for the reply. A lot of the ways you feel about those various issues are understandable, but where I get confused is that in a lot of instances the concerns/reasons for not voting Blue don't tally with the reality of Dem policies.

For example on guns: None of the candidates support a ban on anything wider ranging than assault rifles. I assume you're not using an AR15 to hunt with? Indeed, neither Biden nor Bernie even supports a ban on those. Amy Klobuchar does though.

Re: Healthcare. I can see how people "taking advantage" of the system could be a concern. It's a concern here too - but nonetheless, even WITH that concern, the facts don't quite support it as being a major problem. The US government currently spends ~$1.1 trillion per annum on healthcare. The UK government spends ~$195 billion. So the spend is about 5.6x to cover a population about 4.9x the size... except that only about 37% of the population is covered by that spending, as opposed to (effectively) 100% in UK

On the border... I get having a problem with illegal immigration.. but NONE of the Dem candidates are open borders (despite the right wing rhetoric). The major difference is on what to do with people such as the DREAMers (who in spite of Trump's lies, he has no interest in helping) who are already there and being productive members of society. The primary reason people had a massive problem with the wall is that it involved spending tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars on something which EVERY expert and impartial assessor said wouldn't work. The only thing which has actually been shown to impact illegal immigration is improving the situation in the country those people are coming from... and yet the same people who are so vehemently opposed to immigration are usually also against foreign aid. The current administration has actually made the illegal immigration situation WORSE by actively reducing processing "bandwidth" at ports of entry...

Finally on the military... it's great that your friends got a raise, and I'm sure it's richly deserved, but that's a consideration on a micro level. I get the "I'd rather spend too much than too little" thing... but currently the US is spending more than the next TEN highest spending countries... 8 of whom are allies... Seems like the status quo is wayyyyy past the "too much/too little tipping point".
Click to expand...

It’s an expensive business being the Worlds policeman. Britain did it for quite a while, welcome to the real world.....other than that I thought it was an excellent post....
 
peteblue said:
[


It’s an expensive business being the Worlds policeman. Britain did it for quite a while, welcome to the real world.....other than that I thought it was an excellent post....
Click to expand...
I mostly don't disagree (aside from your needless condescension - but I probably shouldn't be surprised at that, eh Pete?) - but it's pretty well established the level of waste and overspending in parts of the US military. Spending could probably also be a fair bit lower if a certain someone hadn't made up evidence of WMD's to get into a war that's still going on now.
 
peteblue said:
It’s an expensive business being the Worlds policeman. Britain did it for quite a while, welcome to the real world.....other than that I thought it was an excellent post....
Click to expand...
So expensive the US is getting perilously close to spending as much money in the Federal budget annually on the military as all monies annually spent on primary and secondary education in this country.
 
BirkenheadBlue said:
I mostly don't disagree (aside from your needless condescension - but I probably shouldn't be surprised at that, eh Pete?) - but it's pretty well established the level of waste and overspending in parts of the US military. Spending could probably also be a fair bit lower if a certain someone hadn't made up evidence of WMD's to get into a war that's still going on now.
Click to expand...

No condescension, Britain did it for at least 100 years, that’s just a fact. However the USA always wanted to take over the British role, and now it has it. It may spend too much on defence, but it employs people and gives the USA power. The real issue is what happens now. Fighting over bits of the planet Earth or the seas will just cause trouble and death. The USA with its short term technological advantages, derived through its defence programmes, should be looking away from Earth and concentrating on tomorrow. There’s a big galaxy out there, more than enough to keep everyone happy and rich, we just need a bit of inspirational leadership and less geopolitical and party political politics......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top