2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Hold your president to the same standard.

Haha. It's always locked and loaded.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Hold your president to the same standard.

Which civics standards do you feel he's broken?
Aren't you from the U.S.?
If so, hate to break it to you but he's your president too.
Although that comment would explain a lot.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Hold your president to the same standard.

It's no surprise he was just an ordinary citizen before 2016. With comments like your own about our government structure, it shows the lack of knowledge or care by our citizens about the fundamentals this country was built on.

[Onions]

Originally Posted by discostu

Of course not, but we know that the Supreme Court is seated by the Senate. A 2-4 Senate seat swing can obviously affect the votes to seat.

It can also sway the vote on adding seats to the Supreme Court.

If the GOP loses the presidency and the Senate majority, it can get rough quickly.

The Senate is a long shot, but if that shot comes in, it will be a long road back for the GOP.

The House selects how many SCOTUS seats there are. Even if the proposal passed the house, you would have to have 60 seats (or a couple more in your scenario) in the Senate to force it through.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by mike1498

So you're in support of an electoral college but it's not winner takes all electoral votes per state? We can't make it 100% 1 for 1 for reasons I stated above.

I have contended that the pure 1:1 vote is the most fair representation of the voting contingent of the country and have already debated my reasons to some extent, not that it is a likely reality.
Is it likely the electoral college voting system will be thrown out? No, for the aforementioned historical reasons.

The most fair realistic format would be either 1 vote per electoral district or an even division (to the fraction of a vote) of electoral vote dispersion based on voting results in each given state.

[Onions]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Really? Does Exxons money go away? I think it's naive to think anything less. Someone else will just play puppet for the day.

An incumbent puppet is cheaper. Money does still mean something.

[Onions]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

I have contended that the pure 1:1 vote is the most fair representation of the voting contingent of the country and have already debated my reasons to some extent, not that it is a likely reality.
Is it likely the electoral college voting system will be thrown out? No, for the aforementioned historical reasons.

The most fair realistic format would be either 1 vote per electoral district or an even division (to the fraction of a vote) of electoral vote dispersion based on voting results in each given state.

So you would prefer a system where the House of Representative selects the president?

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by Astros19

Which civics standards do you feel he's broken?
Aren't you from the U.S.?
If so, hate to break it to you but he's your president too.
Although that comment would explain a lot.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

So we're being literal now? Two glaring examples would be his impeachment & recent federal enforcement over states rights regarding Protests in numerous cities.

Originally Posted by mike1498

It's no surprise he was just an ordinary citizen before 2016. With comments like your own about our government structure, it shows the lack of knowledge or care by our citizens about the fundamentals this country was built on.

How so?

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

I have contended that the pure 1:1 vote is the most fair representation of the voting contingent of the country and have already debated my reasons to some extent, not that it is a likely reality.
Is it likely the electoral college voting system will be thrown out? No, for the aforementioned historical reasons.

The most fair realistic format would be either 1 vote per electoral district or an even division (to the fraction of a vote) of electoral vote dispersion based on voting results in each given state.

Yeah I won't ever agree with a pure 1 to 1 ever based on cultural, regional, economical, manufacturing, agricultural, societal, industrial and a gazillion other issues that vary based on state. Because each state is run differently, we can not let four biggest dictate 1/3 of the election alone. If you were to say you supported some split electoral vote where all the votes don't just go to just one candidate, I'd be in support of that. Your argument made no sense in 1787 and it still doesn't.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by Onions

So you would prefer a system where the House of Representative selects the president?

Clever :Eye Roll:

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Yeah I won't ever agree with a pure 1 to 1 ever based on cultural, regional, economical, manufacturing, agricultural, societal, industrial and a gazillion other issues that vary based on state. Because each state is run differently, we can not let four biggest dictate 1/3 of the election alone. If you were to say you supported some split electoral vote where all the votes don't just go to just one candidate, I'd be in support of that. Your argument made no sense in 1787 and it still doesn't.

Then we agree the most fair (realistic) representation would be an even dispersion of each states electoral votes based solely on voting %'s in each state?

If you could shed light on this specific bolded point, I'm interested because I'm not clear exactly why the citizens of a less populated state should having a higher voting value in a presidential election.

I think my initial contention was that the 1:1 vote is more fair than the current electoral system where all votes from an individual state are allocated to only one candidate regardless of voter %s.
Perhaps some think that's an irrelevant discussion, so maybe there's no point in debating it.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Then we agree the most fair (realistic) representation would be an even dispersion of each states electoral votes based solely on voting %'s in each state?

If you could shed light on this specific bolded point, I'm interested because I'm not clear exactly why the citizens of a less populated state should having a higher voting value in a presidential election.

I think my initial contention was that the 1:1 vote is more fair than the current electoral system where all votes from an individual state are allocated to only one candidate regardless of voter %s.
Perhaps some think that's an irrelevant discussion, so maybe there's no point in debating it.

I'm not opposed to not making it winner take all (which would encourage republicans in CA to vote like dems in KY) but I do have a problem with 1 for 1 as an entirety of the election. If you wanted to make a certain amount of electoral votes Dem and some Rep based on your states votes I wouldn't be opposed to that. What he can't do is solely look at it as there are X amount of people in the US and everyone has an equal vote as a blanket statement. Otherwise policies will only ever be advantageous to the four biggest states. For the reasons I keep stating, we don't even have equal representation (in regards to solely population) in congress because it puts an unfair advantage on less populated states.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by mike1498

It's no surprise he was just an ordinary citizen before 2016. With comments like your own about our government structure, it shows the lack of knowledge or care by our citizens about the fundamentals this country was built on.

Could you please clarify this.

Originally Posted by mike1498

I'm not opposed to not making it winner take all (which would encourage republicans in CA to vote like dems in KY) but I do have a problem with 1 for 1 as an entirety of the election. If you wanted to make a certain amount of electoral votes Dem and some Rep based on your states votes I wouldn't be opposed to that. What he can't do is solely look at it as there are X amount of people in the US and everyone has an equal vote as a blanket statement. Otherwise policies will only ever be advantageous to the four biggest states. For the reasons I keep stating, we don't even have equal representation (in regards to solely population) in congress because it puts an unfair advantage on less populated states.

My initial point was regarding the 100% electoral vote dispersion and how it renders many votes irrelevant while putting undue power and importance to independent voters & their priorities in very specific states.

If the Senate over-represents constituents in small states, why too is it necessary to give more than 1:1 voting power to small states? I reread articles on the 1787 Compromise and am still failing to see what the significance of this is with regards to the electoral college.

Maybe there's a layer I'm neglecting to see and I'm open to that possibility, but what is the specific precedence, current or historical, that would make a popular vote give undue power to a larger state with regards to the national election specifically?

[corndog]

Originally Posted by Astros19

It's painfully obvious civics isn't an important course in school anymore.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Post of the day. ^^^

[ilovethelakings]

Originally Posted by preakness

Kayleigh very very hot
Ivanka pretty hot
AOC hot

Is a AOC a athlete?

[JeremyNick]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

How are all 50 states not represented in the popular vote? Each citizen in each state is still entitled to a vote. The state itself is still able to campaign for higher voter turnout to have increased representation in the election.
How did states become homogeneous units more important than their own citizens?

1. No states are represented if you do a popular vote. Only single person votes.

2. It’s not more important. I did not say that. However our government is organized around levels of representation to allow as fair a distribution as possible while maintaining the identity of the states to the Union. By just using the popular vote, you are then stripping away the identity of the states to the union, or as I previously phrased it, overlooking states rights.

I’ve answered this question for you multiple times now and you continue to reframe the same questions or frame my answers incorrectly.

[gopherfan]

Originally Posted by cnewby

My biggest fan still at it? Ima go buy a snickers with all this money I'm saving on rent!

I think you have me confused with someone else.

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by gopherfan

I think you have me confused with someone else.

Not talking about you.

[gopherfan]

Originally Posted by jdandns

Will those run consecutively or concurrently?

You finally said something funny. I laugh at a lot of your stuff, but it is more of an uncomfortable, this guy has lost it, kind of laugh.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by JeremyNick

1. No states are represented if you do a popular vote. Only single person votes.

2. It’s not more important. I did not say that. However our government is organized around levels of representation to allow as fair a distribution as possible while maintaining the identity of the states to the Union. By just using the popular vote, you are then stripping away the identity of the states to the union, or as I previously phrased it, overlooking states rights.

I’ve answered this question for you multiple times now and you continue to reframe the same questions or frame my answers incorrectly.

I understand this is your view and the view of others here. I am asking why this is of such relevance in the general election specifically and why a slightly redistributed voting weight to smaller states is of such importance given that there is unequal states' power redistribution in the Senate.
And please do not say that it will give undue voting power to the 4 biggest states in the country without providing an explanation for this theory.

My contention is still that the 1:1 vote is more fair than an Electoral voting system where each state allocates 100% of their voting power to one candidate regardless of voter %'s in it's election results. I consider this a very poor representation of each states voters.

[gopherfan]

Originally Posted by trixstar

Maybe some will be on the wrong end of a baton. Fingers crossed.

Are you hoping rioters, protesters or police are beaten with a baton? No matter which you are cheering for, you need help.

[Siberian13]

Originally Posted by gopherfan

Are you hoping rioters, protesters or police are beaten with a baton? No matter which you are cheering for, you need help.

He was joking with NeedChapmans

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Could you please clarify this.

Sure. Our country is founded on understanding that not all votes are 100% equal representation based on population. We acknowledge that with having a senate and having an electoral college. This is something that goes back to when this country was founded. The founding fathers were smart to not let just a few states dictate such a diverse country. You clearly don't care about this idea that our country was built on so I don't know how you can make fun of another citizen who is ignorant to the principals of this country as well.

My initial point was regarding the 100% electoral vote dispersion and how it renders many votes irrelevant while putting undue power and importance to independent voters & their priorities in very specific states.

If the Senate over-represents constituents in small states, why too is it necessary to give more than 1:1 voting power to small states? I reread articles on the 1787 Compromise and am still failing to see what the significance of this is with regards to the electoral college.

Okay so you feel we should only try to give fair representation to small states for congress? I think it's necessary for all branches because there's clearly things congress can/can't do that the president can and cant do.

Maybe there's a layer I'm neglecting to see and I'm open to that possibility, but what is the specific precedence, current or historical, that would make a popular vote give undue power to a larger state with regards to the national election specifically?

I don't even understand what this question means. Are you saying you don't understand how if green alien was more beneficial and everyone from NY was to vote for green alien how RI is at a disadvantage if they all vote for orange alien? If we were solely a 1 for 1 country why would anyone from RI ever care?

My responses are in bold

[Halbert]

I love America man. No country comes close to how good we have it. The opportunities here, the life here. Seriously, God Bless America

I'll never understand why people want such radical changes and will vote for a socialist.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by mike1498

My responses are in bold

I'm questioning the idea of the electoral college given that it has positioned the country's general election process in a way that has led to maybe 5-10 swing states dictating the presidential results, which in turn gives undue influence to a certain demographic of voters in those specific states to dictate elections. It's currently a terrible representation of the diversity of the country and something the founding fathers clearly did not have the vision to understand.

I think we've come to some understanding that splitting electoral votes in contested states would be a far more fair method of vote dispersion without throwing out the entire electoral voting system.