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

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by petesahuttt

I think the big win move is to let him be prosecuted and convicted and then Biden/Harris pardons him.

My friends all think I'm crazy on this one, but I've always said Trump won't spend a single day behind bars even if he's convicted.

Biden would commute his sentence immediately, knowing if Trump gets put in jail after the years of his cries to put his opponents in jail, his die hard supporters would cause all sorts of problems, it would make this summer's riots look like child's play.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by Eckstein197

Why does it matter all those states have smaller populations? Land doesn’t vote, people do.

Land votes too. See: United States Senate.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[Eckstein197]

Originally Posted by DegaBama

So we should elect a president based on a few big cities? That sounds terrible, those cities are ran terribly so let's run the whole country that way!

You would campaign differently if it was based on a popular vote. So it’s not exactly a 1-1 comparison comparing this popular vote to a popular vote winning election

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by Eckstein197

Why does it matter all those states have smaller populations? Land doesn’t vote, people do.

I understand this is a very right leaning website, hell it's even in their name, but I think this is one of the better explanations of why the EC is in place.
Hold your nose, click the link and give it a read. Also watch the video within the article.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[marl1220]

Originally Posted by Astros19

Well in my opinion I think most of the Trump supporters here have been pretty decent given the results. I can only speak for myself and say I'm disappointed, but not suicidal disappointed lol.
I'm kind of getting the feeling some here from the other side of the aisle are also disappointed, as in disappointed that those of us aren't more upset than we are.
Granted, emotions are extremely difficult to tell from written words rather than spoken words.
Life goes on brother, life goes on.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

So true. And I've got nothing against Trump supporters. Trump himself is who I've always disliked. Hell, I even voted for him in 2016 because I saw him as the lesser evil. I couldn't say the same this time around.

[Ray27Ray52]

Originally Posted by Eckstein197

Why does it matter all those states have smaller populations? Land doesn’t vote, people do.

Because there are people in those states with different life experiences than those in the big cities. They want their voice to be heard. If the election comes down to California and New York where does that leave them? In an ideal world you are looking for a candidate that is willing to listen to the opinions of those who are different and is willing to work for the good of all US citizens, not just the big city populations who determined the election.

[GOWIFB]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

Land votes too. See: United States Senate.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

If you are talking about the Senate it is borders that vote, not land

[Eckstein197]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

Land votes too. See: United States Senate.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

I’m saying when it comes to the presidential election. Yes the senate, I understand that. That’s balanced by the house.

Presidential is different

[petesahuttt]

Originally Posted by zonacats8

My friends all think I'm crazy on this one, but I've always said Trump won't spend a single day behind bars even if he's convicted.

Biden would commute his sentence immediately, knowing if Trump gets put in jail after the years of his cries to put his opponents in jail, his die hard supporters would cause all sorts of problems, it would make this summer's riots look like child's play.

Also, pretty sure that someone convicted of financial crimes is going to have a hard time getting a loan.

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by DegaBama

So we should elect a president based on a few big cities? That sounds terrible, those cities are ran terribly so let's run the whole country that way!

But isn't your argument that we should elect a president based on a few small populations?

The President runs the entire country, every single person in the country is affected by their policies and agendas, so why don't the majority of those people get to choose who is President?

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by Eckstein197

You would campaign differently if it was based on a popular vote. So it’s not exactly a 1-1 comparison comparing this popular vote to a popular vote winning election

That's for sure. Other than those 9 states listed in my post, no other state would ever see a candidate.
Say what you want, but that's not right.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by petesahuttt

Also, pretty sure that someone convicted of financial crimes is going to have a hard time getting a loan.

Nah, his celebrity status and known following right now will always help him get loans when it's for stuff the banks know will make money based on who he is and how much his fan base loves him.

You don't think backers are lining up to help fund his media conglomerate?

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by marl1220

So true. And I've got nothing against Trump supporters. Trump himself is who I've always disliked. Hell, I even voted for him in 2016 because I saw him as the lesser evil. I couldn't say the same this time around.

I'd feel this more so if Biden's health wasn't a factor with Kamala as his running mate.
Like I said earlier, you'll get no argument from me about Trump's personality.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Eckstein197

I’m saying when it comes to the presidential election. Yes the senate, I understand that. That’s balanced by the house.

Presidential is different

How? The electoral college is meant to combine the idea of "population" and "borders".

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by GOWIFB

If you are talking about the Senate it is borders that vote, not land

Baloney to both of you.
People elected those Senators.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Ray27Ray52]

Originally Posted by zonacats8

But isn't your argument that we should elect a president based on a few small populations?

The President runs the entire country, every single person in the country is affected by their policies and agendas, so why don't the majority of those people get to choose who is President?

I'm going to kind of pull a Matthew Mcconaughey moment from his final summation in A Time to Kill....

Imagine in a parallel universe that the big cities were not LA and NY but instead Bisbee Arizona, Hood River Oregon, Sante Fe New Mexico. Our candidates travelled there and centralized their time attempting to get those citizens to vote for them. Suppose the population of those 3 cities was more than half of the rest of the United States. They didn't even bother showing up in LA or NY because who cares, they don't have enough votes to make a difference anyway. Finally imagine those 3 small cities leaned Republican(maybe they are, I have no idea). Would you still feel the same?

[thenwhatjk]

Originally Posted by Ray27Ray52

Because there are people in those states with different life experiences than those in the big cities. They want their voice to be heard. If the election comes down to California and New York where does that leave them? In an ideal world you are looking for a candidate that is willing to listen to the opinions of those who are different and is willing to work for the good of all US citizens, not just the big city populations who determined the election.

How do you guys not understand that the reciprocal of this rings just as true?

[JustRachel]

There is a reason Congress is split into two houses.

Long story short, when the founders were trying to figure out how representation should work in the legislative branch, the colonies couldn't agree. Populous states wanted one vote per person. Less populous states wanted one vote per state.

In order to get all 13 colonies to agree to form a union (the United States) they needed a compromise. Without a compromise, we would've only been able to get maybe 5 or 6 colonies to join the union. The ones that didn't get their way wouldn't have joined the United States.

The compromise was to split Congress. One half is represented based on population, one half by state. That was how they got all 13 colonies to agree.

Same story with the Electoral College. It was a compromise. Like all compromises, it's not perfect for either side of the debate. But it worked for everyone.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[GOWIFB]

I haven't really gotten into the electoral college debate but I would like to now. I feel that a hybrid approach would be good in regards to the electoral college. Would like to see all states divvy up the electoral votes between the candidates rather than having a candidate take the entire state. Right now we are running into a situation where it is pretty much going to be the same states that decide the election going forward. States like Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, and Ohio. Why should maybe 6-7 states decide every presidential election? Both candidates now can pretty much ignore almost the entire country. If you had each state dividing votes you could get Democrats campaigning hard in Texas, Republicans campaigning hard in California, etc. The biggest problem I see with it is the same problem we have right now with gerrymandering. It is basically an exact science now to be able to disenfranchise a large segment of the electorate. Would have to figure out a way for it to be fair to both parties and I don't know if that is possible.

[Astros19]

I don't think people understand how many horrible things we've had in our past would still be happening if we just went with the popular vote on everything.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Ray27Ray52]

Originally Posted by thenwhatjk

How do you guys not understand that the reciprocal of this rings just as true?

First of all I'm just one guy. I don't speak for anyone else. Secondly, please explain.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by thenwhatjk

How do you guys not understand that the reciprocal of this rings just as true?

Are you ignoring the house which is split up by population?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Jgil316]

As I understand it - A President can not pardon or even commute anyone if they are prosecuted at a state level.

Pardons and commuting of a sentence from a President can only be for a federal crime or prosecution.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by GOWIFB

I haven't really gotten into the electoral college debate but I would like to now. I feel that a hybrid approach would be good in regards to the electoral college. Would like to see all states divvy up the electoral votes between the candidates rather than having a candidate take the entire state. Right now we are running into a situation where it is pretty much going to be the same states that decide the election going forward. States like Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, and Ohio. Why should maybe 6-7 states decide every presidential election? Both candidates now can pretty much ignore almost the entire country. If you had each state dividing votes you could get Democrats campaigning hard in Texas, Republicans campaigning hard in California, etc. The biggest problem I see with it is the same problem we have right now with gerrymandering. It is basically an exact science now to be able to disenfranchise a large segment of the electorate. Would have to figure out a way for it to be fair to both parties and I don't know if that is possible.

Explain to me how this would be different than the popular vote.
Betcha can't.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by Astros19

Baloney to both of you.
People elected those Senators.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Each state gets two votes in the US Senate. Each state chooses who to send to Washington to cast those votes on their behalf. But the votes belong to the states, not the people...meaning no matter how many people live in a state, it still gets exactly two votes.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk