politics thread

[skinsdad62]

Point well taken, but you have to admit that it's a truly difficult thing to give serious considerations to folks who still insist on building a wall or other barriers when they are already in place and have been for years!!

and if you look most are trash

 

[Stymietee]

Again Obama cut this and you were silent !

So how the hell did it start with Trump ?

This last budget Trumpn SIGNED it gave 300 million to the clean up !!!!!

You are whining about a budget that isn’t signed yet. . And again if Obama felt it wasn’t important enough to warrant the expense then why tell falsehoods on Trump ?

So far he hasn’t cut a damn thing !

And you want to talk about water and clean up you leave out flint and the Obama disaster committed by his EPA !

Where are you getting your information, here are the facts...

 

[Stymietee]

...And there's this... (O'bama's EPA budget compared to others)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts!

EPA's Budget and Spending | Planning, Budget, and Results ...
https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget
Historical budget documents: view prior year proposed budgets and congressional justification documents. Administrative Control of Appropriated Funds Manual: defines EPA's policies, and procedures to control appropriated funds based on federal legal and administrative requirements.

 

[Stymietee]

So if FLa voted to allow Floridians to vote and it’s some GOP conspiracy to keep the will of floridians , then isn’t the democratic scheme to do away with the electoral college the same thing ? If Florida’s goes GOP and California goes dem the CA. Votes counts more ?

Unequal comparison, the Florida vote is contemporary while the EC was developed by the "founders" as a compromise between a president elected by congress and one elected by the popular vote of the people. The former serves the will of the people while the latter denies the same. For the record here are the men who were elected by congress in one way or the other. I think that we've come a long way since then. (Gerald ford was based upon the resignation of Nixon)

John Quincy Adams was elected by the House of Representatives in 1824 because nobody received a majority of the electoral vote

Thomas Jefferson was elected by the House of Representatives in 1800 after he and his running mate Aaron Burr tied in electoral votes. The 12th amendment was then added to the Constitution to change the election process and prevent any recurrence of this situation.

Gerald Ford was nominated for vice-president by President Nixon and approved by both houses of Congress. He then became President when Nixon resigned as President.

Congress had a role in the election of Rutherford Hayes in 1876. There was a dispute over the credentials of 19 of the electors, so Congress established an election commission to rule on the matter. The commission awarded all 19 disputed votes to Hayes and he won by one electoral vote.

 

[gkekoa]

"Look how evil the Democrats are! Look at all the evil!

I will interpret everything they do to be pure evil!

But everything Trump lies about and does is wise and just!

I totally care about my country and am not a raging partisan!"

So nothing then? What I listed can’t be disputed and you didn’t try. You read them all as evil yet still defend the democrats...

Because

Trump lies.

Let that weigh on you for a bit.

 

[skinsdad62]

Unequal comparison, the Florida vote is contemporary while the EC was developed by the "founders" as a compromise between a president elected by congress and one elected by the popular vote of the people. The former serves the will of the people while the latter denies the same. For the record here are the men who were elected by congress in one way or the other. I think that we've come a long way since then. (Gerald ford was based upon the resignation of Nixon)

John Quincy Adams was elected by the House of Representatives in 1824 because nobody received a majority of the electoral vote

Thomas Jefferson was elected by the House of Representatives in 1800 after he and his running mate Aaron Burr tied in electoral votes. The 12th amendment was then added to the Constitution to change the election process and prevent any recurrence of this situation.

Gerald Ford was nominated for vice-president by President Nixon and approved by both houses of Congress. He then became President when Nixon resigned as President.

Congress had a role in the election of Rutherford Hayes in 1876. There was a dispute over the credentials of 19 of the electors, so Congress established an election commission to rule on the matter. The commission awarded all 19 disputed votes to Hayes and he won by one electoral vote.

nothing unequal about it when he talks about votes not being counted

the compromise in which you speak of had everything to do with large and small population states and the fact that no direct democracy had survived because it devolves into mob rule

 

[Toadman005]

Point well taken, but you have to admit that it's a truly difficult thing to give serious considerations to folks who still insist on building a wall or other barriers when they are already in place and have been for years!!

Your house a cardboard box, or is it made of brick?

 

[Stymietee]

and if you look most are trash

Well, that's complete nonsense but to be fair, let's allow the jury decide if they're trash or not. BTW: the selling point has been..."A brand new wonderful wall, that Mexico was going to pay for." Remember? It was sold to those who didn't know that walls and barriers have already been there, re: the "open borders" bullshit.

The Wall – Interactive map exploring U.S.-Mexico border
https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/us-mexico-interactive-border-map

Then there's this...

This photo in El Paso shows why a U.S. border wall won’t ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/a-look-at...
Border walls are linear and need a solid base, but the river banks are unstable and follow a circuitous

The biggest problem with new walls is where they will necessarilly be built. The strip of land between the fence and the Mexican border is STILL U.S. territory. This means that people don't have to get over, under, or through any barriers in order to reach U.S. territory. Once on U.S. soil they have every right to ask for asylum and will be processed for that. Pretty sure that I've mentioned this before, but a shiny costly, unnecessary, new wall is...wait for it... say it with me...A monument to stupidity!

 

[Sharkinva]

Your house a cardboard box, or is it made of brick?

Why does your claim to the "house" mean more than my claim or any one elses??

 

[Sharkinva]

Well, that's complete nonsense but to be fair, let's allow the jury decide if they're trash or not. BTW: the selling point has been..."A brand new wonderful wall, that Mexico was going to pay for." Remember? It was sold to those who didn't know that walls and barriers have already been there, re: the "open borders" bullshit.

The Wall – Interactive map exploring U.S.-Mexico border
https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/us-mexico-interactive-border-map

Then there's this...

This photo in El Paso shows why a U.S. border wall won’t ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/a-look-at...
Border walls are linear and need a solid base, but the river banks are unstable and follow a circuitous

The biggest problem with new walls is where they will necessarilly be built. The strip of land between the fence and the Mexican border is STILL U.S. territory. This means that people don't have to get over, under, or through any barriers in order to reach U.S. territory. Once on U.S. soil they have every right to ask for asylum and will be processed for that. Pretty sure that I've mentioned this before, but a shiny costly, unnecessary, new wall is...wait for it... say it with me...A monument to stupidity!

They dream of a DMZ like the one in Korea. 2.5 miles of land backed by a wall and followed up by armed military with orders to shoot on site. Its the only humane solution after all.

 

[Stymietee]

nothing unequal about it when he talks about votes not being counted

the compromise in which you speak of had everything to do with large and small population states and the fact that no direct democracy had survived because it devolves into mob rule

Dude, really!!

Five myths about the electoral college



By George C. Edwards III
November 2, 2012

1. The framers created the electoral college to protect small states.

The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention had a variety of reasons for settling on the electoral college format, but protecting smaller states was not among them. Some delegates feared direct democracy, but that was only one factor in the debate.

Remember what the country looked like in 1787: The important division was between states that relied on slavery and those that didn’t, not between large and small states. A direct election for president did not sit well with most delegates from the slave states, which had large populations but far fewer eligible voters. They gravitated toward the electoral college as a compromise because it was based on population. The convention had agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of calculating each state’s allotment of seats in Congress. For Virginia, which had the largest population among the original 13 states, that meant more clout in choosing the president.

The electoral college distorts the political process by providing a huge incentive to visit competitive states, especially large ones with hefty numbers of electoral votes. That’s why Obama and Romney have spent so much time this year in states like Ohio and Florida. In the 2008 general election, Obama and John McCain personally campaigned in only five of the 29 smallest states.

The framers protected the interests of smaller states by creating the Senate, which gives each state two votes regardless of population. There is no need for additional protection. Do we really want a presidency responsive to parochial interests in a system already prone to gridlock? The framers didn’t.




2. The electoral college ensures that the winner has broad support.

Supporters argue that the electoral college format prevents candidates from targeting specific groups and regions, instead forcing them to seek votes across the country. But that’s not the way it has worked in recent presidential contests. Generally, Republicans have tried to stitch together an electoral college majority from the South, Southwest and Rocky Mountain states, while Democrats have relied on the large states on both coasts and the Midwest, leaving certain swing states (hello, Florida!) as perennial battlegrounds.

Any system of electing the president requires some version of broad support, but the electoral college does little to promote that goal. In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore but won in the electoral college. His victory came largely from his support among white men. He did not win majorities among women, blacks, Latinos, urbanites, the young, the old or those with less-than-average income. In short, Bush claimed the White House with the backing of one dominant group, not with broad support.



3. The electoral college preserves stability in our political system by discouraging third parties.

The electoral college offers no guarantee of such “stability” — in fact, history suggests otherwise. The Republican Party was born as a third (or even fourth) party, and it quickly established itself as a major force in the 1856 and 1860 elections. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt ran as a third-party nominee, and though he didn’t win, he easily bested his former party’s candidate, the Republican incumbent, William Howard Taft.



Fact or fiction?


The electoral college system gives a third-party candidate more opportunities to create mischief than a direct election does. Think about what could happen in a neck-and-neck contest: If a third-party nominee won enough states to prevent either major-party candidate from winning the 270 electoral votes needed for a majority, the House of Representatives would decide the outcome. Each state delegation would have one vote; Vermont and Wyoming would count the same as Texas and New York. That’s hardly a recipe for stability.

In addition, under the electoral college, a third party can tip the balance in a closely contested state. In 2000, Ralph Nader siphoned votes away from Gore in Florida. Had Nader not run, Gore could have won the election.

Direct elections, especially those without a runoff, prevent such problems. Coming in third or fourth would gain a party no leverage in the selection of the president.



4. In direct elections, candidates would campaign only in large cities.

Under any system, candidates try to spend their time in places where they can reach the most voters. But in a direct election, with every vote counting equally, candidates would have an incentive to appeal to voters everywhere, not just those in swing states. Because the price of advertising is mainly a function of market size, it does not cost more to reach 10,000 voters in Wyoming than it does to reach 10,000 voters in New York or Los Angeles.

It’s the electoral college that shortchanges voters. Because it makes no sense for candidates to spend time or money in states they either cannot win or are certain to win, thriving cities such as Atlanta, San Francisco and El Paso get no love from White House hopefuls.

Making every vote count in every state would have other benefits. It would stimulate party-building efforts and increase turnout. People are more likely to cast a ballot if they think their vote matters.



5. Electors must vote for the candidate who wins their state.

In theory, this is true. In practice, however, electors may vote for whomever they please, and on rare occasions, they do. In a tight election, such behavior might deny either candidate a majority of the electoral vote and throw the election into the House of Representatives.

For generations, pollsters have found that a clear majority of Americans support direct election of the president. The longer we cling to the electoral college, the longer we’ll have presidential campaigns that leave large numbers of voters feeling left out, along with a system that distorts the public’s preferences.

 

[Toadman005]

Why does your claim to the "house" mean more than my claim or any one elses??

Well, you're circumventing my point, but, if I built the house and it's my property, my claim means more than someone just staggering along the road who decides to squat in my yard and eat my dog.

 

[skinsdad62]

Dude, really!!

Five myths about the electoral college



By George C. Edwards III
November 2, 2012

1. The framers created the electoral college to protect small states.

The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention had a variety of reasons for settling on the electoral college format, but protecting smaller states was not among them. Some delegates feared direct democracy, but that was only one factor in the debate.

Remember what the country looked like in 1787: The important division was between states that relied on slavery and those that didn’t, not between large and small states. A direct election for president did not sit well with most delegates from the slave states, which had large populations but far fewer eligible voters. They gravitated toward the electoral college as a compromise because it was based on population. The convention had agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of calculating each state’s allotment of seats in Congress. For Virginia, which had the largest population among the original 13 states, that meant more clout in choosing the president.

The electoral college distorts the political process by providing a huge incentive to visit competitive states, especially large ones with hefty numbers of electoral votes. That’s why Obama and Romney have spent so much time this year in states like Ohio and Florida. In the 2008 general election, Obama and John McCain personally campaigned in only five of the 29 smallest states.

The framers protected the interests of smaller states by creating the Senate, which gives each state two votes regardless of population. There is no need for additional protection. Do we really want a presidency responsive to parochial interests in a system already prone to gridlock? The framers didn’t.




2. The electoral college ensures that the winner has broad support.

Supporters argue that the electoral college format prevents candidates from targeting specific groups and regions, instead forcing them to seek votes across the country. But that’s not the way it has worked in recent presidential contests. Generally, Republicans have tried to stitch together an electoral college majority from the South, Southwest and Rocky Mountain states, while Democrats have relied on the large states on both coasts and the Midwest, leaving certain swing states (hello, Florida!) as perennial battlegrounds.

Any system of electing the president requires some version of broad support, but the electoral college does little to promote that goal. In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore but won in the electoral college. His victory came largely from his support among white men. He did not win majorities among women, blacks, Latinos, urbanites, the young, the old or those with less-than-average income. In short, Bush claimed the White House with the backing of one dominant group, not with broad support.



3. The electoral college preserves stability in our political system by discouraging third parties.

The electoral college offers no guarantee of such “stability” — in fact, history suggests otherwise. The Republican Party was born as a third (or even fourth) party, and it quickly established itself as a major force in the 1856 and 1860 elections. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt ran as a third-party nominee, and though he didn’t win, he easily bested his former party’s candidate, the Republican incumbent, William Howard Taft.



Fact or fiction?


The electoral college system gives a third-party candidate more opportunities to create mischief than a direct election does. Think about what could happen in a neck-and-neck contest: If a third-party nominee won enough states to prevent either major-party candidate from winning the 270 electoral votes needed for a majority, the House of Representatives would decide the outcome. Each state delegation would have one vote; Vermont and Wyoming would count the same as Texas and New York. That’s hardly a recipe for stability.

In addition, under the electoral college, a third party can tip the balance in a closely contested state. In 2000, Ralph Nader siphoned votes away from Gore in Florida. Had Nader not run, Gore could have won the election.

Direct elections, especially those without a runoff, prevent such problems. Coming in third or fourth would gain a party no leverage in the selection of the president.



4. In direct elections, candidates would campaign only in large cities.

Under any system, candidates try to spend their time in places where they can reach the most voters. But in a direct election, with every vote counting equally, candidates would have an incentive to appeal to voters everywhere, not just those in swing states. Because the price of advertising is mainly a function of market size, it does not cost more to reach 10,000 voters in Wyoming than it does to reach 10,000 voters in New York or Los Angeles.

It’s the electoral college that shortchanges voters. Because it makes no sense for candidates to spend time or money in states they either cannot win or are certain to win, thriving cities such as Atlanta, San Francisco and El Paso get no love from White House hopefuls.

Making every vote count in every state would have other benefits. It would stimulate party-building efforts and increase turnout. People are more likely to cast a ballot if they think their vote matters.



5. Electors must vote for the candidate who wins their state.

In theory, this is true. In practice, however, electors may vote for whomever they please, and on rare occasions, they do. In a tight election, such behavior might deny either candidate a majority of the electoral vote and throw the election into the House of Representatives.

For generations, pollsters have found that a clear majority of Americans support direct election of the president. The longer we cling to the electoral college, the longer we’ll have presidential campaigns that leave large numbers of voters feeling left out, along with a system that distorts the public’s preferences.

sorry , he is a leftist

 

[Stymietee]

Your house a cardboard box, or is it made of brick?

People, the main and necessary part of border security are neither cardboard nor brick. For the record anecdotal evidence isn't fact/data based evidence at all.

 

[skinsdad62]

Well, that's complete nonsense but to be fair, let's allow the jury decide if they're trash or not. BTW: the selling point has been..."A brand new wonderful wall, that Mexico was going to pay for." Remember? It was sold to those who didn't know that walls and barriers have already been there, re: the "open borders" bullshit.

The Wall – Interactive map exploring U.S.-Mexico border
https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/us-mexico-interactive-border-map

Then there's this...

This photo in El Paso shows why a U.S. border wall won’t ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/a-look-at...
Border walls are linear and need a solid base, but the river banks are unstable and follow a circuitous

The biggest problem with new walls is where they will necessarilly be built. The strip of land between the fence and the Mexican border is STILL U.S. territory. This means that people don't have to get over, under, or through any barriers in order to reach U.S. territory. Once on U.S. soil they have every right to ask for asylum and will be processed for that. Pretty sure that I've mentioned this before, but a shiny costly, unnecessary, new wall is...wait for it... say it with me...A monument to stupidity!

again not buying crap from leftist publications with agendas

 

[Sharkinva]

Well, you're circumventing my point, but, if I built the house and it's my property, my claim means more than someone just staggering along the road who decides to squat in my yard and eat my dog.

Problem is, I helped build the house too. And while you might think every person walking down the road wants to rob you and take your women, the guy walking down the road bothers me a tad less than the guy living in the other room.

 

[j_y19]

sorry but , NOPE

Nope, there aren’t more important issues? You are just proving DGF right in his claim to your blindness to Trump. Sorry, but if this is truly how you feel (which I doubt), then one can rightly question your credibility on any other issues concerning your objectivity to him.

 

[j_y19]

Doesn't bother me. Songbird McCain's spiteful role in the dossier/investigation hinders Trump still. So he may be worm fodder but I won't praise him just cuz he's a carcass rotting.

Never said anything about praising him, just would hope our President wouldnt be so immature.

 

[skinsdad62]

Nope, there aren’t more important issues? You are just proving DGF right in his claim to your blindness to Trump. Sorry, but if this is truly how you feel (which I doubt), then one can rightly question your credibility on any other issues concerning your objectivity to him.

sorry but i dont think its an issue

 

[skinsdad62]

Never said anything about praising him, just would hope our President wouldnt be so immature.

i am not saying the president is acting mature but it isnt a huge issue either