Jump to content

The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Most states have a winner-take-all approach to the Electoral College.

 

That's not Nebraska. You win the district, you get one of our three EC votes.

 

Think what you will about the Electoral College, but this is the closest we get to actual democracy in America.

 

In truth, the Electoral College should have been abolished a couple centuries ago. By keeping it, we tacitly endorse the idea that Americans aren't educated enough to properly choose a president. Because that's all the EC is - a buffer between the electorate and stupidity.

 

If we're smart enough to stand shoulder to shoulder among the elite nations of the world, then a straight up vote should elect the president.

 

No districts. No colleges. Just my vote and your vote and everyone else's, and from that we pick the winner.


I don’t want to get off on an EC discussion tangent but, while I agree that would be better way to actually choose a President the problem I see is that it would disenfranchise large swaths of the country. Candidates would cater to NYC, LA, Chicago, the largest metro areas and everyone else would lose a voice. However, I am becoming more convinced that argument is getting weaker by the day. I haven’t felt well represented at any level of government for quite some time. Not sure anymore how it could get worse.
 

The sad fact of the matter is, Americans are not smart enough to properly choose a President. If you need proof of that A) look who the current President is. B) realize he has an actual shot at being re-elected. And yes, I realize this is not a glowing endorsement of the EC system.

 

Ha, I started out with the idea of defending the EC and talked myself out of it :lol:

  • Plus1 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

  • Replies 12.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • BigRedBuster

    1223

  • knapplc

    1177

  • Danny Bateman

    1045

  • RedDenver

    925

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Do you honestly not understand the difference between someone who said something stupid as an off color joke one time and some one who: Has been sued twice for housing discrimination against A

He is.

I honestly don't know what will happen tomorrow. But if Joe Biden wins, you will be allowed to own all the guns you want, worship your God however you want, and hate whomever you want in the privacy o

Posted Images

16 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:


I don’t want to get off on an EC discussion tangent but, while I agree that would be better way to actually choose a President the problem I see is that it would disenfranchise large swaths of the country. Candidates would cater to NYC, LA, Chicago, the largest metro areas and everyone else would lose a voice. However, I am becoming more convinced that argument is getting weaker by the day. I haven’t felt well represented at any level of government for quite some time. Not sure anymore how it could get worse.
 

The sad fact of the matter is, Americans are not smart enough to properly choose a President. If you need proof of that A) look who the current President is. B) realize he has an actual shot at being re-elected. And yes, I realize this is not a glowing endorsement of the EC system.

 

Ha, I started out with the idea of defending the EC and talked myself out of it :lol:

 

Yeah I think the EC is indefensible on the merits because it already disenfranchises people. Right now a Californian or New Yorker has comparatively much less voting power than that of a Wyomingite simply because of population differences. The only defense for why this is acceptable is a lazy one predicated almost entirely on tradition. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Most states have a winner-take-all approach to the Electoral College.

 

That's not Nebraska. You win the district, you get one of our three EC votes.

 

Think what you will about the Electoral College, but this is the closest we get to actual democracy in America.

 

In truth, the Electoral College should have been abolished a couple centuries ago. By keeping it, we tacitly endorse the idea that Americans aren't educated enough to properly choose a president. Because that's all the EC is - a buffer between the electorate and stupidity.

 

If we're smart enough to stand shoulder to shoulder among the elite nations of the world, then a straight up vote should elect the president.

 

No districts. No colleges. Just my vote and your vote and everyone else's, and from that we pick the winner.

 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Yeah I think the EC is indefensible on the merits because it already disenfranchises people. Right now a Californian or New Yorker has comparatively much less voting power than that of a Wyomingite simply because of population differences. The only defense for why this is acceptable is a lazy one predicated almost entirely on tradition. 

 

What you think is a flaw of the Electoral College is actually the careful design of Founding Fathers, the political geniuses of the modern world.  Without the EC the large wealthy cities would have all of the electoral power instead of just most of it.  And that can be very bad, when a large swatch of the country feels left out of the Presidential process. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, JJ Husker said:


I don’t want to get off on an EC discussion tangent but, while I agree that would be better way to actually choose a President the problem I see is that it would disenfranchise large swaths of the country. Candidates would cater to NYC, LA, Chicago, the largest metro areas and everyone else would lose a voice. However, I am becoming more convinced that argument is getting weaker by the day. I haven’t felt well represented at any level of government for quite some time. Not sure anymore how it could get worse.
 

The sad fact of the matter is, Americans are not smart enough to properly choose a President. If you need proof of that A) look who the current President is. B) realize he has an actual shot at being re-elected. And yes, I realize this is not a glowing endorsement of the EC system.

 

Ha, I started out with the idea of defending the EC and talked myself out of it :lol:

 

 

I say this as someone who grew up in a small town and has lots of farming relatives. I feel like people in low population areas can sometimes have a persecution complex. I hear the complaint about being overlooked in elections often but they are over represented in the Presidency, Senate, and House, and also in a lot of Republican states in their legislatures due to gerrymandering by Republicans. They'll complain about elitists but in a way I feel like the people I've known from smaller towns are more elitist, e.g. being averse to strangers or people different than they are. Or even scared of them, which I see from FB posts freaking out about this fake antifa s#!t or illegal immigrants. We hear about flyover country but some of the biggest swing states are in the midwest if you consider Minnesota and Wisconsin to be midwest (not sure on that).

I believe what would happen with a popular vote is presidential candidates would have rallies in the biggest cities of more states. But I really think that is better than what we see now. What we see now is they (typically) only have rallies in the biggest cities of a handful of swing states and I'm sure stop for some photo ops in smaller towns. I feel it will allow candidates more freedom to go where they want to try to reach voters. Right now Oklahoma doesn't matter but it would with a popular vote and they could go to Oklahoma City to get a higher voter turnout. Same thing in all other states like that. It might lead to Democrats trying harder to cater to a higher # of states.

I honestly think it would do the opposite of what people say it would do. I also believe poor people in big cities have about the same major wants as poor people in small towns. Same with middle class in both. The things we've been split on are often stupid things and it's often on purpose. I really don't think the major difference between people is in population density. I think a lot of the feeling that big city folks are a lot different than country folks is superficial.

I also see people complaining about things that are exactly what they're doing. Once again one of my farmer relatives complained about welfare recipients and I've posted on it before but she and her husband get like $20,000 per year from the government. I bet she thinks because they work they deserve the free money, but people are often required to work when they get welfare as well. She is just on farming welfare and it is called a subsidy instead.

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post

I'd be for any system that kept the candidates from campaigning/advertising in whatever state I reside in :lol:

 

I guess the old concern of smaller constituencies being ignored is a moot point. They only places getting attention now are swing states, and that is because of the all or nothing methods of the EC. A popular vote would probably be the closest we could come to them caring about everyone/everywhere.  Throw in some significant campaign reform and prevent sitting Presidents from shamelessly bribing key voting blocs with taxpayer money, as Trump has been doing, and we might have something that begins to make things better.

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post

I could be fine with the EC if they adjusted the amount of votes each state gets to accurately reflect the populations.  This way close recounts would only have to be done state-by-state instead of a national recount.

 

But I'd rather just see a popular vote.  Social media and the internet make campaigns national anyway.  The buffer the EC was supposed to create was ignored in 2016, so I say screw it!

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, funhusker said:

I could be fine with the EC if they adjusted the amount of votes each state gets to accurately reflect the populations.  This way close recounts would only have to be done state-by-state instead of a national recount.

 

But I'd rather just see a popular vote.  Social media and the internet make campaigns national anyway.  The buffer the EC was supposed to create was ignored in 2016, so I say screw it!

 

 

This is another interesting topic, kind of overall. Most people get sucked into national news now. We hear about crazy s#!t happening that is really rare which we probably wouldn’t have heard of if it was the 80s or 90s because the news was only 3-4 stations for a few hours per day. There literally wasn’t time. And newspapers have limited space. There is no limit now.

 

An example, and I’m not saying it’s a negative thing to shine light on it, but I don’t think think police shootings of Black people would be in the news as much because the incidence rate has actually decreased steadily for decades. But then we also have cameras everywhere now so that is a huge factor.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

I'd be for any system that kept the candidates from campaigning/advertising in whatever state I reside in :lol:

 

I guess the old concern of smaller constituencies being ignored is a moot point. They only places getting attention now are swing states, and that is because of the all or nothing methods of the EC. A popular vote would probably be the closest we could come to them caring about everyone/everywhere.  Throw in some significant campaign reform and prevent sitting Presidents from shamelessly bribing key voting blocs with taxpayer money, as Trump has been doing, and we might have something that begins to make things better.

Tocqueville said the American Democracy will succeed until the government is able to bribe the public.  But I don't know what you are talking about because the welfare state is definitively Left wing.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Tocqueville said the American Democracy will succeed until the government is able to bribe the public.  But I don't know what you are talking about because the welfare state is definitively Left wing.

You don't know what I'm talking about because you don't want to acknowledge it.

 

Trump's payroll tax vacation. Attempt to buy votes with tax dollars needed to fund social security. Absolutely no benefit to the people getting the temporary tax break as they will have to pay double first quarter next year. But it lets him tell the stupidest of his followers that he cares about them. Bulls#!t. Blatant attempt to bribe the weak-minded electorate.

 

His administration had a deal made with big pharma to reduce prescription costs for medicare and seniors...until he demanded drug companies send cash cards to all seniors prior to the election. Pharma refused because the saw it for what it was, and Trump scrapped the whole deal because it wouldn't give him what he really wanted. What HE wanted, not what seniors and people on Medicare actually need. He's nothing more than a two bit crook....and you love him for it. Congrats.

 

So now you know what I'm talking about. Time for you to ignore more facts about dear leader and turn the discussion to something completely unrelated. f#&%ing joke.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

You don't know what I'm talking about because you don't want to acknowledge it.

 

Trump's payroll tax vacation. Attempt to buy votes with tax dollars needed to fund social security. Absolutely no benefit to the people getting the temporary tax break as they will have to pay double first quarter next year. But it lets him tell the stupidest of his followers that he cares about them. Bulls#!t. Blatant attempt to bribe the weak-minded electorate.

 

His administration had a deal made with big pharma to reduce prescription costs for medicare and seniors...until he demanded drug companies send cash cards to all seniors prior to the election. Pharma refused because the saw it for what it was, and Trump scrapped the whole deal because it wouldn't give him what he really wanted. What HE wanted, not what seniors and people on Medicare actually need. He's nothing more than a two bit crook....and you love him for it. Congrats.

 

So now you know what I'm talking about. Time for you to ignore more facts about dear leader and turn the discussion to something completely unrelated. f#&%ing joke.

First you need to calm down.  Second some version of tax cuts or 'stimulus' has become an expectation in times of economic crisis, endorsed by professional economists.  So if that is a 'bribe' then everyone bribes.

Link to post
27 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

You don't know what I'm talking about because you don't want to acknowledge it.

 

Trump's payroll tax vacation. Attempt to buy votes with tax dollars needed to fund social security. Absolutely no benefit to the people getting the temporary tax break as they will have to pay double first quarter next year. But it lets him tell the stupidest of his followers that he cares about them. Bulls#!t. Blatant attempt to bribe the weak-minded electorate.

 

His administration had a deal made with big pharma to reduce prescription costs for medicare and seniors...until he demanded drug companies send cash cards to all seniors prior to the election. Pharma refused because the saw it for what it was, and Trump scrapped the whole deal because it wouldn't give him what he really wanted. What HE wanted, not what seniors and people on Medicare actually need. He's nothing more than a two bit crook....and you love him for it. Congrats.

 

So now you know what I'm talking about. Time for you to ignore more facts about dear leader and turn the discussion to something completely unrelated. f#&%ing joke.

 

(Trump also blocked aid to Puerto Rico for 3 full years out of spite because they were brown people who can't give him anything... until there's an election in 46 days and he realized there are Puerto Rican voters in Florida who he could potentially appeal to so yesterday he finally decides to roll out a $13B Puerto Rico aid package yesterday. Hmmm.)

Link to post
14 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

First you need to calm down.  Second some version of tax cuts or 'stimulus' has become an expectation in times of economic crisis, endorsed by professional economists.  So if that is a 'bribe' then everyone bribes.

I’m very calm. I am just completely amazed at how somebody can ignore common sense and be so in the bag for a con man like Trump. Yes, you amaze and befuddle me. It’s incredible really, and that is not a compliment.
 

How do you possibly consider cutting payroll taxes for 3 months and then doubling them for the next 3 any sort of stimulus? Really, explain that to me because I don’t get it. The people who desperately need an extra $600 bucks over Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec are also the people who cannot afford to pay an extra $600 on top of their usual payroll taxes in the first quarter of next year. What got stimulated? Nothing. Who did it help? Nobody except Trump in this election with people who don’t understand they won’t be able to afford food in Jan, Feb and March. Stimulus my a$$.

  • Plus1 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
25 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

(Trump also blocked aid to Puerto Rico for 3 full years out of spite because they were brown people who can't give him anything... until there's an election in 46 days and he realized there are Puerto Rican voters in Florida who he could potentially appeal to so yesterday he finally decides to roll out a $13B Puerto Rico aid package yesterday. Hmmm.)

Yep, that’s another one I didn’t even bother to list for our head-in-the-sand resident Trump jock rider.

Link to post
1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

I’m very calm. I am just completely amazed at how somebody can ignore common sense and be so in the bag for a con man like Trump. Yes, you amaze and befuddle me. It’s incredible really, and that is not a compliment.
 

How do you possibly consider cutting payroll taxes for 3 months and then doubling them for the next 3 any sort of stimulus? Really, explain that to me because I don’t get it. The people who desperately need an extra $600 bucks over Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec are also the people who cannot afford to pay an extra $600 on top of their usual payroll taxes in the first quarter of next year. What got stimulated? Nothing. Who did it help? Nobody except Trump in this election with people who don’t understand they won’t be able to afford food in Jan, Feb and March. Stimulus my a$$.

Yep...it amazes me how anyone with half a brain falls for this scam.  

  • Plus1 3
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




















×
×
  • Create New...