The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#15,551
#15,551
Sudden Impact said:
I am not going to do so. 30% is a good enough start. Would slow the process down. No reason for overkill. Plus you still need dissenting arguments to identify issues and problems in bills. It's how the process works in Congress. Most of the Good ones have left or headed out the door. Some are dinosaurs which is another flaw in the system. So add age restrictions to the wants.
Click to expand...
Who are some of the “good ones” headed out the door?
 
#15,552
#15,552
Jxn Vol said:
Who are some of the “good ones” headed out the door?
Click to expand...

We'd be in a lot worse shape if Sinema and Manchin didn't derail Build Back Better, help neuter IRA, and bills to significantly raise taxes...

We would be in better shape if Congress represented the whole political spectrum and just not the fringes..
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, SpaceCoastVol, Vol737 and 2 others
#15,555
#15,555
Septic said:
Jo Jorgensen.

I don't care who you voted for and where you're headed is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
The folks that wrote in Mo, Larry, and Curly had as much influence on the outcome as the Joe J vote.

But in all actuality if we are not in a battleground state then it is really irrelevant.
 
#15,556
#15,556
Jxn Vol said:
The folks that wrote in Mo, Larry, and Curly had as much influence on the outcome as the Joe J vote.

But in all actuality if we are not in a battleground state then it is really irrelevant.
Click to expand...

And that's a sad indictment on our election system. The electoral college is B.S.
 
#15,560
#15,560
Jxn Vol said:
It’s definitely a check. I don’t want the coasts electing the president.
Click to expand...

So instead, we have a 50.1% majority from seven states deciding for us.

Do you realize that there are more republicans in California whose votes don't matter than dozens of other states?

The EC is broken. EC votes could be apportioned to states based on population and still be awarded proportional to the popular vote.
 
#15,563
#15,563
Septic said:
So instead, we have a 50.1% majority from seven states deciding for us.

Do you realize that there are more republicans in California whose votes don't matter than dozens of other states?

The EC is broken. EC votes could be apportioned to states based on population and still be awarded proportional to the popular vote.
Click to expand...
So you prefer a democracy and not a constitutional republic? I’m just trying to clarify. Because I like the fact that my friend in Montana has a vote that counts.

But all this may be irrelevant with the migrant flood into blue states to make up for the mass evacuation of citizens to red states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#15,564
#15,564
Jxn Vol said:
So you prefer a democracy and not a constitutional republic? I’m just trying to clarify. Because I like the fact that my friend in Montana has a vote that counts.

But all this may be irrelevant with the migrant flood into blue states to make up for the mass evacuation of citizens to red states.
Click to expand...


The issue is that his vote in Montana is weighted substantially more than people voting in Florida, or Georgia, or New York, or pretty much anywhere else.
 
#15,565
#15,565
volgr said:
Even if Marchan recuses, the next Judge will likely be just like him. That is the larger issue. The Federal judiciary, like most things in this country currently, is corrupt and broken beyond repair.
Click to expand...


1) Marchan is a state court judge, not a federal judge. The federal judiciary literally has nothing to do with this case.

2) Trump appointed a large number of federal judges, particularly appellate judges. As many of the latter in one term as Obama in two terms. He also appointed many trial court judges, 174 in his one term compared to 268 in Obama's two terms, so at as much higher rate than Obama.
 
#15,566
#15,566
lawgator1 said:
The issue is that his vote in Montana is weighted substantially more than people voting in Florida, or Georgia, or New York, or pretty much anywhere else.
Click to expand...

entirely depends on the unit of analysis. the states vote for the POTUS - within the state each vote counts the same

the popular vote is entirely irrelevant so saying one is weighted more is irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, whodeycin85 and Vol since 77
#15,568
#15,568
Jxn Vol said:
That’s to keep the coasts from electing the President. So yeah.
Click to expand...


Not exactly.

Electoral College History | National Archives

www.archives.gov www.archives.gov

The electoral college was a compromise between a straight up popular vote and having Congress elect the President. I think any honest modern review would come to the conclusion that such a compromise is no longer needed and that it should be a simple popular vote.

Having said that, if the idea is to have a state like Idaho have the same voice as a state like Tennessee, or Florida, or California, in selecting a President I am certainly open to hearing what the logic would be on that, as I cannot fathom it now.
 
#15,569
#15,569
lawgator1 said:
Not exactly.

Electoral College History | National Archives

www.archives.gov www.archives.gov

The electoral college was a compromise between a straight up popular vote and having Congress elect the President. I think any honest modern review would come to the conclusion that such a compromise is no longer needed and that it should be a simple popular vote.

Having said that, if the idea is to have a state like Idaho have the same voice as a state like Tennessee, or Florida, or California, in selecting a President I am certainly open to hearing what the logic would be on that, as I cannot fathom it now.
Click to expand...
It’s so a handful of states that are overpopulated do not elect the president. Don’t make it too hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, volbound1700 and whodeycin85
#15,570
#15,570
Septic said:
So instead, we have a 50.1% majority from seven states deciding for us.

Do you realize that there are more republicans in California whose votes don't matter than dozens of other states?

The EC is broken. EC votes could be apportioned to states based on population and still be awarded proportional to the popular vote.
Click to expand...

2 for winning a state and 1 for winning each Congressional district....
 
#15,571
#15,571
lawgator1 said:
Not exactly.

Electoral College History | National Archives

www.archives.gov www.archives.gov

The electoral college was a compromise between a straight up popular vote and having Congress elect the President. I think any honest modern review would come to the conclusion that such a compromise is no longer needed and that it should be a simple popular vote.

Having said that, if the idea is to have a state like Idaho have the same voice as a state like Tennessee, or Florida, or California, in selecting a President I am certainly open to hearing what the logic would be on that, as I cannot fathom it now.
Click to expand...

They don't. California has 54 Electoral votes and Idaho has 4.

California has 13x the vote of Idaho.

I am not sure what you are on about with your soap box. I wouldn't want to live in a system of popular votes as only small pockets of the country would have representatives. Thank you Delaware for pushing for Electoral College.
 
#15,572
#15,572
volbound1700 said:
They don't. California has 54 Electoral votes and Idaho has 4.

California has 13x the vote of Idaho.

I am not sure what you are on about with your soap box. I wouldn't want to live in a system of popular votes as only small pockets of the country would have representatives. Thank you Delaware for pushing for Electoral College.
Click to expand...
California has about 20 times the population of Idaho. One vote in Idaho is essentially worth 4/2,000,000 or .000002. One vote in California is essentially worth 54/39,000,000 or .00000138, or .7 of one vote in Iowa. That’s what he’s saying.
 
#15,573
#15,573
lawgator1 said:
Not exactly.

Electoral College History | National Archives

www.archives.gov www.archives.gov

The electoral college was a compromise between a straight up popular vote and having Congress elect the President. I think any honest modern review would come to the conclusion that such a compromise is no longer needed and that it should be a simple popular vote.

Having said that, if the idea is to have a state like Idaho have the same voice as a state like Tennessee, or Florida, or California, in selecting a President I am certainly open to hearing what the logic would be on that, as I cannot fathom it now.
Click to expand...

disagree wholeheartedly with the bolded

Idaho doesn't have the same voice as other states since it has far less electoral votes - so much for an honest review
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, 85SugarVol and volbound1700
#15,574
#15,574
RockyTop85 said:
California has about 20 times the population of Idaho. One vote in Idaho is essentially worth 4/2,000,000 or .000002. One vote in California is essentially worth 54/39,000,000 or .00000138, or .7 of one vote in Iowa. That’s what he’s saying.
Click to expand...

again it depends on the unit of analysis.

if the popular vote counted then this would be the issue. people are voting for who their state will vote for and each vote within the state has the same weight.
 
#15,575
#15,575
volinbham said:
again it depends on the unit of analysis.

if the popular vote counted then this would be the issue. people are voting for who their state will vote for and each vote within the state has the same weight.
Click to expand...
Whether that’s what he was talking about does not depend on the unit of analysis.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top