Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The Electoral college exist to give small states more representation. You just don't like that it doesn't suit your party atm. Founders understood - people are influenced by the people around them and this would give larger states too much political clout.
So that makes it right? The mino rity should rule the majority all the time?
WHat type of logic is that?
And that is a false representation of reality. Did you even watch the video?
Most people live in city limits.
These small population centers of people do not deserve to be more worth in votes than larger states.
To defend 'smaller' states is just not democratic or means we are a republic. It is the opposite of what should be done.
So No.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Nope sorry, you're making the same mistake as KK. The Electoral College doesn't control how many EC votes each state gets, the EC uses Congressional apportionment which Congress controls not the EC. Congress could rectify the apportionment imbalance tomorrow with legislation and your argument against the EC would disappear without changing the laws governing the EC at all.
Except thats not how a democracy works. Electoral is based on how many state reps and senators has. The mathematical problem here is that someone can ignore where people actually live just like Trump did.
It doesn't ensure outcomes
It is anti-republic and anti-democracy
All the votes of winner takes all elections we currenttly have has screwed up the system. That is why people say it unfairly represents peoples votes. Someones vote in california is less than south dakota. It doesn't help.
The Electoral College is unfair and biased towards small states. North and South Dakota for example barely have the population to maintain state status.
The Electoral college exist to give small states more representation. You just don't like that it doesn't suit your party atm. Founders understood - people are influenced by the people around them and this would give larger states too much political clout.
And you wonder why I called you on not arguing in good faith when instead of presenting any sort of evidence, you just yell "Nuh-uh! you don't like it because it works against you!" while ignoring everything else.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Kilkrazy wrote: That is the bias built into the system, of which I spoke.
Rural states, which lean conservative, have a higher number of electoral college votes per resident than more urbanised states such as California.
The Electoral College gives the States the same representation relative to their population that Congress does. The Electoral College doesn't set the apportionment of votes, Congress does. Your problem isn't with the Electoral College if your issues is the ratio of voters:EC votes, that issue is governed by Federal apportionment which is governed by Congress. Every state is governed by the same apportionment requirements for Congress and Congress could legislation expansion of the House tomorrow, nothing is stopping them from doing so. The population of the US has grown immensely over the past 200 years but the size of Congress has been capped at 435 members since 1913. The US population in 1913 was 97 million and we had 435 members of Congress. Now the US population is 320 million and we still have 435 members of Congress. That is not the fault of the Electoral College, the Electoral College, by law, must award EC votes by Congressional apportionment and Congress, for their own selfish reasons has refused to expand it's membership for the last 105 years.
You've created a valuation that is a fabrication of your own mind, there is no system that devalues your vote in Presidential elections.
Clearly hasn't seen the cpggrey video.
Sorry Prestor but that is completely baseless and wrong and living an alternate reality.
Nope sorry, you're making the same mistake as KK. The Electoral College doesn't control how many EC votes each state gets, the EC uses Congressional apportionment which Congress controls not the EC. Congress could rectify the apportionment imbalance tomorrow with legislation and your argument against the EC would disappear without changing the laws governing the EC at all.
So the reason the EC is ok is because Congress sets the numbers per state, and not the EC itself. Got it. Looking at it that way, every single problem with EC is suddenly gone and magically fixed, and now everyone's vote is equal!
Oh, wait...
Dude, for somebody who repeatedly posts complaints about other posters arguing in bad faith and needing to be ignored you're putting yourself in a very hypocritical pot calling the kettle black situation.
The inequality in representation in the EC is a direct result of Congress failing to update the apportionment of representatives in the House for more than a century. That's a fact. I didn't create that fact, I'm not asserting that the only complaint people have with the EC is apportionment related, I'm addressing the specific complaint about apportionment in the EC with a specific fact and solution to that complaint. If you want the population difference between California and Idaho to be better reflected in the EC then you need Congress to rectify the imbalance with apportionment and standardize the size of Congressional districts throughout the country. The Constitution originally called for Congressional Districts not to exceed 30,000 people, now Congressional Districts average over 700,000 people. The rural/urban imbalance in the EC isn't a result of EC law, it's a result of the Reapportionment Act of 1929. If you have other arguments against the EC, have it but if your complaint is the unequal apportionment of EC votes then you need to admit that's been a problem for over a century that was created by Congress and continues to fester unsolved due to Congressional inaction. California voters are underrepresented in the EC because they're underrepresented in the House, it's not a chicken or egg argument, House apportionment literally determines EC apportionment so Congress has to fix the apportionment imbalance in the House.
Kilkrazy wrote: That is the bias built into the system, of which I spoke.
Rural states, which lean conservative, have a higher number of electoral college votes per resident than more urbanised states such as California.
The Electoral College gives the States the same representation relative to their population that Congress does. The Electoral College doesn't set the apportionment of votes, Congress does. Your problem isn't with the Electoral College if your issues is the ratio of voters:EC votes, that issue is governed by Federal apportionment which is governed by Congress. Every state is governed by the same apportionment requirements for Congress and Congress could legislation expansion of the House tomorrow, nothing is stopping them from doing so. The population of the US has grown immensely over the past 200 years but the size of Congress has been capped at 435 members since 1913. The US population in 1913 was 97 million and we had 435 members of Congress. Now the US population is 320 million and we still have 435 members of Congress. That is not the fault of the Electoral College, the Electoral College, by law, must award EC votes by Congressional apportionment and Congress, for their own selfish reasons has refused to expand it's membership for the last 105 years.
You've created a valuation that is a fabrication of your own mind, there is no system that devalues your vote in Presidential elections.
Clearly hasn't seen the cpggrey video.
Sorry Prestor but that is completely baseless and wrong and living an alternate reality.
Nope sorry, you're making the same mistake as KK. The Electoral College doesn't control how many EC votes each state gets, the EC uses Congressional apportionment which Congress controls not the EC. Congress could rectify the apportionment imbalance tomorrow with legislation and your argument against the EC would disappear without changing the laws governing the EC at all.
So the reason the EC is ok is because Congress sets the numbers per state, and not the EC itself. Got it. Looking at it that way, every single problem with EC is suddenly gone and magically fixed, and now everyone's vote is equal!
Oh, wait...
Dude, for somebody who repeatedly posts complaints about other posters arguing in bad faith and needing to be ignored you're putting yourself in a very hypocritical pot calling the kettle black situation.
The inequality in representation in the EC is a direct result of Congress failing to update the apportionment of representatives in the House for more than a century. That's a fact. I didn't create that fact, I'm not asserting that the only complaint people have with the EC is apportionment related, I'm addressing the specific complaint about apportionment in the EC with a specific fact and solution to that complaint. If you want the population difference between California and Idaho to be better reflected in the EC then you need Congress to rectify the imbalance with apportionment and standardize the size of Congressional districts throughout the country. The Constitution originally called for Congressional Districts not to exceed 30,000 people, now Congressional Districts average over 700,000 people. The rural/urban imbalance in the EC isn't a result of EC law, it's a result of the Reapportionment Act of 1929. If you have other arguments against the EC, have it but if your complaint is the unequal apportionment of EC votes then you need to admit that's been a problem for over a century that was created by Congress and continues to fester unsolved due to Congressional inaction. California voters are underrepresented in the EC because they're underrepresented in the House, it's not a chicken or egg argument, House apportionment literally determines EC apportionment so Congress has to fix the apportionment imbalance in the House.
Again, I'm so glad that because it's not the EC's fault, but Congress's everything is fixed. I think you missed that part, along with what a lot of other posters were pointing out. It doesn't matter who is at fault in regards to how the EC works, and how it undermines the election system, it matters that it does period. It's not a House vs Senate issue either, the total votes don't make a distinction between them, and the Senate actually takes votes from the House (more or less). But that was all explained in the videos previously linked.
That's why I made a sarcastic comment, you're ignoring the issue with the EC that people have (and that everyone should have).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/31 21:04:53
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
That seems to make it glaringly obvious that price fixing would be a disaster.
Proof of it in another countries or are you just basing it on conjecture?
Are there examples in US history or other comparable nations' history where national programs for providing services that are dependent on government price fixing have successfully existed for prolonged (decades) periods of time? Honestly curious. The most recent example I can think of in the US was the price controls on gasoline in the 1970s and that didn't go well at all.
That seems to make it glaringly obvious that price fixing would be a disaster.
Proof of it in another countries or are you just basing it on conjecture?
Are there examples in US history or other comparable nations' history where national programs for providing services that are dependent on government price fixing have successfully existed for prolonged (decades) periods of time? Honestly curious. The most recent example I can think of in the US was the price controls on gasoline in the 1970s and that didn't go well at all.
Every single payer system keeps prices low because there's a single buyer who sets conditions. That's the simplest form of price control: meet our conditions or you're out.
Heavily price-regulated, multi payer systems also exist, like Switzerland.
That seems to make it glaringly obvious that price fixing would be a disaster.
Proof of it in another countries or are you just basing it on conjecture?
Are there examples in US history or other comparable nations' history where national programs for providing services that are dependent on government price fixing have successfully existed for prolonged (decades) periods of time? Honestly curious. The most recent example I can think of in the US was the price controls on gasoline in the 1970s and that didn't go well at all.
Yes you mean most of the worlds? Like Germanys, Switzerland, Australia? Or maybe Britian.
That is a fallacy argument that argues that it does not exist. It does.
Also there is a bigger difference between a resource and someones health care. Health care is assigned by people in suits, not by price or demand. Oil is an actual resource that is controlled and HEAVILY regulated.
You can't go down the street and illegally buy oil.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Kilkrazy wrote: That is the bias built into the system, of which I spoke.
Rural states, which lean conservative, have a higher number of electoral college votes per resident than more urbanised states such as California.
The Electoral College gives the States the same representation relative to their population that Congress does. The Electoral College doesn't set the apportionment of votes, Congress does. Your problem isn't with the Electoral College if your issues is the ratio of voters:EC votes, that issue is governed by Federal apportionment which is governed by Congress. Every state is governed by the same apportionment requirements for Congress and Congress could legislation expansion of the House tomorrow, nothing is stopping them from doing so. The population of the US has grown immensely over the past 200 years but the size of Congress has been capped at 435 members since 1913. The US population in 1913 was 97 million and we had 435 members of Congress. Now the US population is 320 million and we still have 435 members of Congress. That is not the fault of the Electoral College, the Electoral College, by law, must award EC votes by Congressional apportionment and Congress, for their own selfish reasons has refused to expand it's membership for the last 105 years.
You've created a valuation that is a fabrication of your own mind, there is no system that devalues your vote in Presidential elections.
Clearly hasn't seen the cpggrey video.
Sorry Prestor but that is completely baseless and wrong and living an alternate reality.
Nope sorry, you're making the same mistake as KK. The Electoral College doesn't control how many EC votes each state gets, the EC uses Congressional apportionment which Congress controls not the EC. Congress could rectify the apportionment imbalance tomorrow with legislation and your argument against the EC would disappear without changing the laws governing the EC at all.
So the reason the EC is ok is because Congress sets the numbers per state, and not the EC itself. Got it. Looking at it that way, every single problem with EC is suddenly gone and magically fixed, and now everyone's vote is equal!
Oh, wait...
Dude, for somebody who repeatedly posts complaints about other posters arguing in bad faith and needing to be ignored you're putting yourself in a very hypocritical pot calling the kettle black situation.
The inequality in representation in the EC is a direct result of Congress failing to update the apportionment of representatives in the House for more than a century. That's a fact. I didn't create that fact, I'm not asserting that the only complaint people have with the EC is apportionment related, I'm addressing the specific complaint about apportionment in the EC with a specific fact and solution to that complaint. If you want the population difference between California and Idaho to be better reflected in the EC then you need Congress to rectify the imbalance with apportionment and standardize the size of Congressional districts throughout the country. The Constitution originally called for Congressional Districts not to exceed 30,000 people, now Congressional Districts average over 700,000 people. The rural/urban imbalance in the EC isn't a result of EC law, it's a result of the Reapportionment Act of 1929. If you have other arguments against the EC, have it but if your complaint is the unequal apportionment of EC votes then you need to admit that's been a problem for over a century that was created by Congress and continues to fester unsolved due to Congressional inaction. California voters are underrepresented in the EC because they're underrepresented in the House, it's not a chicken or egg argument, House apportionment literally determines EC apportionment so Congress has to fix the apportionment imbalance in the House.
Again, I'm so glad that because it's not the EC's fault everything is fixed. I think you missed that part, along with what a lot of other posters were pointing out. It doesn't matter who is at fault in regards to how the EC works, and how it undermines the election system, it matters that it does period. It's not a House vs Senate issue either, the total votes don't make a distinction between them, and the Senate actually takes votes from the House (more or less). But that was all explained in the videos previously linked.
Why are you so focused on "fault."? It's not about fault it's about identifying the problem and workable solutions. I'm pointing out the facts involved with why the EC is what it is and presenting solutions.
If every state has 2 Senators and each Congressional district couldn't contain more than 30,000 voters and the EC votes were still apportioned as House seats +2, how would rural states receive undue favoritism from the EC?
Federalism doesn't allow for a true national election. We don't have one State we have 50 States and each State is responsible for conducting a Presidential election. If we disbanded the EC tomorrow we'd still all vote in our respective State elections and if you wanted the popular vote to be the determiner for President you'd add up the cumulative votes from all 50 states. That's the same thing the EC does, it adds up the cumulative votes from all 50 states except it uses Congressional representation to create mini elections of each congressional district rather than one singular State election.
If you don't address the apportionment problem then Californians are still underrepresented it just won't be overtly present in Presidential elections every 4 years but it will still be glaringly obvious in every single session of Congress. Proper apportionment in Congress would make Congress and the EC better and give voters better representation in Congress. We need a constitutional amendment to fix/abolish the EC but we don't need a constitutional amendment to fix apportionment and fixing apportionment greatly improves the EC.
The Electoral college exist to give small states more representation. You just don't like that it doesn't suit your party atm. Founders understood - people are influenced by the people around them and this would give larger states too much political clout.
So that makes it right? The mino rity should rule the majority all the time?
WHat type of logic is that?
And that is a false representation of reality. Did you even watch the video?
Most people live in city limits.
These small population centers of people do not deserve to be more worth in votes than larger states.
To defend 'smaller' states is just not democratic or means we are a republic. It is the opposite of what should be done.
So No.
I mean, didn't you know? The founding fathers wanted a land owning aristocracy.
The Electoral college exist to give small states more representation. You just don't like that it doesn't suit your party atm. Founders understood - people are influenced by the people around them and this would give larger states too much political clout.
So that makes it right? The mino rity should rule the majority all the time?
WHat type of logic is that?
And that is a false representation of reality. Did you even watch the video?
Most people live in city limits.
These small population centers of people do not deserve to be more worth in votes than larger states.
To defend 'smaller' states is just not democratic or means we are a republic. It is the opposite of what should be done.
So No.
I mean, didn't you know? The founding fathers wanted a land owning aristocracy.
Oh I did know it was rethorical. I don't think it was right, and a country of 300 million should not be ruled because 30 states where less than 20% of the population is should decide my future.
I don't think that is right. Especially not in a Republic which we are.
The founding fathers as smart as they were, could not predict what we found ourselves in. They assumed though that we would continue to improve and slowly update the consitution and how we govern. Not stay stagnant and not change. That is against human nature.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's rather a bore, but I can't help once again pointing out the fact that 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.
That is 2% of the votes cast.
Every time someone blames the election of Trump on the Democrats not voting enthusiastically enough, remember that statistic, and remember that Trump actually is the result of a system that is biased towards conservatism.
The issue is that democrats didn't vote in certain districts that have traditionally been relied on, all of them swing states. While Pennsylvania and Michigan turned out highs on total voter turnout, cities like Detroit and Philidelphia were low.
So yes. Democrats didn't come out and vote, or they voted for Sanders who didn't have a shot in hell of winning (Detroit). Basically what happened in 2016 was what the Democratic Party feared would happen in 1936, just to continue the number of utterly bizarre parallels between Trump and Huey Long.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's rather a bore, but I can't help once again pointing out the fact that 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.
That is 2% of the votes cast.
Every time someone blames the election of Trump on the Democrats not voting enthusiastically enough, remember that statistic, and remember that Trump actually is the result of a system that is biased towards conservatism.
The issue is that democrats didn't vote in certain districts that have traditionally been relied on, all of them swing states. While Pennsylvania and Michigan turned out highs on total voter turnout, cities like Detroit and Philidelphia were low.
So yes. Democrats didn't come out and vote, or they voted for Sanders who didn't have a shot in hell of winning (Detroit). Basically what happened in 2016 was what the Democratic Party feared would happen in 1936, just to continue the number of utterly bizarre parallels between Trump and Huey Long.
Well let's hope the Democrats have a decent plan for preventing 2020 from turning out like 2004.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I mean, didn't you know? The founding fathers wanted a land owning aristocracy.
Oh I did know it was rethorical. I don't think it was right, and a country of 300 million should not be ruled because 30 states where less than 20% of the population is should decide my future.
I don't think that is right. Especially not in a Republic which we are.
The founding fathers as smart as they were, could not predict what we found ourselves in. They assumed though that we would continue to improve and slowly update the consitution and how we govern. Not stay stagnant and not change. That is against human nature.
Well this is awkward, I actually meant that sarcastically as a dig aimed at people defending the EC, but I did forget that the beginnings of US governance was pretty aristocratic by comparison to today's standards.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I mean, didn't you know? The founding fathers wanted a land owning aristocracy.
Oh I did know it was rethorical. I don't think it was right, and a country of 300 million should not be ruled because 30 states where less than 20% of the population is should decide my future.
I don't think that is right. Especially not in a Republic which we are.
The founding fathers as smart as they were, could not predict what we found ourselves in. They assumed though that we would continue to improve and slowly update the consitution and how we govern. Not stay stagnant and not change. That is against human nature.
Well this is awkward, I actually meant that sarcastically as a dig aimed at people defending the EC, but I did forget that the beginnings of US governance was pretty aristocratic by comparison to today's standards.
No it seemed obvious. No worries
Its just people will vehemently defend the EC and repeat their points even though they do not address the points made. Instead thinking their points are salient and being close minded to reality.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Prestor Jon wrote: Spending money we don’t have on healthcare we do need is still running deficits spending money we don’t have which isn’t sustainable in the long run no matter how much good is done with the spending.
And somehow, despite our braying about "American Exceptionalism", we're not able to pull of the logisitical feats Albania was able to handle.
Spoiler:
It is impossible to look at this map and say with any degree of honesty that universal healthcare is not possible economically.
There are 100 million Americans with diabetes or prediabetes. Average cost of treatment of diabetes over a persons lifetime is $85k. If the government is going to foot the bill for that treatment we need a revenue stream to pay for it. And that’s just one example of one health condition. I’m not saying that having universal healthcare would be bad or that I don’t want the US to have it but I’ve yet to see a practical plan for paying for it.
And it would cost pennies in any other country. The word here is "price control".
What's the hit to the economy of giving everyone in the medical field a pay cut? How does that play out with quality of care?
I don't think we'd see significant cost savings without essentially nuking medical field salaries ( everyone from orderlies to brain surgeons ) and I don't see that playing out well.
Have to say I don't trust Sander's numbers. He's throwing out a number then talking about tax increases.
Far from being “misleading and biased,” the study confirms what previous reviews have concluded. Bernie’s own home state of Vermont abandoned its pursuit of socialized medicine in 2015 because it would have doubled the state’s spending in the first year alone and would have required backbreaking tax hikes on residents and businesses. Similarly, California Democrats shelved plans for a single-payer system after learning it would cost $400 billion a year, more than twice the state’s current budget.
Under the current system the costs would be astronomical. Whether it's three times the current federal budget or eight may not matter much, in the end. The studies all suffer from the same issue that the CBO routinely encounters, evaluating a plan by accepting all of the components at face value. This is the issue that I really wish the big proponents of a national healthcare system would even try to address, that all of these proposals are consistently based on the success of government price fixing for healthcare. Are there any examples of successful programs that rely on price fixing? Price fixing is different from cost savings created by the government being the bulk purchaser for the nation and politicians like Sanders never explain why price fixing is going to work.
The Mercatus study takes issue with a key cost-saving feature of the plan — that hospitals and doctors will accept payment based on lower Medicare rates for all their patients.
Remember when Congress had to pass the "doctor fix" for Medicare every year? That seems to make it glaringly obvious that price fixing would be a disaster.
The doc fix (sustainable growth rate or SGR) problem dates back to a 1997 law based on a flawed formula for calculating Medicare payments. It linked those payments to the overall economy, but that meant it penalized doctors during a recession.
It gave doctors who treat Medicare patients modest raises for a while, but in 2002 it provided for a pay cut. Instead of fixing the formula, Congress had just kept enacting short-term solutions.
Congress fixed the doctor fix problem by just removing the formula that would enforce cost control.
The bill would repeal the current Medicare payment formula for doctors and replace it with one that would increase payments to doctors by one-half of 1% every year through 2019. After that, doctors would receive bonuses or penalties depending on performance scores from the government. Their scores would be based on the value of the care they provide rather than on the volume of patients they see.
Medicare recipients with incomes of more than $85,000 a year would be required to pay higher Medicare Part B premiums starting in 2018.
The legislation would end the annual scramble by lawmakers to pass a temporary patch to keep the payments from plummeting. Congress has been struggling with what both sides call a "flawed formula" since lawmakers enacted it in 1997.
I know this is going to shock you, but pretty much every single country who has socialized medicine (i.e. 95% of them) sets prices. And it hasn't fethed them.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Why are you so focused on "fault."? It's not about fault it's about identifying the problem and workable solutions. I'm pointing out the facts involved with why the EC is what it is and presenting solutions.
Because that's what you started out with. I"t's not the EC's fault that it's terrible, it's Congress's!" Great, doesn't matter. The EC sucks, and is only in place to circumvent the actual will of the people.
If every state has 2 Senators and each Congressional district couldn't contain more than 30,000 voters and the EC votes were still apportioned as House seats +2, how would rural states receive undue favoritism from the EC?
If this was a perfect world, that might be true. It however is not. On top of that, the Electors don't even have to vote based on how their state votes (but mostly do). On top of that, simply giving states more votes just because is pointless.
Federalism doesn't allow for a true national election. We don't have one State we have 50 States and each State is responsible for conducting a Presidential election. If we disbanded the EC tomorrow we'd still all vote in our respective State elections and if you wanted the popular vote to be the determiner for President you'd add up the cumulative votes from all 50 states. That's the same thing the EC does, it adds up the cumulative votes from all 50 states except it uses Congressional representation to create mini elections of each congressional district rather than one singular State election.
Except, again, the videos have explained the EC far better than I could. The EC is not representing the will of the people as a whole. You can argue about how we have 50 states, but the US is still one country as a whole.
If you don't address the apportionment problem then Californians are still underrepresented it just won't be overtly present in Presidential elections every 4 years but it will still be glaringly obvious in every single session of Congress. Proper apportionment in Congress would make Congress and the EC better and give voters better representation in Congress. We need a constitutional amendment to fix/abolish the EC but we don't need a constitutional amendment to fix apportionment and fixing apportionment greatly improves the EC.
This wasn't about Congress or representation (although that is a problem), it's about how the EC is pointless, and should be abolished.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
The EC would work better if you actually voted for electors, rather than having a “I have no fething idea who I’m actually voting for, but the party I like best gets the whole pie so I’m good”.
The EC has long abandoned the purpose and idea behind the EC, but the broken system always benefits someone so it stays put. Ideally you should be voting for one elector in your district, and two statewide electors (or let the legislature pick the at-large electors). Heck, if the EC really is so sacred, we shouldn’t even have any names on the ballot other than those of the electors. We trust their judgement after all, that’s why we vote for them instead of actual candidates.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's rather a bore, but I can't help once again pointing out the fact that 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.
That is 2% of the votes cast.
Every time someone blames the election of Trump on the Democrats not voting enthusiastically enough, remember that statistic, and remember that Trump actually is the result of a system that is biased towards conservatism.
I know we've gone over this before. Clinton won California by over 4.25 million votes, that's where the 3 million margin comes from. Since we have the Electoral College, Clinton winning California by over 4 million votes doesn't matter when she loses states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan by thousands of votes. It was a national election, Democrats failing to turnout in multiple "blue" states cost Clinton the presidency. It doesn't matter how popular Clinton was in California if she can't motivate people to vote in the rest of the country.
So glad to know that I am worth less as a person due to the state I live in.
You're not voting in a national election. You're voting in a State election, held by your State, which is a member of the United States of America. The winner of your State election earns your State's Electoral Votes and the combined total of States' Electoral Votes earned by each candidate determines who wins. We don't have one big national election we have 50 different State elections. Your vote counts as much as anyone else's vote in your State which the election you're choosing to participate in. You're taking something that has no effect on the outcome of the Presidential election, the popular vote totals, and ascribing to them a level of importance greater than the factors that actually determine who wins the Presidential election, the Electoral College, and then using that value that doesn't actually exist to construct a system to weigh the value of votes in different state elections. You've created a valuation that is a fabrication of your own mind, there is no system that devalues your vote in Presidential elections.
bs. You're just constructing whatever excuse suits you to justify some votes being worth less than others. I'm a goddam citizen and I'm worth just as much as any other. The POTUS doesn't get less authority over Californians just because our votes are worth less. Rural states don't have to pay more per capita in federal taxes because their votes are worth more. It sickens me that people like you get more of a say THEN have the balls to suggest that those of us with less just suck it up.
It's a toy soldier forum, no need for that language. motyak .
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/01 20:41:37
Anticipation builds for report on FBI’s Clinton probe
Conservatives on Capitol Hill are anxiously awaiting the imminent release of a report from the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general scrutinizing the law enforcement agency’s handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
A spate of recent press reports suggesting that the document will be critical of top DOJ brass has raised expectations among some of President Trump’s most ardent defenders that it will provide fuel for an ongoing broadside against the department.
Congress will likely not see the document until shortly before it is made public on Thursday, with its official conclusions remaining the subject of intense speculation until then.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s probe has already exposed two incidents that Republican lawmakers say show malfeasance at the DOJ.
In April, Horowitz issued a scathing report on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, alleging that he authorized a leak to the media in order to “advance his personal interests” and then misled internal investigators about the matter.
It was also an internal referral from Horowitz that led to the public exposure of text messages between counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page. Those messages, which were critical of Trump and other political figures during the 2016 presidential campaign, have been a lightning rod among figures on the right.
Horowitz will almost immediately have to face Congress to defend his conclusions, with the inspector general scheduled to appear in a pair of back-to-back hearings early next week.
Although Horowitz himself is widely seen by lawmakers from both parties as nonpartisan and fair, his report is almost certain to become a political football in the ongoing fight over the department’s conduct in the lead-up to the 2016 election.
How he evaluates controversial decisions made by former FBI Director James Comey will be one of the most closely read portions of the report on Thursday.
Comey in particular has been in the crosshairs of Trump allies, who see him as Exhibit A that the bureau was biased against Trump during the election. The president has branded him a “liar,” a “leaker” and a “nut job.”
“I think the report of Horowitz, the [inspector general], and the Justice Department will confirm that Comey acted improperly with regard to the Hillary Clinton investigation,” Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani said in a recent interview with New York radio host John Catsimatidis.
“Comey, really, has a chance of being prosecuted as a result of [this report], but we’ll see,” Giuliani said.
After his firing, Comey outraged conservatives when he gave contemporaneous memos documenting his interactions with the president to a close friend so they would be shared with the media.
Comey said he released the memos with the hope that they would spur the appointment of a special counsel to oversee the bureau’s probe into the Trump campaign and Russia.
There is no evidence that those disclosures breached the law in any way, with Comey himself maintaining in a heated Fox News interview in April that the release did not constitute a “leak.”
Comey has also released a memoir harshly critical of the president since his dismissal in May 2017, a firing that eventually led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to lead the federal probe into Russia’s election meddling.
Democrats argue that by speaking publicly about eleventh-hour developments in the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while serving as secretary of State — while not revealing the probe into Trump’s campaign during the election — Comey avoided any whiff of bias against Trump.
Horowitz’s report is widely expected to address the unusual public disclosures Comey made during the course of the Clinton investigation, including informing Congress just days before the 2016 election that he was effectively reopening the probe.
Comey has maintained that since he already informed Congress as part of another public announcement in July 2016 that the probe was finished, he was obligated to inform them that the bureau had uncovered additional, potentially relevant evidence.
Both moves bucked a powerful bureau norm that the law enforcement agency should not take any steps that might influence an election. Some press reports have also suggested that Comey will be criticized by the inspector general for going outside of the normal departmental chain of command.
In his memoir, Comey also expressed regret that he did not order the review of that evidence — emails found on a laptop of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), the ex-husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin — until almost a month after it was first mentioned to him that the computer “might have some connection to the Clinton email case.”
“I’ve also asked myself a hundred times whether I should have pressed for faster action after hearing something about Weiner’s laptop around the beginning of October,” Comey wrote. “But I did not understand what it meant until October 27.”
Although Comey has become a hero for some on the left since his dismissal by Trump last year, he was widely criticized by Democrats immediately following the election for the disclosure about the additional emails, which Clinton believes cost her the election.
Horowitz’s report is not expected to cover an ancillary investigation, demanded by Republicans, assessing whether the DOJ acted inappropriately when it obtained a surveillance warrant for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
And it remains an open question whether Horowitz will merely issue a critical assessment — or whether he will go so far as to recommend charges against any DOJ officials.
Horowitz in the spring issued a criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., related to McCabe.
McCabe’s lawyer, Michael Bromwich, called it “unjustified” at the time and said “the standard for an [inspector general] referral is very low.”
Referrals don’t guarantee charges will be brought or require prosecutors to act in any way.
Going to be lots of political footballing on both sides for sure...
Nope sorry, you're making the same mistake as KK. The Electoral College doesn't control how many EC votes each state gets, the EC uses Congressional apportionment which Congress controls not the EC. Congress could rectify the apportionment imbalance tomorrow with legislation and your argument against the EC would disappear without changing the laws governing the EC at all.
Except thats not how a democracy works. Electoral is based on how many state reps and senators has. The mathematical problem here is that someone can ignore where people actually live just like Trump did.
It doesn't ensure outcomes
It is anti-republic and anti-democracy
All the votes of winner takes all elections we currenttly have has screwed up the system. That is why people say it unfairly represents peoples votes. Someones vote in california is less than south dakota. It doesn't help.
The Electoral College is unfair and biased towards small states. North and South Dakota for example barely have the population to maintain state status.
The concept of free electors empowered to usurp the will of the people and elect whomever they want is blatantly undemocratic, that is obvious. Nobody has stated that it is democratic. If we recreated the EC today I doubt that provision would be included and if a constitutional amendment that took away the freedom of Electors to vote for whomever they want was passed tomorrow I don’t think anyone would complain, I know I wouldn’t.
I agree with the video that having free electors allows the EC to sabotage democratic elections, granting the Electors the ability to do so also passively encourages it. However, the mere fact that we vote for Electors instead of directly for candidates is not anti republic or anti democratic. The Federal government doesn’t opearate as a direct democracy, it’s a representative democracy. We vote to elect people to Congress to represent our interests and make decisions for us, Congress doesn’t pass legislation via popular referendum. We elect people to decide for us what budget gets passed, whether or not we declare war on another nation, to decide whether or not to confirm the appointments to the Federal agencies/departments, etc. The people don’t vote in a national popular vote to declare war or allocate Federal spending or set Federal tax rates or decide who gets to be in charge of the DoJ or State Dept etc. The people only get to vote for somebody that they think will represent their views and make decisions they’d approve of, with no guarantee that those candidates win. You can live in a congressional district represented by somebody you don’t agree with at all in a state with two Senators neither of whom are representative of your personal positions. Those people still get to make important decisions on your behalf that affect you. Does that mean that Congress is anti republic and anti democratic because it’s represemtatives can supercede the will of the people or the will of some/most of the people? Why is the election of the President every four years so special that it is the one singular position in the Federal government that has to be decided by a direct popular vote when literally nothing else is? Why is it more important for The People to directly decide who gets to be President than it is for The People to decide if we can go to war? Why is the Presidential election the hill that our democracy will die on?
I’m not proposing that the EC is ideal, it clearly isn’t and has a major flaw with free electors but aside from that I don’t find the other arguments put forth against as convincing as you do. I’d be happy to see a movement to create a better system than the EC but I don’t have much faith in Congress passing legislation to give us something better any time soon and I don’t believe Congress will be populated with people I’d trust to get it right any time soon either.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's rather a bore, but I can't help once again pointing out the fact that 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.
That is 2% of the votes cast.
Every time someone blames the election of Trump on the Democrats not voting enthusiastically enough, remember that statistic, and remember that Trump actually is the result of a system that is biased towards conservatism.
I know we've gone over this before. Clinton won California by over 4.25 million votes, that's where the 3 million margin comes from. Since we have the Electoral College, Clinton winning California by over 4 million votes doesn't matter when she loses states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan by thousands of votes. It was a national election, Democrats failing to turnout in multiple "blue" states cost Clinton the presidency. It doesn't matter how popular Clinton was in California if she can't motivate people to vote in the rest of the country.
So glad to know that I am worth less as a person due to the state I live in.
You're not voting in a national election. You're voting in a State election, held by your State, which is a member of the United States of America. The winner of your State election earns your State's Electoral Votes and the combined total of States' Electoral Votes earned by each candidate determines who wins. We don't have one big national election we have 50 different State elections. Your vote counts as much as anyone else's vote in your State which the election you're choosing to participate in. You're taking something that has no effect on the outcome of the Presidential election, the popular vote totals, and ascribing to them a level of importance greater than the factors that actually determine who wins the Presidential election, the Electoral College, and then using that value that doesn't actually exist to construct a system to weigh the value of votes in different state elections. You've created a valuation that is a fabrication of your own mind, there is no system that devalues your vote in Presidential elections.
bs. You're just constructing whatever excuse suits you to justify some votes being worth less than others. I'm a goddam citizen and I'm worth just as much as any other. The POTUS doesn't get less authority over Californians just because our votes are worth less. Rural states don't have to pay more per capita in federal taxes because their votes are worth more. It sickens me that people like you get more of a say THEN have the balls to suggest that those of us with less just suck it up.
feth you. Honestly.
You’re taking this way too personally. I didn’t create the EC, I’m not even a big fan of the EC but I see flaws in your argument against it. I’d be happy to have a better system but I disagree that the best replacement would be a direct popular vote. There are real drawbacks to the threat of tyranny of the majority and there’s no guarantee that a decision is the best one or even a good just because there’s a greater than 50% consensus for it. Of course I don’t get to decide if the EC stays or goes or what we replace it with if it does go. The people that would get to decide those things won’t ask me what I think and they won’t even know I exist or care.
The EC treats your vote the same as the vote of any other Californian and it treats the votes of Californians today the same as it’s treated the votes of Californians in all past elections because we haven’t changed the EC since we ratified the constitution. Congress has made other changes that indirectly alter the EC but we haven’t changed the EC. That’s why I bring up things like Congressional apportionment because the actions and inactions of Congress have caused the EC problems to get worse.
We’re all strangers on the internet discussing politics. Politics affects us all so things can get heated and personal sometimes. Addressing issues with arguments against something doesn’t mean that somebody is for it. I’m not taking any issue with you as a person, I don’t even know you and I bear you no ill will. I don’t think you’re any less of a person or citizen than me and I think the government should value us all equally to the extent that governments can ever really value an individual. I think it gets overlooked too often that we’ve got too much inequality, real and perceived in our country. It’s not just financial inequality but feeling valued differently. I believe a lot of what’s fueling the intense desire for stigginit to the other Party/group/whomever and general uneasiness in the country is too many people feel like they’re getting screwed, and they’re angry about it and fearful of the future because of it. Instead of trying to fix it our “leaders” want to exploit it and their ride on the tiger isn’t going to end well.
BaronIveagh wrote: Anyone else laughing at the anti-gun lobbies panicking at the idea of 3d printed guns?
Am I the only one who remembered that these files were released back in 2013? And the world did not end in a hail of bullets?
ummm. Whats so funny about 3d printing a gun that can go past metal detectors?
Thats not really funny or a laughing matter really.
Them being outlawed seems fine to me.
You can’t outlaw an idea or a schematic. The information is out there, it’s been out there and it can’t be erased now. It’s always been legal to build your own gun and you don’t need a 3d printer to build a firearm that isn’t made of metal, although a good 3d printer will sure up the quality. Even with a completely 3d printed gun, which isn’t going to be high quality, isn’t going to get past a metal detector unless it’s loaded with plastic/nonmetallic bullets. Even if I made my own gun out of metal it wouldn’t be a big deal to carry it anywhere I wanted. I can carry preferred concealed carry pistol pretty much everywhere I want, outside of going to the county courthouse or boarding a commercial flight I’m not passing through any metal detectors.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/01 00:56:42
While I disagree with Prestor Jon a lot, he does bring up a valid point that the core issue to be fixed is congressional representation. That being fixed should (hopefully) lead to improving the EC. There should be a greater push to re balance congress. A representative should have equal weight everywhere. Small states are already represented in the Senate.
Wolfblade wrote: Because that's what you started out with. I"t's not the EC's fault that it's terrible, it's Congress's!" Great, doesn't matter. The EC sucks, and is only in place to circumvent the actual will of the people.
FWIW I think you are mischaracterizing his statements. When he pointed out that it was a failing of Congress to address it, he wasn't endorsing it, either.
I agree the EC sucks, and is an archaic relic that should be replaced, or at least side-stepped with proportional apportionment. "Why should a handful of states be more represented" is a pretty gakky argument, because 100 million people don't live in Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Wyoming.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I agree with the video that having free electors allows the EC to sabotage democratic elections, granting the Electors the ability to do so also passively encourages it. However, the mere fact that we vote for Electors instead of directly for candidates is not anti republic or anti democratic.
Democracy means "rule of the people" (from the Greek words 'demos' and 'kratia'), not "rule of the elite chosen by the people". The electoral college most certainly is an antidemocratic institution, because it is a form of elite rule designed to keep the people out of the actual decision-making process (which is like, the literal definition of anti-democratic). Choosing which elite is going to make all important decisions for you doesn't make those decisions democratic. No country in the world is an actual, full democracy, all countries that are often referred to as democracies are in fact hybrid forms of autocratic government systems with democratic elements (a polyarchy). But there is definitely differences in how much different countries incorporate democratic elements. And the US is pretty far down on the low end of that scale, because in most cases it has incorporated democratic elements only very indirectly. Making presidential and other elections direct would go a long way towards improving democracy in the US.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/01 01:25:36
Anticipation builds for report on FBI’s Clinton probe
Conservatives on Capitol Hill are anxiously awaiting the imminent release of a report from the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general scrutinizing the law enforcement agency’s handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
A spate of recent press reports suggesting that the document will be critical of top DOJ brass has raised expectations among some of President Trump’s most ardent defenders that it will provide fuel for an ongoing broadside against the department.
Congress will likely not see the document until shortly before it is made public on Thursday, with its official conclusions remaining the subject of intense speculation until then.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s probe has already exposed two incidents that Republican lawmakers say show malfeasance at the DOJ.
In April, Horowitz issued a scathing report on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, alleging that he authorized a leak to the media in order to “advance his personal interests” and then misled internal investigators about the matter.
It was also an internal referral from Horowitz that led to the public exposure of text messages between counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page. Those messages, which were critical of Trump and other political figures during the 2016 presidential campaign, have been a lightning rod among figures on the right.
Horowitz will almost immediately have to face Congress to defend his conclusions, with the inspector general scheduled to appear in a pair of back-to-back hearings early next week.
Although Horowitz himself is widely seen by lawmakers from both parties as nonpartisan and fair, his report is almost certain to become a political football in the ongoing fight over the department’s conduct in the lead-up to the 2016 election.
How he evaluates controversial decisions made by former FBI Director James Comey will be one of the most closely read portions of the report on Thursday.
Comey in particular has been in the crosshairs of Trump allies, who see him as Exhibit A that the bureau was biased against Trump during the election. The president has branded him a “liar,” a “leaker” and a “nut job.”
“I think the report of Horowitz, the [inspector general], and the Justice Department will confirm that Comey acted improperly with regard to the Hillary Clinton investigation,” Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani said in a recent interview with New York radio host John Catsimatidis.
“Comey, really, has a chance of being prosecuted as a result of [this report], but we’ll see,” Giuliani said.
After his firing, Comey outraged conservatives when he gave contemporaneous memos documenting his interactions with the president to a close friend so they would be shared with the media.
Comey said he released the memos with the hope that they would spur the appointment of a special counsel to oversee the bureau’s probe into the Trump campaign and Russia.
There is no evidence that those disclosures breached the law in any way, with Comey himself maintaining in a heated Fox News interview in April that the release did not constitute a “leak.”
Comey has also released a memoir harshly critical of the president since his dismissal in May 2017, a firing that eventually led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to lead the federal probe into Russia’s election meddling.
Democrats argue that by speaking publicly about eleventh-hour developments in the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while serving as secretary of State — while not revealing the probe into Trump’s campaign during the election — Comey avoided any whiff of bias against Trump.
Horowitz’s report is widely expected to address the unusual public disclosures Comey made during the course of the Clinton investigation, including informing Congress just days before the 2016 election that he was effectively reopening the probe.
Comey has maintained that since he already informed Congress as part of another public announcement in July 2016 that the probe was finished, he was obligated to inform them that the bureau had uncovered additional, potentially relevant evidence.
Both moves bucked a powerful bureau norm that the law enforcement agency should not take any steps that might influence an election. Some press reports have also suggested that Comey will be criticized by the inspector general for going outside of the normal departmental chain of command.
In his memoir, Comey also expressed regret that he did not order the review of that evidence — emails found on a laptop of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), the ex-husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin — until almost a month after it was first mentioned to him that the computer “might have some connection to the Clinton email case.”
“I’ve also asked myself a hundred times whether I should have pressed for faster action after hearing something about Weiner’s laptop around the beginning of October,” Comey wrote. “But I did not understand what it meant until October 27.”
Although Comey has become a hero for some on the left since his dismissal by Trump last year, he was widely criticized by Democrats immediately following the election for the disclosure about the additional emails, which Clinton believes cost her the election.
Horowitz’s report is not expected to cover an ancillary investigation, demanded by Republicans, assessing whether the DOJ acted inappropriately when it obtained a surveillance warrant for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
And it remains an open question whether Horowitz will merely issue a critical assessment — or whether he will go so far as to recommend charges against any DOJ officials.
Horowitz in the spring issued a criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., related to McCabe.
McCabe’s lawyer, Michael Bromwich, called it “unjustified” at the time and said “the standard for an [inspector general] referral is very low.”
Referrals don’t guarantee charges will be brought or require prosecutors to act in any way.
Going to be lots of political footballing on both sides for sure...
The report will make absolutely no difference.
President Trump will, as he is wont to do, deliberately, directly and dishonestly lie about the findings of the investigation.
It will then be repeated by Fox News on a 24-hour cycle.
Uninformed and ignorant (and proud of it) Republicans will uncritically swallow it, repeat it (while being completely impervious to opposing evidence) and wonder why nothing it being done and why no one is being arrested, tried for treason and hanged or shot (this will be seen as the machinations of the Deep State, and not the more parsimonious solution of President Trump and Fox News simply being full of gak).
If anybody should find this prediction unrealistic, just look at the previous Benghazi investigations, the Nunes memo and the recently released FISA warrant papers. for examples of this behaviour.
.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/01 02:07:30
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts. 
18.000 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.000