***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[son nelly]

They already know why though, unconstitutional GOP gerrymandering as well as attacks on voting rights in swing states. There's a reason why it's only been the Dems who seem to get screwed over by the current voting system...

Areas of high economic output like the coastal states should justifiably have more of a say than small agricultural states imo. There's no logical reason why a vote in Wyoming holds more weight than one in Cali,the state that'd be the worlds 6th largest economy on its own

But they do have a say. The Dems have a iron lock on 2 of the 3 highest weighted states with the 4th being a swing state, which they used to crush the Republicans with Obama. NOW its a problem when it doesn't work out.

A straight popular vote prioritizes high popularity cities without considering that their issues are different and don't represent the entire county just the like the smaller states don't. Its about popularity and distribution.

 

[AEA18]

Hey ninja, you said the stock market is going to rise up and the economy will be good when trumponomics takes effect, what stocks would you invest in?

should've jumped on da coal joints when they were damn near penny stocks.

Have you invested in any of those coal stocks?

Nah but he invested in getting da Cuban b

 

[Belgium]

that myth about "Majority of top science" been blown along time ago.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html

them first 100 days gonna have them feels flowing

The 97% figure is misleading. That does not change the fact that the vast majority of top scientists agree that climate change is real and is extremely likely to be influenced by humans.

And you can look at as many scientific polls you want for that, you'll see the same trend reflected.

Why do you think the Scientific American publication has been speaking out against Trump's anti-science rhetoric?

Or this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-scientists-idUSKCN11Q2PD

 
The 375 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel Prize winners, said in an open letter that a U.S. abandonment of the agreement would make it far harder to develop global strategies to lessen the impact of global warming.

"Thus it is of great concern that the Republican nominee for President has advocated U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord," the letter said.

"A 'Parexit' would send a clear signal to the rest of the world: 'The United States does not care about the global problem of human-caused climate change. You are on your own.'"

Among the signers are biologist E.O. Wilson, physicists Stephen Hawking and Claude Canizares, astrophysicist Simon D.M. White, and Nobel winners Thomas Steitz, Michael Levitt and William Daniel Phillips.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private society of scholars who advise the United States on science and technological matters. The signers of the letter said they did so as individuals and not on behalf of the Academy or their institutions.

The US would the be only country to not sign the Paris Accord if Trump goes through with his campaign promise. Think about that for a second.

 

[MVP]

Gerrymandering has a direct effect on congressional and state/local races.

Voter suppression has a direct impact on all types of races including the presidential. Exhibit A: Wisconsin.

Also 63% of the population does in fact live in cities and the surrounding suburbs, do we not want the majority of people to decide who's going to be the leader of our country?

 

[rolaholic]

I understand there is an effect on House races, but I'm asking for the Presidential election.

It doesn't effect the presidential race as much as local/congressional races (it's how the GOP dominates these elections) but it still allows for a lower number of competitive races which in effect,contributes to lower voter turnout/voter suppression

They already know why though, unconstitutional GOP gerrymandering as well as attacks on voting rights in swing states. There's a reason why it's only been the Dems who seem to get screwed over by the current voting system...


Areas of high economic output like the coastal states should justifiably have more of a say than small agricultural states imo. There's no logical reason why a vote in Wyoming holds more weight than one in Cali,the state that'd be the worlds 6th largest economy on its own

But they do have a say. The Dems have a iron lock on 2 of the 3 highest weighted states with the 4th being a swing state, which they used to crush the Republicans with Obama. NOW its a problem when it doesn't work out.

A straight popular vote prioritizes high popularity cities without considering that their issues are different and don't represent the entire county just the like the smaller states don't. Its about popularity and distribution.

Those votes don't even carry as much weight though ,if they were actually fairly distributed by population #'s, those states would have even more electoral votes and a bigger say in the election. Each voter should have the same voting power as any other voter in different states imo

 

[ninjahood]

 

They already know why though, unconstitutional GOP gerrymandering as well as attacks on voting rights in swing states. There's a reason why it's only been the Dems who seem to get screwed over by the current voting system...


Areas of high economic output like the coastal states should justifiably have more of a say than small agricultural states imo. There's no logical reason why a vote in Wyoming holds more weight than one in Cali,the state that'd be the worlds 6th largest economy on its own

But they do have a say. The Dems have a iron lock on 2 of the 3 highest weighted states with the 4th being a swing state, which they used to crush the Republicans with Obama. NOW its a problem when it doesn't work out.

A straight popular vote prioritizes high popularity cities without considering that their issues are different and don't represent the entire county just the like the smaller states don't. Its about popularity and distribution.

 

that myth about "Majority of top science" been blown along time ago.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html



them first 100 days gonna have them feels flowing

The 97% figure is misleading. That does not change the fact that the vast majority of top scientists agree that climate change is real and is extremely likely to be influenced by humans.
And you can look at as many scientific polls you want for that, you'll see the same trend reflected.
Why do you think the Scientific American publication has been speaking out against Trump's anti-science rhetoric?
Or this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-scientists-idUSKCN11Q2PD

 
The 375 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel Prize winners, said in an open letter that a U.S. abandonment of the agreement would make it far harder to develop global strategies to lessen the impact of global warming.
 
"Thus it is of great concern that the Republican nominee for President has advocated U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord," the letter said.
 
"A 'Parexit' would send a clear signal to the rest of the world: 'The United States does not care about the global problem of human-caused climate change. You are on your own.'"
 
Among the signers are biologist E.O. Wilson, physicists Stephen Hawking and Claude Canizares, astrophysicist Simon D.M. White, and Nobel winners Thomas Steitz, Michael Levitt and William Daniel Phillips.
 
The National Academy of Sciences is a private society of scholars who advise the United States on science and technological matters. The signers of the letter said they did so as individuals and not on behalf of the Academy or their institutions.

 

same reason sugar companies funded studies that implicated fat as being deadlier than sugar....its called government grants...alot of these folks

are out of a job without da government giving em a blank check to maintain their lifestyle.

 

[ninjahood]

Gerrymandering has a direct effect on congressional and state/local races.

Voter suppression has a direct impact on all types of races including the presidential. Exhibit A: Wisconsin.

except da fact that democrats knew this ahead of time of da 2010 midterm elections and still rammed a obamacare bill that basically sealed their fates.

to da winners go da spoils.

 

[RustyShackleford]

They already know why though, unconstitutional GOP gerrymandering as well as attacks on voting rights in swing states. There's a reason why it's only been the Dems who seem to get screwed over by the current voting system...


Areas of high economic output like the coastal states should justifiably have more of a say than small agricultural states imo. There's no logical reason why a vote in Wyoming holds more weight than one in Cali,the state that'd be the worlds 6th largest economy on its own

But they do have a say. The Dems have a iron lock on 2 of the 3 highest weighted states with the 4th being a swing state, which they used to crush the Republicans with Obama. NOW its a problem when it doesn't work out.

A straight popular vote prioritizes high popularity cities without considering that their issues are different and don't represent the entire county just the like the smaller states don't. Its about popularity and distribution.

it was a problem in 2000 as well. And high economics ares that lean liberal do not have enough say

And let us remember that the electoral College denies many citizens of the right to vote for President, and because of the Congressional freeze in the 1920s if gives way more power to smaller less populated startes. The same thing you saying popular vote would do by giving too much power to urban areas, already is happen but in the other direction.

And there are other things I could go into as to why it is not a good system to use

It is not just crying over spilled milk, their are problems with the Electoral College, and valid arguments why the system should be changed.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Gerrymandering has a direct effect on congressional and state/local races.

Voter suppression has a direct impact on all types of races including the presidential. Exhibit A: Wisconsin.

except da fact that democrats knew this ahead of time of da 2010 midterm elections and still rammed a obamacare bill that basically sealed their fates.

to da winners go da spoils.

The ACA beat a filllibuster and was debated for a year.

And now discriminatory gerryandering are spoils.

You having a cape on for white supremacy

 

[deleted]

Never in my life have I encountered a centrist who was so in love with right-wing bias

Prager University refers to Dennis Prager

I'll let y'all connect the dots

 

[son nelly]

It doesn't effect the presidential race as much as local/congressional races (it's how the GOP dominates these elections) but it still allows for a lower number of competitive races which in effect,contributes to lower voter turnout/voter suppression
Those votes don't even carry as much weight though ,if they were actually fairly distributed by population #'s, those states would have even more electoral votes and a bigger say in the election. Each voter should have the same voting power as any other voter in different states imo,the EC should be ridden at the state level at least

CA and NY alone get you over 30% of whats needed to win, and you wanna argue they need more? Its over 40% whenever the Dems get FL.

You realize that would not fly at all with the other states right? There's 50 of them. Its why the popular vote being the decider was not happening. They'd be more likely to come up with a new system than do that.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I understand there is an effect on House races, but I'm asking for the Presidential election.

By itself it would not have any affect other than if we went to a House vote for the president.

Combined with the fact we don't increase House seats with population growth and voter Suppression tactics, then it is very potent.

 

[whywesteppin]

"winner gets the spoils"

good. Hillary got 2 million more votes. what spoils does she get now?

 

[EddieDoyers]

Hey ninja, you said the stock market is going to rise up and the economy will be good when trumponomics takes effect, what stocks would you invest in?

should've jumped on da coal joints when they were damn near penny stocks.

Have you invested in any of those coal stocks?

Nah but he invested in getting da Cuban b

Funny how a guy who supports Trump hasn't invested in any of the policies that he wants to enact

 

[MVP]

It'll eventually change, when a modern GOP candidate wins the popular vote and losses the election.

The electoral college as is, a weighted system, either needs to be refined to actually reflect the weight of the states and the majority of the people or completely be abolished.

Also R.I.P. to our education system:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-betsy-devos-secretary-of-education/94346346/

 

[rico x hood]

Gerrymandering wouldn't be such a issue if democrats voted as much as republicans do. Especially during midterm elections.

 

[ninjahood]

Gerrymandering has a direct effect on congressional and state/local races.

Voter suppression has a direct impact on all types of races including the presidential. Exhibit A: Wisconsin.

except da fact that democrats knew this ahead of time of da 2010 midterm elections and still rammed a obamacare bill that basically sealed their fates.

to da winners go da spoils.

The ACA beat a filllibuster and was debated for a year.

umm it was passed thru reconcilation (simple majority with zero GOP votes)...stay fibbing b.

 

[00david00]

So we can dismiss gerrymandering, as far as a significant, direct, effect on the Presidential Election.

Then there is voter suppression, which is really a problem independent of the Electoral College. Whether we used the EC or national poll, voter suppression would be a problem. It is not unique to the EC.

--

What I'm trying to say, is that it is pointless to tie those points to the EC and use that to explain why HRC lost.

Everyone running knew how the EC works, and campaigned accordingly. They campaigned for the states they needed, not for the national poll. She lost because she couldn't win a single one of the swing states she needed, and even lost two of her own to the guy from the Apprentice.

--

As far as an argument on the merits of EC vs National poll, that's fine, I'm not trying to protect the EC. But pointing to her lead in the national is pointless because that's not what they campaigned for.

 

[MVP]

Gerrymandering wouldn't be such a issue if democrats voted as much as republicans do. Especially during midterm elections.

re-drawing the map so your area consists of a majority of your constituents and concentrating the Dems in specific area is not a big deal? You don't know how House elections work do you? rolaholic just posted the video on the previous page.

You want people to go vote outside their districts or something?

 

[rico x hood]

umm it was passed thru reconcilation (simple majority with zero GOP votes)...stay fibbing b.

Facts!! Budget reconciliation. A dubious legislative procedure. That's why so many people didn't know what was even in the bill.

 

[rico x hood]

re-drawing the map so your area consists of a majority of your constituents and concentrating the Dems in specific area is not a big deal? You don't know how House elections work do you? rolaholic just posted the video on the previous page.

You want people to go vote outside their districts or something?

The people in office draw the district maps. They're drawn in favor of republicans. Because republicans are elected into office. Why? Democrats have lower voter turnout. They don't care enough about local elections.

 

[ninjahood]

 

umm it was passed thru reconcilation (simple majority with zero GOP votes)...stay fibbing b.

Facts!! Budget reconciliation. A dubious legislative procedure. That's why so many people didn't know what was even in the bill.

da delicous irony now is Harry Reid eliminated da filibuster for executive appointments in da senate except for da supreme court, and now its bout to bite em right in da ***.  

 

[gry60]

This dude thinks Trump is in the business of spreading wealth....

Fam you gonna fall face flat on the ground

We're talking about a dude - Trump - who meets his lawyer and his lawyer's lawyer because there has to be a witness to avoid he-say-she-say situations.

 

[boris]

im batting a 1000. so far...i suggest u keep working on ur batter.

Guessing that people would vote for a pathological liar doesn't make you knowledgeable about business operations though.  

 

[ryda421]

that myth about "Majority of top science" been blown along time ago.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html



them first 100 days gonna have them feels flowing

you do know that prager is a D rider of the koch brothers? the koch brothers who are the biggest lobbyists for fossil fuel corporations? try again troll.

you have never been outside of the US. how would you know the impact of climate change? tell that to people in the marshall islands whose homes are being washed away by the rising water.

you are uneducated and ignorant it frustrates me that people with your unwillingness to change because you're so caught up in your material chase actually exist.