Jump to content

ulukinatme

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1579
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ulukinatme

  1. Sorry, it's hard to glean a rational point with a statement like "30 years of a GOP-free presidency in the future is the ideal scenario." As I mentioned in the above reply to elfenix, I do agree that the EC has probably caused the current political climate and the imbalance from a campaign perspective. If you were to eliminate the EC that doesn't necessarily mean decades of Democrat prosperity. Campaigns would evolve along with the parties to combat the change. Party policy would drastically change to reach new voters since the voters would have the ultimate power. Republicans would be stumping in Cali and New York, Dems in the Midwest and Texas. It certainly would be interesting to see how it shakes out, but that's exactly why I don't think either side will push for it. I think they're fine with the existing system. The last time Congress seriously tried to abolish the Electoral College was about 50 years ago. The proposal was shut down in the Senate by both Democrats and Republicans in smaller states that felt like their voice wouldn't be heard. So, for better or worse, I think we're stuck with the existing system until something drastic changes.
  2. Just saw your other post after it was edited. It makes sense that over 90% of the campaign events are held in a handful of states. It's a complex problem though, and you're right, it's probably been caused by the Electoral College itself. When certain states vote consistently from election to election, it means candidates from the opposing party see little reason to spend time and resources in that location. As a result, over time that state probably leans further and further in one direction. I'm sure there's other factors involved. Nevertheless, eliminating the Electoral College would mean a change to campaign tactics. It certainly would even out campaign stops. Trump would have focused more in places like California and New York, while Hillary would have spent more time in Texas and the Midwest. Further though, you would see a huge shift in party politics. There would be drastic policy changes by both sides to bring in new voters and not just stump for their existing base. It would completely change politics in the US. That's why I don't see them ever removing the EC, both sides are fairly well entrenched it seems.
  3. I'm just saying that something like 8 states make up almost half of the electoral college votes. If you were to update the available EC votes by population, then California would end up with an even greater voting power than they already possess. They already own over 10% of the electoral college votes. We can eliminate the Electoral College, but that doesn't mean one party or the other is definitely going to win the election. What would happen is you would see candidates hitting the trail in places and states they don't normally go, strategies would change. The EC has been shown to be fairly balanced from regime to regime, anyone advocating for change is simply pandering to their side.
  4. Is this the college educated party we've all been hearing about?
  5. That's fairly accurate, if not for the swing states then who knows. I guess I should have said "You can't allow a few states to further monopolize the election."
  6. Sure, forget half the country for 30 years, I'm sure that'll be balanced and work out great for long term posterity. There may not always be a deficit, but we're always going to be in debt. You can fight it with reduced spending and increased taxes, but eventually you need some tax breaks to even out the system and help provide some economic stimulus. I'll admit that it's been rather out of control over the last 10-15 years, but we've seen a number of extenuating circumstances that led to the current situation. As far as advocating for less balance between the parties in Presidential elections, I'm not sure it would go as you think it would. Consider the most recent election. Much of middle America felt left behind by the current establishment and decided to blow up the system with a vote for Trump. Votes for Trump were a cry from the forgotten man. Oddly enough, Michael Moore described it best: If we had a number of consecutive terms with one party in control of the White House, you would certainly find one side or group feeling forgotten. You can't please all the people all the time. It would lead to disenfranchised voters that would eventually rise up to bring balance to the system. That's one of the very reasons why the elections have been so balanced for the last 30+ years. The Electoral College is there to help keep a balance. Does anyone really think that California, or Texas, or New York need more power in Presidential elections? You can't allow a few states to monopolize the election. What this all boils down to is the last election and Hillary overlooking the Midwest swing states. She thought places like Michigan and Wisconsin that voted with Obama in 2012 would stay with her, so she didn't spend enough time there. She garnered 900,000 more votes in California than Obama, but any time or resources spent there were essentially wasted. If she understood how the Electoral College worked we wouldn't be having this discussion. Likewise, if the popular vote was the deciding factor, you would have seen Trump campaigning more in California and New York and he might have had more votes as a result.
  7. In the last 30+ years it's been fairly balanced from a Presidential standpoint though. Other than George Bush Senior's first and only term up against Raegen's, it's been 2 terms for one party, then 2 terms for the other party, and so on. If anything, we're more balanced as a society with the way the elections have gone under the electoral college. Can you imagine 30 years of strictly Democrat Presidents? It might be your dream scenario, but that's not good for the country.
  8. Don't you think your time would be better spent not trying to get banned again? Seems like an awful way to enjoy this golden age with Trump as President.
  9. https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/03/25/democrats-demand-full-mueller-report-trump-says-that-wouldn-bother-all/ZRUc1as3Qsw5y3UHEtg4tM/story.html Yeah, probably isn't in their best interest to withhold anything, but legally they may still have to because of the grand jury testimony.
  10. Yup, I agree, and maybe that's why Trump is advocating to have the full thing released. You would think if there was something damning in there he would want it kept sealed, but if it's no more than we already know it's probably in his best interest to let them have the whole thing.
  11. What you think, and what will happen, are two different things though. Based on the WaPo and Vox articles it'll be a partial report. That could very well change if they get the go ahead to release the confidential testimony, or it goes to the Supreme Court and they give the go ahead, but that remains to be seen.
  12. I'm sorry, I am stupid after all. Are you able to refute the statement though? You also seemed to think that the Judiciary committee would receive the full report, without question. As it stands it looks like they'll get a partial report unless the Dems subpoena and the Supreme Court gives the okay. I'm guessing you can't provide evidence otherwise, which is why you chose to hang your hat on my faux pas instead.
  13. Damn, you're just so smart...I'm powerless... I have not seen anything that suggests the public, let alone the Judiciary committee, will get the full and unaltered report. They can subpoena to have the full report released, but that doesn't mean they're going to get it. It would go to the Supreme Court for a decision, and I can only imagine how that would go. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-much-of-the-mueller-report-will-the-public-see--and-when/2019/03/24/43a2ccc2-4e65-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3134b7754f8f If you can find information that says otherwise, I'd like to see it because so far all I've seen is they'll probably get a partial report once Mueller decides what information can be released legally. Otherwise, maybe you should quit believing what MSNBC feeds you.
  14. They're certainly going to get at least a partial report, but until they're granted a release the full report will likely have to wait: But if Trump is signaling that he's fine with the full thing getting released, maybe it'll happen and they can fast track it. That doesn't bode well for the dems though if Trump is willing to have the full thing unleashed.
  15. You do realize they're never going to get the full report, right? They've already said that certain confidential parts can't be released by law, so at best they're going to get a partial report. The Dems and the media know that, but they keep saying "Full report!" Why? Because it's just one more thing they can add to the witch hunt by saying "They're hiding something, we didn't get the full report!" Another low for them.
  16. To be fair, a lot of the media doesn't understand their role these days either.
  17. Sorry, I don't bother with media that puts their own spin on things. Don't do Fox, CNN, MSNCB, etc. I stick to Reuters.
  18. Yeah, it's completely out of line to ask that the media provide factual information, as well as have sources and evidence to back up their bogus claims. But yeah, we should totally just believe what the media tells us cause...reasons. Journalistic integrity be damned.
  19. But...but...how else could she have lost to the bad Orange man?! Those stupid moderates were all conned by the Russians!
×
×
  • Create New...