2020 Election

[*Nately120*]

I'm finally getting around to Trump's press conference from last evening and lordy loo is this guy good at making excuses. He actually reminds me of back in the day when I was playing Mortal Kombat against my little cousin who insisted on playing and every time I'd beat him as soon as his guy hit the ground and the round was over he'd exclaim "I won!"

Ah well. Looks like we're talking about popular vote in this thread.

I WON.

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2020, 02:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm finally getting around to Trump's press conference from last evening and lordy loo is this guy good at making excuses.  He actually reminds me of back in the day when I was playing Mortal Kombat against my little cousin who insisted on playing and every time I'd beat him as soon as his guy hit the ground and the round was over he'd exclaim "I won!"

Ah well.  Looks like we're talking about popular vote in this thread.

I WON.

I blame myself. I posed a scenario to challenge the straight popular vote proposal. 

As to your point. I've not seen; nor do I need to. The rebuke I've seen from both sides tells me all I need to know. Pence and his cabinet need to remove him from office until the count is complete if he cannot handle it maturely. 

[Dill]

(11-06-2020, 12:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This argument makes no sense to me. I don't really see the logic in it.



I'm going to kind of address these both (and some other posts) in this way. We have a federalist system, yes. However, our federalist system is not a neat and tidy straight line system like they teach in high school government. Federalism is a mess. It has evolved over the years from dual federalism at the founding to things like marble cake, picket fence, etc. The point here is that federalism is messy and isn't really what most people think it is.

The biggest thing to keep in mind with this, though, is that the federal government grew. It grew in the Progressive era and then under FDR it became the bureaucracy we all know and love. The role of the POTUS is to run this government, this federal bureaucracy, and represent it around the world. The president is not in charge of the governors, they're not in charge of the states in any way, really. The president is in charge of the federal bureaucracy which is a government of, by, and for the people of this country. Not the states; the people. The EC was a compromise from the start and it had some value among a citizenry that was never going to hear or see the POTUS because it was a far-away figure. But in the modern era, with our modern government, those truths are no longer there. The EC is an antiquated system that does nothing but over-complicates our elections and makes our system less representative of the people. The majority in both major parties as well as independents knew this prior to 2016.

But does the EC make our system less representative of states? That is a question still important to me.

That our federal system is not what we learned in high school, and/or is messy, has changed over time etc., is not in itself reason to weaken state power vis a vis federal. 

And it still seems to me that going directly to a popular vote for the Exec would create a serious imbalance in power between rural and urban STATES.  For me its about THAT and not whether a farmer's individual vote counts more than a city dweller's. 

I am happy that so-called NATIONAL parties must pay attention to small "battleground" states every election. 

As I said in a previous post, when people are asking why an individual farmer's vote in North Dakota should count more than an individual bank teller in New York City, it seems to me they have simply erased the dual system and are regarding the US as a French/Japanese-style unitary government. Unfair that Arturo's vote should count more than a Parisian's. So it's unfair if a North Dakota farmer's vote count's more than the NY bank teller's, but perfectly fair if a load of Caly/NY votes opens a public lands in ND to strip mining.

I don't claim to have this all sorted out. I am still pondering comparisons with other federal systems comprising regional governments with strong, distinct identities, and powers protected from the central gov. (e.g. Germany and Switzerland) and so, in theory, am open to dissuasion.

[GMDino]

So here we are.

In 2016 some Democrats fretted and complained about outside interference and misinformation campaigns but I don't think any major, national players claimed the entire vote was rigged and fraudulent because Trump won.

Trump complained that he WOULD have won the popular vote if it wasn't for all the fraud.  Fraud that the Republicans formed a committee to prove...and came up empty.

Then for four years we're told the popular vote doesn't matter...Trump won the EC and Democrats should find a safe place and quit crying. 


Now, today, Trump is losing both the popular vote and the EC (not certified yet) and BOTH are frauds.  Everything about the process is bad, filled with cheating and "unfair".

The GOP supported a whiney man-child for four years plus and he hasn't changed one bit.

This isn't gloating about anything because nothing is final yet.

This is about when or if those who blindly supported Trump and those who held their nose and supported Trump will ever come back to reality or not.

[masterpanthera_t]

(11-06-2020, 02:59 PM)Dill Wrote:
But does the EC make our system less representative of states? That is a question still important to me.

That our federal system is not what we learned in high school, and/or is messy, has changed over time etc., is not in itself reason to weaken state power vis a vis federal. 

And it still seems to me that going directly to a popular vote for the Exec would create a serious imbalance in power between rural and urban STATES.  For me its about THAT and not whether a farmer's individual vote counts more than a city dweller's. 

I am happy that so-called NATIONAL parties must pay attention to small "battleground" states every election. 

As I said in a previous post, when people are asking why an individual farmer's vote in North Dakota should count more than an individual bank teller in New York City, it seems to me they have simply erased the dual system and are regarding the US as a French/Japanese-style unitary government. Unfair that Arturo's vote should count more than a Parisian's. So it's unfair if a North Dakota farmer's vote count's more than the NY bank teller's, but perfectly fair if a load of Caly/NY votes opens a public lands in ND to strip mining.

I don't claim to have this all sorted out. I am still pondering comparisons with other federal systems comprising regional governments with strong, distinct identities, and powers protected from the central gov. (e.g. Germany and Switzerland) and so, in theory, am open to dissuasion.

My response is going to be unfairly brief for the points you bring up, but I believe the answers lie in BmorePat's responses to similar points earlier in the thread. Basically, he argues for doing away winner take all so that individual votes within a state carry a proportional weight within the state, but NOT doing away the EC, so that states still maintain a voice in the election of the President. Along with equal representation baked into the Senate, this gives a fair weightage to all citizens from all states. But the key lies in abolishing winner take all. Correct me if I've misrepresented your position Pat.

EDIT: Other points regarding different versions of government, I'm ignoring because that is not something in which I'm well versed.

[hollodero]

(11-06-2020, 02:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're saying the quiet part out loud.

Well, someone has to.

I think it was the pretty antiliberal user Just-win-baby that in a discussion like this at least flat out admitted that votes from rural areas should count more for cities have bocome liberal echochambers that usurp people's ability of individual thought, or something along these lines. 

At least that's more honest than the weird points made here in avoidance to state the obvious reason.

[Belsnickel]

(11-06-2020, 02:59 PM)Dill Wrote:
But does the EC make our system less representative of states? That is a question still important to me.

That our federal system is not what we learned in high school, and/or is messy, has changed over time etc., is not in itself reason to weaken state power vis a vis federal. 

And it still seems to me that going directly to a popular vote for the Exec would create a serious imbalance in power between rural and urban STATES.  For me its about THAT and not whether a farmer's individual vote counts more than a city dweller's. 

I am happy that so-called NATIONAL parties must pay attention to small "battleground" states every election. 

As I said in a previous post, when people are asking why an individual farmer's vote in North Dakota should count more than an individual bank teller in New York City, it seems to me they have simply erased the dual system and are regarding the US as a French/Japanese-style unitary government. Unfair that Arturo's vote should count more than a Parisian's. So it's unfair if a North Dakota farmer's vote count's more than the NY bank teller's, but perfectly fair if a load of Caly/NY votes opens a public lands in ND to strip mining.

I don't claim to have this all sorted out. I am still pondering comparisons with other federal systems comprising regional governments with strong, distinct identities, and powers protected from the central gov. (e.g. Germany and Switzerland) and so, in theory, am open to dissuasion.

To answer the main question: no. The reason for this is that states are represented in Congress. If the executive branch moves to strip mine public lands in North Dakota, then the Representatives and Senators from North Dakota have the option to stop those actions by working for a legislative check on those actions. That's how the system is supposed to work.

As it stands, national parties ONLY pay attention to battleground states. They don't spend money or visit places where they don't see any real path to victory. In fact, a national popular vote provides more incentive to visit more states because every vote gained in any state matters. There are Democratic and Republican voters in every state, but some of them get ignored by their party because they are outnumbered.

All-in-all, I think going to a national popular vote would actually help Congress take back some of its power that it has given up to the executive. I think forcing states to act out their interests on Capitol Hill would mean that we could end up with a better functioning Congress.

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2020, 03:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, someone has to.

I think it was the pretty antiliberal user Just-win-baby that in a discussion like this at least flat out admitted that votes from rural areas should count more for cities have bocome liberal echochambers that usurp people's ability of individual thought, or something along these lines. 

At least that's more honest than the weird points made here in avoidance to state the obvious reason.

They're probably afraid of being called racist

[*Nately120*]

(11-06-2020, 03:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: So here we are.

In 2016 some Democrats fretted and complained about outside interference and misinformation campaigns but I don't think any major, national players claimed the entire vote was rigged and fraudulent because Trump won.

Trump complained that he WOULD have won the popular vote if it wasn't for all the fraud.  Fraud that the Republicans formed a committee to prove...and came up empty.

Then for four years we're told the popular vote doesn't matter...Trump won the EC and Democrats should find a safe place and quit crying. 


Now, today, Trump is losing both the popular vote and the EC (not certified yet) and BOTH are frauds.  Everything about the process is bad, filled with cheating and "unfair".

The GOP supported a whiney man-child for four years plus and he hasn't changed one bit.

This isn't gloating about anything because nothing is final yet.

This is about when or if those who blindly supported Trump and those who held their nose and supported Trump will ever come back to reality or not.

Don't forget this from February of 2016....


Donald Trump claims Ted Cruz 'stole' Iowa caucuses and calls for new election
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/03/donald-trump-ted-cruz-stole-iowa-caucuses-new-election


So has Trump ever been involved with any sort of vote where he hasn't claimed that it was rigged?

[Brownshoe]

(11-06-2020, 01:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Can you give me some examples?

Getting rid of fracking would kill a lot of states. North Dakota benefits greatly from fracking. They fund free college education because of their fracking. A big portion of their jobs and economy is fracking.

Estate taxes hurt farmers, because farms mostly stay in a family. Farms don't make much money, but the land is worth a lot. So when a farm is given to a descendent the land might be worth hundred of thousands of dollars (maybe even millions), but because farmers don't make very much at all they can't afford to keep it. I don't really oppose all estate tax in the most part, but when it comes to farmers (who don't make much) have to pay TONS for property that's already paid off by there family is pretty ridiculous.

The 2015 Obama "Clean water act" update hurt farmers because it made streams federal property and made it hard to use the streams on their property to irrigate their crops and supply water to their cattle. Sure, that would help people in big cities by claiming all streams as federal property, but it doesn't help farmers at all.


You can't govern all of America the same, because we have different problems. One solution in one area could cause a big problem in another. That's why each state needs a voice. That's why each state votes for who they want to elect. That's why popular vote isn't the best option in our massive country. It might work in other smaller countries (like European countries that are the size of a state, and all of Europe is just barely bigger than the USA), but this is a big country with a lot of different problems.

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2020, 03:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: So here we are.

In 2016 some Democrats fretted and complained about outside interference and misinformation campaigns but I don't think any major, national players claimed the entire vote was rigged and fraudulent because Trump won.

Trump complained that he WOULD have won the popular vote if it wasn't for all the fraud.  Fraud that the Republicans formed a committee to prove...and came up empty.

Then for four years we're told the popular vote doesn't matter...Trump won the EC and Democrats should find a safe place and quit crying. 


Now, today, Trump is losing both the popular vote and the EC (not certified yet) and BOTH are frauds.  Everything about the process is bad, filled with cheating and "unfair".

The GOP supported a whiney man-child for four years plus and he hasn't changed one bit.

This isn't gloating about anything because nothing is final yet.

This is about when or if those who blindly supported Trump and those who held their nose and supported Trump will ever come back to reality or not.

Is it fair to say that Trump's claims of stolen election is more rebuked by members of his own party than members of Clinton's party rebuked Russian collusion claims?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-06-2020, 02:43 PM)Nately120 Wrote: SIde note, how can Trump brag up how well the republicans did with the senate vote but also talk about how the whole voting measures this time were ultra-fraudulent?

Because he’s a victim.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-06-2020, 02:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No; it has to do with cyclical rate of fire weapons expert. 

There is a significant difference between making a mistake and admitting I used the wrong term as I did and intentionally telling lie, after lie, after lie about three different college courses you never took in order to introduce white nationalist propaganda about the scientific definition of race as you did. But, I understand the need for your charade. Which is another reason why my vote should count 27,000 times more than yours.

Also the maximum rate of fire for an M4 is the same whether it is correctly termed cyclic as you corrected my mistaken use of cyclical. Would you like to tell me that rate or are you still too chickenshit to answer?

[GMDino]

(11-06-2020, 03:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is it fair to say that Trump's claims of stolen election is more rebuked by members of his own party than members of Clinton's party rebuked Russian collusion claims?

Is it?

I mean maybe we can say it...maybe not.

We can say that there was Russian interference even if, as Mueller said, the Trumps weren't smart enough to actually be colluding with them.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(11-06-2020, 03:44 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Getting rid of fracking would kill a lot of states. North Dakota benefits greatly from fracking. They fund free college education because of their fracking. A big portion of their jobs and economy is fracking.

Estate taxes hurt farmers, because farms mostly stay in a family. Farms don't make much money, but the land is worth a lot. So when a farm is given to a descendent the land might be worth hundred of thousands of dollars (maybe even millions), but because farmers don't make very much at all they can't afford to keep it. I don't really oppose all estate tax in the most part, but when it comes to farmers (who don't make much) have to pay TONS for property that's already paid off by there family is pretty ridiculous.

The 2015 Obama "Clean water act" update hurt farmers because it made streams federal property and made it hard to use the streams on their property to irrigate their crops and supply water to their cattle. Sure, that would help people in big cities by claiming all streams as federal property, but it doesn't help farmers at all.


You can't govern all of America the same, because we have different problems. One solution in one area could cause a big problem in another. That's why each state needs a voice. That's why each state votes for who they want to elect. That's why popular vote isn't the best option in our massive country. It might work in other smaller countries (like European countries that are the size of a state, and all of Europe is just barely bigger than the USA), but this is a big country with a lot of different problems.

How? I don't see how that would help ANYONE lol, but it will help the environment remain cleaner and less-touched; yes, it may put out said farmers, but perhaps they can show cause as to why they are using said stream and apply for a permit/injunction/whatever to get the use of it back?

[GMDino]

(11-06-2020, 02:43 PM)Nately120 Wrote: SIde note, how can Trump brag up how well the republicans did with the senate vote but also talk about how the whole voting measures this time were ultra-fraudulent?

(11-06-2020, 03:47 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Because he’s a victim.

Yep.

Trump is literally what conservatives were talking about creating with the "everybody gets a trophy" complaints for years now.  Duded was never told he lost anything and now he has no idea how to handle it.  At 74 years old.

[fredtoast]

(11-06-2020, 03:44 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Getting rid of fracking would kill a lot of states. North Dakota benefits greatly from fracking. They fund free college education because of their fracking. A big portion of their jobs and economy is fracking.

Fracking has also caused a 900% increase in earthquakes in Oklahoma.  This is not a crazy internet claim.  It is ytrue and even the oil companies have admitted it.

(11-06-2020, 03:44 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Estate taxes hurt farmers, because farms mostly stay in a family. Farms don't make much money, but the land is worth a lot. So when a farm is given to a descendent the land might be worth hundred of thousands of dollars (maybe even millions), but because farmers don't make very much at all they can't afford to keep it. I don't really oppose all estate tax in the most part, but when it comes to farmers (who don't make much) have to pay TONS for property that's already paid off by there family is pretty ridiculous.

 

If a farmer can not afford to pay the taxes on a farm he gets FOR FREE then he does not deserve to own a farm.  Also all gain of value (capital gains) is TAX FREE when a farmer inherits a $10 million dollar farm his daddy bought for $200K.  

It cracks me up when farmers start crying about having to pay inheritance taxes in order to get millions of dollars of property FOR FREE.


People who have to work to get millions of dollars have to pay taxes on that income.  Why shouldn't people who get millions of dollars of property for free also have to pay taxes on it.

(11-06-2020, 03:44 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: The 2015 Obama "Clean water act" update hurt farmers because it made streams federal property and made it hard to use the streams on their property to irrigate their crops and supply water to their cattle. Sure, that would help people in big cities by claiming all streams as federal property, but it doesn't help farmers at all.

The clean water act did nothing for people who live in cities.  What it did was help make sure the farmers who needed the water from these streams were not poisoning there crops or live stock with pollution.

(11-06-2020, 03:44 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: One solution in one area could cause a big problem in another.

Exactly.  And that is why we have a federal government to do what is best for THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.  Each state is free to elect whoever thy want for their own state.  BUt when it comes to electing a President who is responsible for the entire nation the votes of people in less populated states should not count more than the people from more populated states..   

There are lots of decisions that effect different parts of the country different ways, but when deciding what is bets for the entire country the vote of each individual should count the same.

[*Nately120*]

SIde note, if these expected results hold that will up the win/loss record of main party tickets with women on them to 1-3, correct?

[fredtoast]

(11-06-2020, 03:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is it fair to say that Trump's claims of stolen election is more rebuked by members of his own party than members of Clinton's party rebuked Russian collusion claims?

I don't recall any Democrats filing lawsuits after the Meuller Report was released or claiming that Meuller was a crook who just fabricated the evidence in his report.  Most Democrats accepted the fact that Meuller could not confirm that Trump colluded with the Russians when the interfered with our election.

But I still hear Republicans claim that the entire investigation that proved Russian interference in the 2016 election was just a "hoax" fabricated by Democrats.

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2020, 04:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't recall any Democrats filing lawsuits after the Meuller Report was released or claiming that Meuller was a crook who just fabricated the evidence in his report.  Most Democrats accepted the fact that Meuller could not confirm that Trump colluded with the Russians when the interfered with our election.

But I still hear Republicans claim that the entire investigation that proved Russian interference in the 2016 election was just a "hoax" fabricated by Democrats.

I just asked if it were a fair statement. 

I'll take that as a long know. 

Personally I'm happy to see some people in positions of authority on the Right are calling Trump on his rhetoric