ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th September 2018, 10:39 PM   #121
llwyd
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 428
Corporations need to seize being persons and money needs to stop being free speech - if you give free reign to plutocrats, you will end up with plutocracy. Capital has a totally disproportinate say in US politics and this has ended up with corrupt pro-big business policies and reckless deregulation and weakening of oversight - and certainly not in pro-market structures and solutions (huge corporations are not friends to free competition).
llwyd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:04 AM   #122
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,139
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
No, more like all those predetermined super-delegates protected the party interests in nominating Hillary over Bernie.
She still got more normal delegates than he did. She would've won anyway.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:07 AM   #123
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,369
Originally Posted by llwyd View Post
Corporations need to seize being persons and money needs to stop being free speech - if you give free reign to plutocrats, you will end up with plutocracy. Capital has a totally disproportinate say in US politics and this has ended up with corrupt pro-big business policies and reckless deregulation and weakening of oversight - and certainly not in pro-market structures and solutions (huge corporations are not friends to free competition).
I agree that money should not equal free speech, however I don't see how fixing that prevents Trump.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:18 AM   #124
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,613
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I agree that money should not equal free speech, however I don't see how fixing that prevents Trump.
Trump's rise is thought to be caused in part by political stagnation. Lack of trust in modern politicians and their incrementalism whether the people were aware of it or not big money in politics played a big part in that. Turns out that decades-long balancing act between pleasing corporate interests and fighting for the people didn't turn out so great, and frustratingly enough, almost two years into Trump's term much of the DNC is still clueless.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:14 AM   #125
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,469
Most Americans didn't want Trump. Abolish the EC and problem solved.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:18 AM   #126
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,419
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Most Americans didn't want Trump. Abolish the EC and problem solved.
While I agree (100%, across the board) that that is the most obvious and logical solution, I really, really question the chances of it happening.

On the public level all the myths about the Electoral College (It protects rural areas, it protects small states from big states, without the EC all a candidate would do is jet between New York and LA and ignore everyone else...) are too well ingrained.

Arguably more important on the political level... the whole game from the candidate to the parties to poll taking to the political talking heads on TV to over 200 years of political strategy are all so entwined with the EC that getting rid of it would nearly require a total top down rebuilt of how we as a country do politics. Nobody in any power to get rid of the EC would have any reason to and every reason not to.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:21 AM   #127
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,973
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Most Americans didn't want Trump. Abolish the EC and problem solved.
Abolish the EC, and most Americans would probably vote very differently.

For sure candidates would campaign differently.

Last edited by theprestige; Yesterday at 08:22 AM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:23 AM   #128
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,469
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Abolish the EC, and most Americans would probably vote very differently.
That's bizarre. What does the EC have to do with whether you support a candidate or not? The EC had no influence on my voting for Clinton.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:24 AM   #129
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,469
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
While I agree (100%, across the board) that that is the most obvious and logical solution, I really, really question the chances of it happening.

On the public level all the myths about the Electoral College (It protects rural areas, it protects small states from big states, without the EC all a candidate would do is jet between New York and LA and ignore everyone else...) are too well ingrained.

Arguably more important on the political level... the whole game from the candidate to the parties to poll taking to the political talking heads on TV to over 200 years of political strategy are all so entwined with the EC that getting rid of it would nearly require a total top down rebuilt of how we as a country do politics. Nobody in any power to get rid of the EC would have any reason to and every reason not to.
Yeah, I agree with this. The chances are nil, for now. Still, it would have prevented Trump. Eventually, city populations will overtake rural populations to such an extent, the EC will be abolished. But by that time, the EC won't be able to let someone like Trump lose the popular vote and crawl across the finish line.

Last edited by Fudbucker; Yesterday at 08:25 AM.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:34 AM   #130
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,419
Well I have no love for Trump but I'm not a huge fan of the "Anything we do to prevent another Trump is justified" mentality, not the least of which is things we did to prevent "A Trump" (like the EC) are largely what got us "The Trump."

Trump is bad, but he's not "break the system and rebuilt it bad."

I do agree that, unless demographic turn an almost 180 turn, within a few elections cycles the population of the US will be so urban-centered as to make the EC meaningless anyway.

But thePrestige does make a point. This is all new territory. Nobody knows for sure if getting rid of the EC, or some other major shakeup in the political process is really going to effect the voter base.

Like I said the entire "game" is setup for the ~40% of voters who bother to vote, and the very small percent of that ~40% that don't vote a straight party ticket. Neither party has any motivation to upset that apple card.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:36 AM   #131
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,369
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
Trump's rise is thought to be caused in part by political stagnation. Lack of trust in modern politicians and their incrementalism whether the people were aware of it or not big money in politics played a big part in that. Turns out that decades-long balancing act between pleasing corporate interests and fighting for the people didn't turn out so great, and frustratingly enough, almost two years into Trump's term much of the DNC is still clueless.
Seems nebulous, plus the rise of populists in the past (Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long) would seem to discount your thesis.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:40 AM   #132
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,419
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Seems nebulous, plus the rise of populists in the past (Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long) would seem to discount your thesis.
But that's the question isn't it?

Jackson, Bryan, and Long all at least got elected, largely based on some variation of some kind of populist message.

The question of Trump's staying power is still up in the air.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:41 AM   #133
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,880
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
That's bizarre. What does the EC have to do with whether you support a candidate or not? The EC had no influence on my voting for Clinton.
More people showing up to vote?

Last edited by BobTheCoward; Yesterday at 08:44 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:46 AM   #134
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,469
I actually think the election of Trump was a necessary evil. Things are getting brought to the surface that might not have been. His supporters are being exposed as the idiots and degenerates they are. Republicans have lost a generation of voters from this fiasco.

The risk is that there might be a national emergency that spirals out of control due to an ignorant narcissist manning the helm. But god supposedly watches out for drunks, small children, and the U.S.A.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:51 AM   #135
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,419
I can't really apply concepts of "evil" to something like this, but it was an inevitability.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:03 AM   #136
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,369
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
But that's the question isn't it?

Jackson, Bryan, and Long all at least got elected, largely based on some variation of some kind of populist message.

The question of Trump's staying power is still up in the air.
Right. The more I think of it, the more I believe that there is nothing beyond educating the electorate to think critically that would have prevented any of the folks I mentioned from reaching the presidency, except the vote itself or in Huey Kong's case, the assassin's bullet.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:14 AM   #137
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,973
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
That's bizarre. What does the EC have to do with whether you support a candidate or not? The EC had no influence on my voting for Clinton.
If you lived in a red state, you might not bother to vote, since your state's electors are going to go to the red candidate regardless. The blue candidate might not put a lot of effort into getting your vote, knowing that your electors aren't going to go to her anyway.

The EC means campaigns focus their limited resources on retaining states that are likely to go their way, and flipping states that might go either way, but that they think they can lock in. States that are likely to go the other way are a waste of campaign resources. Misinterpreting the data about which states were going which way, and which states were likely to flip, was probably the Clinton campaign's biggest mistake in 2016. I think that error alone dwarfs all the other possible or alleged influences on the election combined, including whatever Russian interference actually occurred.

Take away the EC, and the strategy shifts from targeting specific states to targeting specific voter segments regardless of state. And I think that such a shift in campaign strategy would have a dramatic effect on voter engagement, voter turnout, and electoral outcomes. Thus, "without the EC, Clinton would have won the popular vote" is a simplistic answer to what is actually a complex question.

And that's the main reason I push back on the "muh popular vote" meme. Because the popular vote with the EC is radically different from the popular vote without the EC. With the EC, the President is elected by the fifty states. Each state gets a weighted vote, according to the population in that state. It is more correct to say that the president is elected by the popular votes in each state. And by that metric - the actual metric of the US system - Clinton lost too many popular votes in too many states, to win the Presidency.

Last edited by theprestige; Yesterday at 09:15 AM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:17 AM   #138
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,419
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If you lived in a red state, you might not bother to vote, since your state's electors are going to go to the red candidate regardless. The blue candidate might not put a lot of effort into getting your vote, knowing that your electors aren't going to go to her anyway.
This. If you're a Democrat living in Texas or a Republican living in Florida your vote does not count any practical level.

Hell I live in a highly populated city in Florida, on of the biggest "swing" precincts in the country and my area is so overly gerrymandered I already know within a metaphysical certainty which way it's gonna go in the next election, but the district next to me, in the same city, in the same zip code, is almost as certain to go the other way.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:31 AM   #139
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,469
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If you lived in a red state, you might not bother to vote, since your state's electors are going to go to the red candidate regardless. The blue candidate might not put a lot of effort into getting your vote, knowing that your electors aren't going to go to her anyway.

The EC means campaigns focus their limited resources on retaining states that are likely to go their way, and flipping states that might go either way, but that they think they can lock in. States that are likely to go the other way are a waste of campaign resources. Misinterpreting the data about which states were going which way, and which states were likely to flip, was probably the Clinton campaign's biggest mistake in 2016. I think that error alone dwarfs all the other possible or alleged influences on the election combined, including whatever Russian interference actually occurred.

Take away the EC, and the strategy shifts from targeting specific states to targeting specific voter segments regardless of state. And I think that such a shift in campaign strategy would have a dramatic effect on voter engagement, voter turnout, and electoral outcomes. Thus, "without the EC, Clinton would have won the popular vote" is a simplistic answer to what is actually a complex question.

And that's the main reason I push back on the "muh popular vote" meme. Because the popular vote with the EC is radically different from the popular vote without the EC. With the EC, the President is elected by the fifty states. Each state gets a weighted vote, according to the population in that state. It is more correct to say that the president is elected by the popular votes in each state. And by that metric - the actual metric of the US system - Clinton lost too many popular votes in too many states, to win the Presidency.
You're mostly talking about turnout, and I agree. I thought you were claiming the EC was a factor in people choosing who to vote for.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:37 AM   #140
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,419
- I think most street level members of the two major parties are a little too eager to operate under the assumption that most non-voters are on their side.

I think the leadership of the two parties think the exact opposite, that the non-voters are an unknown quantity that's it's too risky to add to a very, very uneasily balanced apple cart.

- "First past the post" style voting absolutely does influence who people vote for. But that would be harder to get rid of than the EC.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:47 AM   #141
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,973
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You're mostly talking about turnout, and I agree. I thought you were claiming the EC was a factor in people choosing who to vote for.
Turnout, campaign strategy, etc.

And actually I do think the EC has an indirect influence on who people vote for, in the following way:

Some voters are undecideds, or moderates, or swing voters, or something like that. In some states, capturing these voters makes a difference in the EC outcome. In others, not so much. That affects how candidates talk to voters, and which voters they try to sway. Swing voters in one state may require a different campaign message than swing voters in another state.

Get rid of the EC, and instead of focusing on swing voters in swing states, candidates have to focus on swing voters across the country. The goal is to influence the choices of swing voters. The EC is a factor in which choices the candidates try to influence. Thus, indirectly, it's a factor in people choosing who to vote for.

But mostly it's a question of turning out voters whose minds were probably made up already, but whose votes matter a lot more without the EC. I think. It's hard to say for sure, since we don't really have a control group to study. And anyway the entire thing by be an illusion created by an amoral wizard.

Last edited by theprestige; Yesterday at 09:48 AM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:48 AM   #142
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,139
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If you lived in a red state, you might not bother to vote, since your state's electors are going to go to the red candidate regardless. The blue candidate might not put a lot of effort into getting your vote, knowing that your electors aren't going to go to her anyway.

The EC means campaigns focus their limited resources on retaining states that are likely to go their way, and flipping states that might go either way, but that they think they can lock in. States that are likely to go the other way are a waste of campaign resources. Misinterpreting the data about which states were going which way, and which states were likely to flip, was probably the Clinton campaign's biggest mistake in 2016. I think that error alone dwarfs all the other possible or alleged influences on the election combined, including whatever Russian interference actually occurred.

Take away the EC, and the strategy shifts from targeting specific states to targeting specific voter segments regardless of state. And I think that such a shift in campaign strategy would have a dramatic effect on voter engagement, voter turnout, and electoral outcomes. Thus, "without the EC, Clinton would have won the popular vote" is a simplistic answer to what is actually a complex question.

And that's the main reason I push back on the "muh popular vote" meme. Because the popular vote with the EC is radically different from the popular vote without the EC. With the EC, the President is elected by the fifty states. Each state gets a weighted vote, according to the population in that state. It is more correct to say that the president is elected by the popular votes in each state. And by that metric - the actual metric of the US system - Clinton lost too many popular votes in too many states, to win the Presidency.
Agreed.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:51 AM   #143
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,419
When thing I do need to say for clarity.

In a lot of discussion for voting reform the discussions starts to take on a... distasteful sheen to me, an air of "We have to keep the 'wrong' people from voting."

To me a I want a fair, open voting system where the opinions of the populace are fairly and equally represented as much as possible in the elected officials.

Now if that leads to a 'bad' candidate being elected... that's not the fault of the voting system (again why I'm uncomfortable with the "We have to make it so another Trump can't be elected" approach to this).... that's just how it is. That's a problem with the society, not the voting system.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:10 AM   #144
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,469
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Turnout, campaign strategy, etc.

And actually I do think the EC has an indirect influence on who people vote for, in the following way:

Some voters are undecideds, or moderates, or swing voters, or something like that. In some states, capturing these voters makes a difference in the EC outcome. In others, not so much. That affects how candidates talk to voters, and which voters they try to sway. Swing voters in one state may require a different campaign message than swing voters in another state.

Get rid of the EC, and instead of focusing on swing voters in swing states, candidates have to focus on swing voters across the country. The goal is to influence the choices of swing voters. The EC is a factor in which choices the candidates try to influence. Thus, indirectly, it's a factor in people choosing who to vote for.

But mostly it's a question of turning out voters whose minds were probably made up already, but whose votes matter a lot more without the EC. I think. It's hard to say for sure, since we don't really have a control group to study. And anyway the entire thing by be an illusion created by an amoral wizard.
Swing voters don't need a candidate to come to a state in order to make up their mind. The information is out there. But I concede that some people will be swayed by candidate visits, so your original point was correct.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:20 AM   #145
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,233
Quote:
I have them read and study the Constitution, hopefully with the intention that they'll have less respect for it.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Which supports what I said.
Which is what you meant when you said...?
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Most of them end up with your viewpoint that it's outdated and superfluous, precisely because they don't understand the constitution.
Yeah, no.

Quote:
The polling data doesn't indicate where they got these ideas. The evidence available, limited as it is, doesn't support the idea that they got it from civics class.
Uh huh. Based on what evidence available? Do you need help citing your butthole in APA format? It would be nice if you could just be honest about your dishonesty rather than so weaselly. I recently had a student -- the best student of the Spring semester, in fact -- who argued that children should be inducted into a cult of the Constitution. That myths about George Washington chopping down a cherry tree and hurling a silver dollar clear across the Potomac river can serve as noble falsehoods. People don't understand the Constitution, but they believe in it. They'll even die for it. And that's a good thing. Schools must instill pride in the country, the argument goes, because without a shared history that can make people proud, one with which they can identify, you may cease to have a country altogether. Such patriotism is especially important in a multi-ethnic country like America because it's something we can all theoretically access. America only exists because people believe it does.

As it happens, today is Constitution Day, and I know some school libraries proudly disseminate pocket copies of the Constitution. They're like flags -- to be waved and held in high regard, not read and understood. Super smart people wrote it; smarter than anyone around today. Yeah, they had slaves, but that was common for the time. What they created transcends generations; it will never be "out of date."

But please, go ahead and argue that schools are not largely responsible for this indoctrination. People learn to revere presidents because mattress sales are awesome. Or, no, they get it from... red baseball caps. No, they get it from... their grandparents (who got it from their grandparents, who got it from their grandparents, who never went to school). Donald Trump recently took part in an assignment with young school children. I think the objective was to desecrate the flag.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:25 AM   #146
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,233
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
ETA: And don't get me started on Constitutions. The idea that some dusty old men that had no experience in running a country would be able to create a divinely inspired, infallible set of instructions for the perfect running of a county and thus it should never be touched. Beat me with a rock and make me listen to never ending Flat-Earther YouTube uploads please!
Naturally, Americans students are surprised to learn about the original constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confederation. Textbooks readily identify the problems/"weaknesses" with the AoC. Thankfully, the Founders got it more or less right with the Constitution. They didn't leave much room for improvement.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:21 PM   #147
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18,722
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
That's bizarre. What does the EC have to do with whether you support a candidate or not? The EC had no influence on my voting for Clinton.
If you are a Republican in California, or a Democrat in Alaska, would there be much point in voting for the president at the moment?

You know that your vote is going to be meaningless.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:40 PM   #148
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,469
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
If you are a Republican in California, or a Democrat in Alaska, would there be much point in voting for the president at the moment?

You know that your vote is going to be meaningless.
But I'm already at the polling place voting for other things.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:52 PM   #149
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,419
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
But I'm already at the polling place voting for other things.
But your vote should still count.

The Winner Take All way that electoral votes are counted for the states (all except one, I think New Hampshire) means that 51% of the vote is 100% of the vote.

The ~2.8 million Democrats in Texas and ~5.2 million Republicans in California deserve to have their votes count toward their candidate, not lumped in with all the votes for the other side because that side "won the state."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:56 PM   #150
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,154
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
I agree with Ziggurat. More insiders, more party power, and more veteran national politicians sounds more like the problem than the solution to it.
Exactly trump is the breath of fresh air everyone wanted.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:58 PM   #151
citizenzen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,390
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
But I'm already at the polling place voting for other things.
Exactly. My vote for president might not be necessary (as a Democrat living in California) but there's so much more than that race on the ballot.

And even if my vote isn't necessary to win my state, my vote contributes to the candidate's overall support, which in victory helps to secure a mandate, and in defeat helps to illustrate the level of resistance in the populace.

So it's far from meaningless in my opinion.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
But your vote should still count.

The Winner Take All way that electoral votes are counted for the states (all except one, I think New Hampshire) means that 51% of the vote is 100% of the vote.

The ~2.8 million Democrats in Texas and ~5.2 million Republicans in California deserve to have their votes count toward their candidate, not lumped in with all the votes for the other side because that side "won the state."
On this point I agree with you. Electoral votes should be allotted according to the percentage won in that state.

Last edited by citizenzen; Yesterday at 01:01 PM.
citizenzen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:02 PM   #152
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,154
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
We should thank the heavens that Milo Yiannopoulos wasn't born in the US.
Hey at least he proves that being in an interracial gay marriage doesn't prevent you from being a nazi.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:11 PM   #153
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,154
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Still a minority, and shrinking. And Trump was winning primaries with 20% of the votes because the 80% who wanted somebody else were divided 16 different ways. Trump shouldn't have been possible.
No, because while then he was few peoples first choice he was many of their second. He really was the republican consensus candidate. If what you suggest is true then as they dropped out Kassik or Cruz would have become the front runner. Trump really was the broadly most popular.

And seriously he has governed exactly like he showed us he would in the campaign. He is what republicans wanted.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:31 PM   #154
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,469
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
But your vote should still count.

The Winner Take All way that electoral votes are counted for the states (all except one, I think New Hampshire) means that 51% of the vote is 100% of the vote.

The ~2.8 million Democrats in Texas and ~5.2 million Republicans in California deserve to have their votes count toward their candidate, not lumped in with all the votes for the other side because that side "won the state."
People know their votes don't count anyway. Statistically, the chance of your vote deciding things is almost an impossibility.

My point was, if I'm already at the polling place voting, I'm going to take the extra second and vote for president, even if it won't make a difference.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.