Electoral College

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Jim,

We all heard about how Hillary was going to win in a landslide. I sure thought she was because that's what the talking heads were saying. It all depends on who the DNC can put up. A middle of the road Democrat would do better than some of these crackpots that the DNC is trying to foist on the public. Trump has more of a chance in 2020 than he did in 2016. We've seen what he can do with an investigation hanging over his head. Country is doing alright. Of course, that could all change in a heartbeat.... which is what I think the left wants. We're all on this boat together.... might be a good idea to hope the captain keeps her afloat.

 

Hilary did win in a landslide 3 million more votes. The country is doing alright because Trump hasn’t done **** and all of Obama’s moves are still in play mostly. Trade is an issue, lots have lost jobs and prices for goods are getting crazy right now. I do think he still has a chance, but I highly doubt that MI, PEnn, and WI turn for him this go round as the 2018 election pointed out. We are in this boat together it’s not my fault that most of this board wants to tip it over, to the right.

[NDhoosier 1,229]

You do this and you might as well do popular vote. The disparity, as you pointed out is much greater in favor of Dems in these states. Let’s take Texas, give Hilary 43% of those electoral votes and it’s a landslide. It’s all good you right wingers want to keep it now because it benefits you. AZ and TX are turning you could win the whole Midwest sans ill and MN and in ten years it won’t matter. Get ready for blood baths every election in 10 years. TX will turn blue it is only a matter of time. I vote keep it so I can see the right crying about it in 2028. I wouldn’t be surprised if TX almost turns in 2020, the legal immigrants still don’t like seeing their people in cages illegal or not and will come out in force. Beto wins the primary and it is a wrap.

 

huh? You are making a lot of assumptions and it seems you really have a bitter opinion of "right-wingers." TX will turn Dem only if they let illegal aliens vote. EC has benefitted both Dems and Reps in the past, but you have never heard of the Republicans calling for it to be abolished after losing.

 

illegals do not scare me one bit, for the US is simply playing nice, most countries, especially in the past, would use lethal force against thousands of people forcing their way in. The day illegals step-up with violence will be a bad day for them.

 

As a middle of the road type of guy, I see the Dems losing touch with their fanbase, they are moving too far left. They are making even a fool like Trump seem sane.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

huh? You are making a lot of assumptions and it seems you really have a bitter opinion of "right-wingers." TX will turn Dem only if they let illegal aliens vote. EC has benefitted both Dems and Reps in the past, but you have never heard of the Republicans calling for it to be abolished after losing.

 

illegals do not scare me one bit, for the US is simply playing nice, most countries, especially in the past, would use lethal force against thousands of people forcing their way in. The day illegals step-up with violence will be a bad day for them.

 

As a middle of the road type of guy, I see the Dems losing touch with their fanbase, they are moving too far left. They are making even a fool like Trump seem sane.

 

We are talking about the electoral college, not your desire for people, mostly Catholics to be slaughtered. Anyways, my assumptions are based on actual data. Which states that the Latino pop in Texas will be the majority by 2022. Also, a large portion of the republican base, baby boomers etc dying off the voter rolls. I wasn’t saying anything about illegals voting, I was making the comment that while a good percentage of LEGAL Latinos voted republican in the past, that may not be true when they see people of their culture locked in cages.

To your other point, wrong again https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-want-to-change-laws-on-electoral-college-votes-after-presidential-losses.amp

And

Trump tweet in 2012:

 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy

Edited April 27, 2019 by Jim2Dokes

[NDhoosier 1,229]

We are talking about the electoral college, not your desire for people, mostly Catholics to be slaughtered. Anyways, my assumptions are based on actual data. Which states that the Latino pop in Texas will be the majority by 2022. Also, gen x and a large portion of the republican base, baby boomers etc dying off the voter rolls. I wasn’t saying anything about illegals voting, I was making the comment that while a good percentage of LEGAL Latinos voted republican in the past, that may not be true when they see people of their culture locked in cages.

To your other point, wrong again https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-want-to-change-laws-on-electoral-college-votes-after-presidential-losses.amp

And

Trump tweet in 2012:

 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy

 

1. I am Catholic, so your first sentence is not only false, but quite problematic. I wont report you for this post, but make that accusation again and I will make it my personal mission to report you. Typical far leftist, taking what someone says and somehow making it a genocide. This is why the democratic party is going to lose in 2020, your feelings are so far left that it is starting to get scary, even moderate democrats (or people like me who voted for Obama twice) are going to steer clear of the crazy SJW nonsensical ideologies of the far-left.

2. I dont care about any Trump tweet, literally does nothing for me. Especially when Trump has been a "Republican" for only a few years now. I would say a tweet from 2012 is questionable on which side you are trying to use it to "attack."

3. Did you read the article or just the headline you posted? It literally says the same thing we were just talking about. Not all of the state's votes going one direction, but giving a voice to the minority of each state. That is not abolishing the Electoral College; now you can argue if that is a good thing or not, which you tried to do early, but that is not the same thing as abolishing it.

Edited April 27, 2019 by NDhoosier

[Jim2Dokes 3]

1. I am Catholic, so your first sentence is not only false, but quite problematic. I wont report you for this post, but make that accusation again and I will make it my personal mission to report you. Typical far leftist, taking what someone says and somehow making it a genocide. This is why the democratic party is going to lose in 2020, your feelings are so far left that it is starting to get scary, even moderate democrats (or people like me who voted for Obama twice) are going to steer clear of the crazy SJW nonsensical ideologies of the far-left.

2. I dont care about any Trump tweet, literally does nothing for me. Especially when Trump has been a "Republican" for only a few years now. I would say a tweet from 2012 is questionable on which side you are trying to use it to "attack."

3. Did you read the article or just the headline you posted? It literally says the same thing we were just talking about. Not all of the state's votes going one direction, but giving a voice to the minority of each state. That is not abolishing the Electoral College; now you can argue if that is a good thing or not, which you tried to do early, but that is not the same thing as abolishing it.

 

Could careless if you report me. You are the one that started attacking illegal immigrants when we are discussing the electoral college basically saying they are lucky that they are not shot at the border for no context to the conversation. “illegals do not scare me one bit, for the US is simply playing nice, most countries, especially in the past, would use lethal force against thousands of people forcing their way in. The day illegals step-up with violence will be a bad day for them.”. 3. You said the right was not complaining about it, I provided direct evidence then when not in the favor they have complained about it. Back to the debate, again that route is find to split up the votes in a particular state, but it seems like either this will be in the lefts favor as the bigger states that favor the right do so by a very slim margin, giving the dems a significant advantage when they rake in large numbers from the east and west coast by having giant margins. Furthermore, I am not sure that strategy would be much different than the popular vote, that is way too much math for a message board convo. A quick glance of the Midwest Trump won PA, Mi, Oh, In and Wi. Hilary won MN and Illinois. Trump would gain 7 out of all these big electoral states. Would all the plains small states and SE be enough for Trump? Idk, but doesn’t look like it would. I am guessing that her margins in NJ, Mass, and NY would be enough to cancel 20 states Trump won, if Illinois almost cancels out 5.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Jim2Dokes

[Jim2Dokes 3]

As someone living in Texas in the only city in the country with over 700,000 people that still votes Republican for President, it’s clear that Texas will turn blue in the next few years. Every major city in Texas (and Texas has 4 of the top 10 most populous cities in the country) votes Democrat but one.

But it’s not Latinos alone driving the change. Many Latinos are pretty conservative. I see that in my business every day. It has a lot to do with people moving here from everywhere else (US and other countries) to get jobs. They bring their politics with them, and the jobs are in the big cities. Smaller towns, like smaller towns in every state including New York and California, still vote Republican.

 

That’s true as well, it will be a combination of things. Younger voters that vote democratic getting older replacing the boomers on the voter rolls, increase in Latino population that will soon be the majority, and what you mentioned as Texas become more “hip” and tech and less oil based economy. A number of factors, it is going to happen sooner than later.

[AlabamaDuck 0]

Historically, the point of the electoral college was to allow southern states to gain the representation of 3/5 of their slaves without having to let them vote. So what is the point now?

 

Supporting the electoral college is to say that you don't like democracy. The fact that in 2 of the last 5 elections the person who got the most votes lost is a travesty.

 

It also makes most of the country irrelevant. How much do candidates campaign in Alabama or California? If you don't live in a swing state then you really don't matter to the politicians. Is that a good thing?

 

And this isn't a conservative/liberal thing. Political winds move in cycles, and 50 or so years ago it was the republicans who were getting screwed by the electoral college.

 

As to the big cities controlling everything, if they have the population, shouldn't they? Isn't that sort of how democracy is supposed to work, with majority rules? If you don't like what they choose, make the argument and change their minds, don't hide behind a set of rules that simply diminishes the importance of their vote.

 

Slaves were never allowed to vote and the 3/5 were not counted as votes.

[jessemoore97 1,280]

I see California and Illinois are processing legislation in their state houses to keep Trump off the ballots in '20 unless he releases the last five years of tax returns. Can't make this stuff up.

[coltssb 1,044]

I see California and Illinois are processing legislation in their state houses to keep Trump off the ballots in '20 unless he releases the last five years of tax returns. Can't make this stuff up.

 

I think because Trump does as he pleases so it has started with people/states doing whatever they believe they can do. Like Trump or not, he has started a **** storm in Washington. I hate to see it because when Dems finally take office you better believe they will start acting a petulant child too. Trump lied 10,000 times in the open, Dems will lie 10,001. What a mess our country has become in that regard. Maybe it’s always been this way....I don’t know.

[irishwavend 571]

I think because Trump does as he pleases so it has started with people/states doing whatever they believe they can do. Like Trump or not, he has started a **** storm in Washington. I hate to see it because when Dems finally take office you better believe they will start acting a petulant child too. Trump lied 10,000 times in the open, Dems will lie 10,001. What a mess our country has become in that regard. Maybe it’s always been this way....I don’t know.

 

Pretty sure Obama started the "Do whatever you want attitude" when he was picking and choosing what laws he wanted to enforce or how to justify it unconstitutionally...

 

As a tax person, I'll tell you this. Trump's tax returns won't tell you sh*t that is applicable to the Presidency, especially now that he has a resume of Presidential acts. I mean, his economy is smashing everything Democrats like Obama and his "economists" said couldn't be done. Why? Because Democrats love to give people scraps to ensure they stay in power. They know that if they grow the economy too quickly it will 1) undermine their liberal antagonism of corporations, etc, and 2) it will ultimately stop growing which is a political liability as the economy maximizes all of its potential. Democrats see that as a bad thing... Trump's economy is common sense.

 

Yes, I agree he's unprofessional as sh*t, but he's making progress in a lot of in the areas that truly matter to people trying to take care of their families. All the liberal social ideals will naturally follow in a good economy. In a crap economy, nobody cares about liberal social ideals - they just want to make sure they can feed their families. It's all right in front of them, but Dems seem to get in their own way...hell, look at AOC and Amazon.

[coltssb 1,044]

Pretty sure Obama started the "Do whatever you want attitude" when he was picking and choosing what laws he wanted to enforce or how to justify it unconstitutionally...

 

As a tax person, I'll tell you this. Trump's tax returns won't tell you sh*t that is applicable to the Presidency, especially now that he has a resume of Presidential acts. I mean, his economy is smashing everything Democrats like Obama and his "economists" said couldn't be done. Why? Because Democrats love to give people scraps to ensure they stay in power. They know that if they grow the economy too quickly it will 1) undermine their liberal antagonism of corporations, etc, and 2) it will ultimately stop growing which is a political liability as the economy maximizes all of its potential. Democrats see that as a bad thing... Trump's economy is common sense.

 

Yes, I agree he's unprofessional as sh*t, but he's making progress in a lot of in the areas that truly matter to people trying to take care of their families. All the liberal social ideals will naturally follow in a good economy. In a crap economy, nobody cares about liberal social ideals - they just want to make sure they can feed their families. It's all right in front of them, but Dems seem to get in their own way...hell, look at AOC and

 

 

I’ll be the first to admit my debatable skills in politics is lacking. On that note....I’ll try to amuse....

what do you think is going to happen with all these tax cuts and no money coming back in and the national debt continuing to escalate to astronomical numbers? Do you assume that big business will be giving back?-surly not by taxes since that rate just got dropped. Which by the way, they hardly paid that 25 percent anyways. Amazon anyone? Do you think big businesses will contribute to with this monetary increase hiring more? Perhaps, but many complain that people aren’t skilled enough in their fields to begin with. Continuing,I do know that the millionaire docs that I work for are just as shady as probably most millionaires that work in their fields. If you only knew the crap I knew about the ways they cheat the system. There’s a reason health care costs are so much. And it doesn’t just start with them. The insurance companies...my lord the insurance companies...Then you have the reps that charge 5,000 dollars for a 3/16th screw!! You could to the local hardware store and pick one up for 15 cents. Now, all these peoples are all wealthy, and all NOT contributing the patient and is escalating health care bill. Anyways, my gripe is that if you think big business is a good thing or it’s savior I wouldn’t get too excited. Look at W’s years and his “cut taxes” approach and letting big businesses thrive. Inflation happened and the bubble burst. Careful what you wish for.

 

As for Trump’s returns, you’re telling me his taxes won’t show how indebted to Russia he really is? How crooked he really is? He’s mention it himself in many ways. He even said in the past he rather work with Russia because he gave him money and fostered his Trump towers golf courses etc. I would think as much as Republicans want safety for our country(stopping immigrants,defense spending) that they would want to make sure that Russia isn’t raping our system with hacks. But I digress...this country is in good shape and after Carter and W years, this country I found can withstand a just about anything.

[jessemoore97 1,280]

Pretty sure Obama started the "Do whatever you want attitude" when he was picking and choosing what laws he wanted to enforce or how to justify it unconstitutionally...

 

As a tax person, I'll tell you this. Trump's tax returns won't tell you sh*t that is applicable to the Presidency, especially now that he has a resume of Presidential acts. I mean, his economy is smashing everything Democrats like Obama and his "economists" said couldn't be done. Why? Because Democrats love to give people scraps to ensure they stay in power. They know that if they grow the economy too quickly it will 1) undermine their liberal antagonism of corporations, etc, and 2) it will ultimately stop growing which is a political liability as the economy maximizes all of its potential. Democrats see that as a bad thing... Trump's economy is common sense.

 

Yes, I agree he's unprofessional as sh*t, but he's making progress in a lot of in the areas that truly matter to people trying to take care of their families. All the liberal social ideals will naturally follow in a good economy. In a crap economy, nobody cares about liberal social ideals - they just want to make sure they can feed their families. It's all right in front of them, but Dems seem to get in their own way...hell, look at AOC and

 

 

I’ll be the first to admit my debatable skills in politics is lacking. On that note....I’ll try to amuse....

what do you think is going to happen with all these tax cuts and no money coming back in and the national debt continuing to escalate to astronomical numbers? Do you assume that big business will be giving back?-surly not by taxes since that rate just got dropped. Which by the way, they hardly paid that 25 percent anyways. Amazon anyone? Do you think big businesses will contribute to with this monetary increase hiring more? Perhaps, but many complain that people aren’t skilled enough in their fields to begin with. Continuing,I do know that the millionaire docs that I work for are just as shady as probably most millionaires that work in their fields. If you only knew the crap I knew about the ways they cheat the system. There’s a reason health care costs are so much. And it doesn’t just start with them. The insurance companies...my lord the insurance companies...Then you have the reps that charge 5,000 dollars for a 3/16th screw!! You could to the local hardware store and pick one up for 15 cents. Now, all these peoples are all wealthy, and all NOT contributing the patient and is escalating health care bill. Anyways, my gripe is that if you think big business is a good thing or it’s savior I wouldn’t get too excited. Look at W’s years and his “cut taxes” approach and letting big businesses thrive. Inflation happened and the bubble burst. Careful what you wish for.

 

As for Trump’s returns, you’re telling me his taxes won’t show how indebted to Russia he really is? How crooked he really is? He’s mention it himself in many ways. He even said in the past he rather work with Russia because he gave him money and fostered his Trump towers golf courses etc. I would think as much as Republicans want safety for our country(stopping immigrants,defense spending) that they would want to make sure that Russia isn’t raping our system with hacks. But I digress...this country is in good shape and after Carter and W years, this country I found can withstand a just about anything.

 

As much as I like tax cuts, I agree it's not enough. The government needs to cut spending across the board in significant ways. The problem is social benefit/entitlement programs, which make up the largest chunk of the budget by far, but won't be touched by either side in any meaningful way because it's political suicide. Once people get used to free stuff, you'll have a terrible time trying to wrestle it away again. This problem started decades ago when they began to raid Social Security, which was never intended to be a piggy bank to borrow from.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

 

As much as I like tax cuts, I agree it's not enough. The government needs to cut spending across the board in significant ways. The problem is social benefit/entitlement programs, which make up the largest chunk of the budget by far, but won't be touched by either side in any meaningful way because it's political suicide. Once people get used to free stuff, you'll have a terrible time trying to wrestle it away again. This problem started decades ago when they began to raid Social Security, which was never intended to be a piggy bank to borrow from.

 

Baloney. Add context. All countries highest debt is related to social welfare. Yet other countries do not have the defense spending. Also, are you willing to give up your govt pension? Govt healthcare? Ready to join the rest of us with 401ks and high premium health savings accounts? Walk the talk.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Jim2Dokes

[coltssb 1,044]

 

Baloney. Add context. All countries highest debt is related to social welfare. Yet other countries do not have the defense spending. Also, are you willing to give up your govt pension? Govt healthcare? Ready to join the rest of us with 401ks and high premium health savings accounts? Walk the talk.

 

Somehow that post got lumped into mine. I’ll let Jesse if he chooses to reply..

[jessemoore97 1,280]

 

Baloney. Add context. All countries highest debt is related to social welfare. Yet other countries do not have the defense spending. Also, are you willing to give up your govt pension? Govt healthcare? Ready to join the rest of us with 401ks and high premium health savings accounts? Walk the talk.

 

So cutting spending isn't a good thing, across the board as I mentioned? What countries are you refering to when you say defense spending? What defense spending are you against?

 

What is it about my pension or health care you are concerned with exactly?

[Jim2Dokes 3]

 

So cutting spending isn't a good thing, across the board as I mentioned? What countries are you refering to when you say defense spending? What defense spending are you against?

 

What is it about my pension or health care you are concerned with exactly?

 

Not when it proportionally targets the poor and working class. The fact you have a pension and healthcare, conservatives have been fighting against that for years, they argue it is an entitlement program. So if you are going to argue that we need to cut those, you can start with that one. How about we start taxing the rich for social security, it seems to me it is a program for poor people, paid by poor people. However, the rich get social security as well, yet only pay up to a very small amount of their income. Anyways, I am just making fun of your first stereotypical go to when talking about the debt. You are so like my uncle, ignoring that giant monopolies pay no taxes. We got off topic here back to the electoral college debate I will bow out now for this one. We could talk about the budget for 5 threads.

[jessemoore97 1,280]

 

Not when it proportionally targets the poor and working class. The fact you have a pension and healthcare, conservatives have been fighting against that for years, they argue it is an entitlement program. So if you are going to argue that we need to cut those, you can start with that one. How about we start taxing the rich for social security, it seems to me it is a program for poor people, paid by poor people. However, the rich get social security as well, yet only pay up to a very small amount of their income. Anyways, I am just making fun of your first stereotypical go to when talking about the debt. You are so like my uncle, ignoring that giant monopolies pay no taxes. We got off topic here back to the electoral college debate I will bow out now for this one. We could talk about the budget for 5 threads.

 

Pension and healthcare are benefits of many jobs. My father had both for 40 years at a private factory until he retired, now he collects his pension. I pay into my pension system as does my employer, just like every pension system. I dont qualify for social security or won't when i retire. I live in the city I work in, therefore my taxes pay for my pay and benefits, as well as all the teachers and public employees here.

 

My pension may not even be there when I retire. You understand that it just like social security goes towards paying beneficiaries who have already retired right? None of it is earmarked in an account specifically with my name on it like a 401k. With a pen stroke it can all go away for me and others. Our pension system for police and fire is very well managed, which is partly the reason its constantly in the crosshairs.

 

So social security is paid for by the poor and is to only benefit the poor? What defines those parameters? Does someone who paid in tbe bare minimum of credits to social security, allowed to draw benefits exceeding their contribution indefinitely?

[VCDomer 68]

Take the financial benefit out of serving in politics at all levels and you will find the money to finance social security and Medicare. Make our politicians fund their own retirement and healthcare. Problem solved. We won't need term limit reforms. After all, it's public SERVICE..... Just like volunteering at the senior center or the Association for the disabled , the homeless, environmental clean up, etc..... right?

Edited May 14, 2019 by VCDomer

[jbrown_9999 1,020]

How about we start taxing the rich for social security, it seems to me it is a program for poor people, paid by poor people. However, the rich get social security as well, yet only pay up to a very small amount of their income.

 

Are you aware that the maximum annual level of Social Security benefits is around $34,000 regardless of what your previous income and contributions were?

 

Are you also aware that most "rich" people pay the maximum amount of FICA taxes? In fact, many of them will pay double if they are self employed and have to pay the employer portion as well.

 

Is your issue that FICA is not collected on salary earnings above the $132,900 cap?

 

I have two questions:

 

1) Exactly how much should someone who earns $1,000,000 per year pay in social security contributions if he or she is limited to getting $34,000 each year from it in retirement?

 

2) Exactly how much should someone who earns $5,000,000 per year pay in social security contributions if he or she is limited to getting $34,000 each year from it in retirement?

Edited May 14, 2019 by jbrown_9999

[Jim2Dokes 3]

 

Are you aware that the maximum annual level of Social Security benefits is around $34,000 regardless of what your previous income and contributions were?

 

Are you also aware that most "rich" people pay the maximum amount of FICA taxes? In fact, many of them will pay double if they are self employed and have to pay the employer portion as well.

 

Is your issue that FICA is not collected on salary earnings above the $132,900 cap?

 

I have two questions:

 

1) Exactly how much should someone who earns $1,000,000 per year pay in social security contributions if he or she is limited to getting $34,000 each year from it in retirement?

 

2) Exactly how much should someone who earns $5,000,000 per year pay in social security contributions if he or she is limited to getting $34,000 each year from it in retirement?

 

That’s fine if you do not agree with my philosophy. Yes I believe someone making 5 mil should help the countries social benefit for the poor and elderly. Sorry if you feel differently. I don’t get the logic that they should not have to because they don’t get the return. You invest 5% on your income in a stable etf versus some with 5 mill a year. The advantages are ridiculous. And don’t get me started on the ol make yourself a millionaire argument, that is so rare. Most people’s new money is on the backs of ol money if you are making 5 mill a year.