America's Presidential electoral college system: a severe Achilles heel.

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by Bic_Cherry, Dec 5, 2019.

  1. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    52,600
    Likes Received:
    23,752
    Trophy Points:
    113
    History is important because it betrays a major gap between what you imagine the United States is and what it actually is. You don't seem to be educated on the subject and seem to have no interest in learning. You have to start there before you can start talking about changes since right now your hoped for changes are merely the domain of a small group of cheeto fingered yoyos.
     
    Levant likes this.
  2. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,087
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    THE US VERSUS THE EU

    "My Vision" comes directly from the European Union where I happen to live. Which has a system that works well in diminishing Upper-incomes such that the less-rich (not just the poor) have a more decent lifestyle.

    Not the Income Disparity that is rampantly out of control in the US and casts the hopeless into a lifetime earning an income below the Poverty Threshold ($25K a year for a family of four). Which makes the income-disparity comparison between the US and Europe look like this:
    [​IMG]

    Now, when considering the above compare the two entities:
    *The bottom 50% of the Western Europe population (blue above) earn a higher percentage of the National Income than in the US (red line)
    *The Top 1% in the US obtain a higher percentage of National Income than the top 1% in Europe. Which is due to the fact that net National Incomes at the high end are more taxed in Europe than the US.

    And if anyone cannot see that difference - and what it means to average lifestyles between the two economic entities - then they must be blind.

    Taxation in the EU is far greater than that of the US thus allowing for programs that directly affect lifestyle generally in any population - such as a National Healthcare System along that prolongs lifespan, as well as very low cost and Tertiary Education (that allows students to obtain a higher level of work-income).

    It's dead simple ... the US is allowing mega-millions to be obtained by a very select and tiny percentage of the population, but the bottom end of the population pays the consequences.

    Meaning What?
    *Less of an individual life-span for Americans as well as more than half the American budget going to the DoD (rather than a public healthcare system). And,
    *When revenues from higher upper-income taxation could be more properly employed to educate Americans out of poverty ... !


     
  3. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    52,600
    Likes Received:
    23,752
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Wow my comment was dead on, you really don't get it.

    The US is not the EU and more importantly, the EU is not the US, despite it's pretensions of being a nation-state; it is not. But your argument seems to boil down to this: You have a list of policy preferences that the US isn't doing, so we need to change the system until it produces the election outcome that you desire.Since you already live in the paradise on earth known as the EU, you win! Just stay there and you never have to worry about America, a country that seems largely alien to you despite your citizenship.
     
    Levant likes this.
  4. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Good. Then we agree that there is no Democracy in the United States...
     
  5. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,087
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, we disagree that there is no true Democracy.

    There is a "democracy of sorts", which is a hand-me-down from the 18th century, when no other democracy actually existed. (Except maybe France, but that was short-lived. Still, without the frenchies, Washington would have never defeated the Brits in Yorktown.)

    We keep praying at that particular altar, which is historically interesting. But, that's all. Just historically interesting.

    When we get down to the nitty-gritty of what sort of democracy WE NEED and WE DESERVE, then the response is altogether different. At the basis of any sort of real-democracy is economic fairness. The Commies got it wrong when they assumed (in 1917) that everybody should earn the same income, which was a Very Stoopid Idea.

    But neither did Uncle Sam get-it-right! Because we abusively have assumed that accumulating Wealth was "fine thing to do".

    A fair Income Disparity is - or should be - a key economic principle in the US. Not just a "nice political objective to have". We all participate in the very same market-economy, which should be one where the principle of Economic Fairness maintains*.

    But, no. We've had this penchant - particularly male in nature - to praise/adore those who manage to amass fortunes. Whether they did so alone or got-a-head-start-from-daddy's-riches. (Like Donald Dork.)

    There is evidently nothing wrong with personal-success, even one that allows a family to live exceptionally well. Except when it is performed in an economy with
    Unfairly low taxation of Upper-incomes - the consequence of which means that millions upon millions are incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold ($25K annual income).

    Nope! That is not acceptable in any economy that presumes itself to be "fair and equitable". No way ...

    *Especially since we have a "principle" whereby we expect our people to fight any supposed-enemy and be prepared to die doing so.

     
  6. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,087
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Blah, blah, blah.

    Moving right along ...
     
  7. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    52,600
    Likes Received:
    23,752
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Ha! This from the guy who thinks the US isn't democratic enough, so we should emulate the EU, in which the President of the European Parliament is elected from among MEPs and the President of the European Council is elected by the leaders in the Council.

    True Democracy!
     
  8. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm confused... Either that or you are. You say that the Electoral College is antithetical to democracy yet you say we are a democracy but we're not a true democracy so we must be some sort of fake democracy or... not a democracy. Please pick one side and stick with it.

    Yep... The French were critical to our independence. We've paid them back, manifold, of course. What does that have to do with whether we are or are not a democracy?

    So, once again, are you admitting that we're not a democracy but you wish we were? Sure sounds like it to me.


    Though there's no theoretical connection between democracy and economic.... well, fairness is not the right word but it sounds like you're really saying economic equality. Economic fairness is sort of what we have today: those who work harder get more. Of course it's not really fair that those who won't work get anything at all and that those who do work have to give it to them at the point of a government gun, but it's far more fair that what it seems to me that you're suggesting.

    But real democracy will always lead to, at least among the masses, economic equality: no one will have anything, such as in Venezuela. People will always figure out that they can vote for themselves the product of the labors of others. More and more will vote for it until there are not enough others from which to take. Democracy must always, in every case, in the end, result in some sort of socialism and economic failure. No other outcome is possible. It's the whole two-wolves-and-a-pig thing.

    By the way, the communists in the Soviet Union never, ever, thought everyone should have the same income. There was never a time in the Soviet Union where everyone had the same income.

    No, we don't all participate in the same market economy - at least not equally. Luckily, for our poor and those who participate less, the participation of those who participate most, or who participate the most smartly, has produced enough wealth for even those who choose to do the very minimum.


    Actually, there is very little penchant to amass fortunes. Most people have enough but far from fortunes, but, yes, some do amass wealth. Whether or not they got a head start, not from daddy's riches but from the product of daddy's own hard work. It's a good thing that Saint Donald did amass a fortune. There are literally thousands of people supporting themselves and their families without taxpayer help just because Trump amassed such a fortune.


    I sometimes fall into the trap you're in, thinking it's unfair that some have so much and I have so little (in comparison). Then I admit that those who have that wealth earned it on their own and I have as much opportunity as do they to do the same thing. Every few years, there's another new billionaire that made it on their own. Even more often, there's another multi-millionaire, 9-figure type, who made it on their own... They made it because they worked harder than me, or smarter than me.

    And I recognize, and admit, my own failures to achieve what they have achieved. That's OK. I do pretty well, as it is, and my choice to not work as hard as they do is a valid choice. Their choice to work so much harder than I do is a valid choice. Choices. We all make them and we all should accept the consequences of them.

    Even where I work, there are several people who were once my peers, and a few who were actually junior when I was senior and they reported to me, who are now in executive positions... How unfair is that? I was there first. I work hard. Why did they get promoted further and faster than me? UNFAIR....... NOT. I work pretty darn hard and I'm pretty successful. But those who surpassed me are amazing in how hard and how effectively they work. They've earned everything they have. I admire them and would do anything to be more like them, to be as successful as them.... well, anything except work as hard as them... Turns out the system is completely fair and equitable.

    Well, your whoe post started with your defense of your idea that we're a democracy but your arguments were anything except about our democracy. You can't argue about our democracy because even your own arguments to the contrary actually support the reality that we're not a democracy.

    But, still, you're not willing to admit reality. You'd rather whine about how you wish it were rather than admit that the country is not what you wish it was. At least if you'd admit that we are not, and never were, a democracy, then you could do what we call gap analysis... where are we now? Where do you want us to be? What are the steps it takes to get us there? And you could try, against the counter efforts of all the rest of us, to build the nation you wish we were. Instead, you simply whine.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2020
    Thought Criminal and Ddyad like this.
  9. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    We live in a country where no child need be hungry - the only ones who are are those whose parents sell their government aid for cash or drugs. We live in a world where every person can get a smart phone and those who can't afford one get one from the government for about $1.50 a month. Virtually every home in America has at least one flat screen television. Every child has the opportunity to go to school - even college.

    In the grand scheme of things, there is no poverty in the US. Just 150 years ago, the poorest of us today would have been considered quite well off right here in the United States.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  10. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,087
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    WAKEY, WAKEY!

    You are pathetically misinformed about poverty in the USA.

    Get educated! Start here:
    [​IMG]
    Poverty has been around in America for a good long time. It's just people like you who refuse to face Awful Truths by denying they exist.

    Abject poverty has been around far longer than since 1959 as pictured above. The US was born with a sizeable proportion of impoverished people two centuries ago. And what have we done to correct it.

    Nada, niente, nothing, tipota, rien. The Rabid-Right simply denies it exists ... !

    PS: 12.3% of the American population is officially recognised as impoverished (living below the "poverty threshold"). These 38.1 million Americans are distributed in this pattern:
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2020
  11. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Abject poverty being defined as only having 2 flat screen TVs? Or perhaps only having a go-phone instead of a new iPhone?
    Eligibility for SNAP is 130% of the poverty level. No one living in poverty, even when living so due to their own choices, choices they could change at a moment's notice, goes hungry in the United States.

    And what have we done to correct poverty? Nothing, you say? Are you really suggesting that poor today don't live better than most Americans from 1789? There are, no doubt, hungry in the United States today. But they are hungry not due to poverty or inability to afford food but hungry due to parental neglect and the inevitable abuse of the welfare systems designed to enslave them.

    Other than the mentally ill, those incapable of making decisions the rest of us accept as reasonably good decisions, there is no one in the US today dying of cold other than by their own choices. Other than for the same, there is no one hungry in the United States. Unfortunately for most of those mentally ill who cannot properly, by our standards, care for themselves, the left refuses to help them, as you can see in the streets of San Francisco and in Los Angeles.
     
  12. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    According to the SNAP income limits section on the USDA's SNAP Eligibility page, a family of 4 can qualify for SNAP with an income as high as $2,790.00 per month. What a joke; I could feed and house a family of 4 for far less than that. I make significantly more than that but my entire household budget, including the payment and insurance on my brand new Ram truck, is less than $2,790.00 per month.

    To bring us back to the topic of this thread, see how bad the welfare state is today with a representative government rather than a true democracy. Imagine how many more would be on assistance if they could vote it for themselves. Imagine how high would be the amount of that assistance and how high the income requirements to get the assistance, if voters could vote it for themselves.
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  13. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Four pictures... Two show hungry children and two do not. You guess which are which... There are no hungry children in the US.

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  14. bomberfox

    bomberfox Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2020
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Something that kinda negates the whole “more populous states having more control than less populous states” concern is swing states. Yeah the candidates will be more concerned with swing states than Alabama sooo still got a similar problem.
     
  15. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Levant regurgitates the lamest right wing propaganda I've seen to date. Seriously, I would like to know how one could feed a family of 4 on $2800 a month...assuming no rent or clothing or OTC medicine or transportation, etc., etc., comes out of that amount. What state has that low of COLA?

    Then there's the idiocy regarding the "welfare state"....same old neocon/libertarian clap trap that ignores who picks up the tab for corporate welfare in this country (yeah Levant, it exists...do some honest research). I mean, comparing modern day living to 1789 to make the absurd claim that there are no poor in America? How stupid is that?

    But the topper is that there are no hungry children in America. Sure, everyone except the likes of Murdoch industries and Rush Limbaugh (a documented liar and bigot) is lying. Here's a reality check:


    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/poor-kids/
     
    MJ Davies likes this.
  16. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you actually watch that video you posted? Did you see anything that looks like the poverty I posted above? Of course not. The video talks about 20 million children getting free lunch - no hungry children there. Or Nutrition Club - where they take home food for the weekend. Once again, no hungry children there.

    You saw two round-cheeked American children telling us that they have more than enough food. One lives in a hotel (far more expensive than a home) and gets free ice to keep butter, milk, water, and Diet Mountain Dew! cold. Diet Mountain Dew!

    She says she gets nothing but vegetables to eat. How is that a problem that she's not killing animals to get food? Don't get me wrong, for me to eat something's gotta die but that's just me; on the left, vegetarianism or even veganism is noble. The hypocritical left will fight to the end to defend the rights of poster children to eat red meat while fighting as hard to take away my right to eat the same.

    Her parents get SNAP and are doing something with it besides buying food and, in addition, did I mention they're buying Diet Mountain Dew? For the price of a 12-pack you can buy a pound of hamburger. Or 3 pounds of apples. Or 10 pounds of bananas. Or 8 cans of canned beans.

    The other child complains that a kid who dresses worse than he does has a home... There's a lesson in that. Dress your children, live your life, within your means and provide a home for your children. But even homeless, his parents get SNAP and spend it on things other than feeding their child. He complains that his friend gets to go to the refrigerator and get food if he's hungry but the child in the video "don't get to do dat." If he doesn't eat at dinner time he has to go hungry until breakfast. Welcome to reality in any home that has actual adult, responsible, parenting: you don't eat dinner you wait until breakfast.

    What do you think the chances are that the actual hungry children in the pictures I posted would even think of missing dinner and having to wait until breakfast? The concept of passing by food, even disgusting food that the children in your video would never eat, has never crossed the mind of those actual hungry children.

    The second child in the video, like the first child, has plenty of food, excessive food even, and is not a hungry or starving child.

    For a kungfuliberal, you're clearly a white-belt. PBS tells a lie and you fall for it, hook, line, and sinker.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2020
    DEFinning likes this.
  17. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All you've done is just regurgitate your myopic, skewed and essentially absurd take on facts presented. Someone needs to clue Levant in that a diet soda is NOT a nutritional drink like real fruit or vegetable juice or milk. Maybe Levant doesn't get out much, because a the aforementioned cost MORE than a can of soda. Also, I would really like to see Levant eat just canned vegetables as a sole diet staple...know how many cans you would have to consume to keep a decent weight and function during the week, Levant? Any parent will tell you that kids EAT, and a can or two of vegetables with some diet soda ain't cutt'in it! And who said they were buying a 12 pack of soda? Once again, a lame propaganda tactic so often used by rabid right wing...using your personal opinion, supposition and conjecture as a substitute for facts.

    I won't bother to address your blather regarding SNAP or how you deem what is (or should be) going on regarding this subject. Clearly, unless you have emaciated kids in rags being assisted by the Red Cross in a decrepit area, you mindset discounts any other form of poverty or hunger in this country.

    THINK, Levant, THINK! If a kid is telling you that unless he eats a local, state or gov't assisted facility at a specific time...he goes hungry that night. Now maybe in your dystopian vision of some fascistic regime this is okay...but not in my mind where restaurants and supermarkets throw away TONS of good food every day because they can't meet their projected sales quota. And as for the Hotel/motel situation....if you're laid off and such, it can be cheaper than a house rent, don't cha know.

    But if you are truly not following the willfully ignorant attitude and are actually intellectually honest, here's a primer for you on the subject as to how such things come about: https://www.pbs.org/search/?q=poverty
     
    MJ Davies likes this.
  18. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, you're a socialist and I am not. But as soon as you take over and take all of that excess that the restaurants are tossing then people quit paying for restaurant food and restaurants go out of business. As soon as you start taking the other excesses that you believe the hard working have that the not-working deserve, the hard working quit working and you won't have to worry about excesses being tossed. Google Venezuela for proof.

    But, even with all the food we throw away (isn't capitalism wonderful?), there's food to give to the children of parents who sold their SNAP cards for drug money. In spite of all the evil that government and their parents have done, that kid eats... Still not hungry. There are zero hungry children in the United States.

    Oh, and the choice isn't diet soda versus fruit juice. The choice is diet soda versus tap water. Then they could buy at least some actual food. Wasting food money when your children need more is not my fault. My children never missed a meal in their life because I worked to make sure they had food.

    By the way, I eat canned vegetables 3 to 5 nights a week. I have all my life. I don't care if you don't like it or those children don't like it. I bet those kids I showed from Africa would eat it. So those who won't eat it are not really hungry. If they want to eat better, tell their parents to get better jobs, make more money, and buy better food.
     
  19. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And the first sentence is a window into Levant's absurd and revisionist assessments and statements. Pointing out that he is dead wrong regarding hunger and poverty among kids in this country is a dirty socialist plot. :rolleyes:

    Levant digs his hole deeper with his absurd nonsense that not allowing restaurants to throw away good food will somehow bankrupt the country. How he equates this to Venezuela would require a new thread to educate him. In effect, Levant is saying that in order for his version of capitalism to work, you must have poverty and waste of resources.
    GMAFB!

    Then we have Levant just repeat his idiotic statements despite facts to the contrary. here's just one: https://okpolicy.org/fact-sheet-hunger-in-oklahoma/

    And someone teach Levant to read carefully and comprehensively: I would really like to see Levant eat just canned vegetables as a sole diet staple
    This means those canned vegetables are your MAIN source of food, Levant....NOT a supplement 3 times a week....7 days a week. the question stands, but clearly you don't dare honestly answer it.

    Clearly, Levant lacks the ability or will to rationally and honestly discuss the subject....and is incapable of admitting error. He's done, and I'm done wasting time on him.
     
  20. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You keep pointing out that you believe I am dead wrong regarding hunger amongst children in the US but you continue to fail to provide any evidence of hunger in the US. Show me hungry children in the US. That there are hungry children in the US is a flat out lie perpetrated by socialists wanting to get more of my money so that those who choose to not work can feed their children while spending all available aid on drugs or other things other than food for their children.

    The article you posted doesn't mention a single hungry child. It refers to food insecure children but they're only food insecure because their parents are not buying food with the money provided. Those on government assistance are the least food-insecure in the country; their assistance is guaranteed; the income of working Americans is not.

    From your Oklahoma article, SNAP recipients get "less than $1.40 per meal." Let's talk about what you can buy for $1.40 per meal.

    Boneless, skinless, chicken breasts - $1.99/lb or .50 per serving.
    Frozen peas and carrots - 80 cents per packet or .23 per serving (3.5 servings per package)
    Canola oil to cook the chicken in - 1.92 for 48 oz, 120 servings - .02 per serving.
    Dessert - Jello with fruit and whipped topping - .44
    Jello - 1.28 per box, 8 servings - .16
    Canned fruit cocktail 1.18 per can - .14
    Mini-marshmallows .88 per bag - .11
    Whipped topping 80 cents/25 servings .03​

    Total: $1.19 per serving
    Because chocolate is a food group: 2 Hershey's Kisses .20
    Grand total $1.39 per serving.

    There are no hungry children in the US.
     
  21. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Initially I wasn't sure which of you two I should attach my comment to, because in general, though not uniformly, I'd be considered to view things in a liberal-minded way (such a shame that term's noble past has been replaced w/ the right-wing caricature) but kungfuliberal's argument embodies a quote I just saw around here by Epictetus, that said you can't teach a man something that he thinks he already knows. Just know that all left-leaning thinkers aren't so intransient & impossible to converse with, intelligently ( I might have even found I agreed with many of his ideas, if he put them forth in a way that made them readable ). But deliberately feigning denseness in order to misrepresent the countering person's argument ( pretending to believe you were saying that soda IS nutritious, rather than that the money had been available for more beneficial substinence) is a tactic I find repulsive, regardless of the views of the person practicing it. The way a viewpoint is presented is a signal as to whether it is worth one's time, & insincerity ( or, alternately, having made oneself insensible to reason when it contradicts an espoused belief ) is a, " deal-breaker. "

    Composure, on the other hand, speaks well of any advocate, & from what I read, you articulated your points w/ a calm presence of mind, sticking to germane facts, & w/o descending into obfuscation, insults, or hysterics, plus w/ a refreshing bit of humor. I'm not sure which side of the question I'd end up on, since I'm not certain exactly what you two are debating (& maybe there'd be no mutually agreeable answer on that score, which could likely account for much of the disconnect) but I enjoyed reading your thoughts, respect the way you put them forth, & was sympathetic to many of your assertions though, once again, I'm not positive of their context, owing at least partly, no doubt, to the fact that this thread is about the electoral college. But I hope you'll contribute to the discussion when I start a thread on forensic/argumentative speech.
     
  22. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For the 2nd time in this thread I feel compelled to take the side of those I assume to be conservatives (forgive me if those to whom I'm referring, like myself, eschew the use of a label to put all my ideas into box) although I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter who voted in several elections for Nader. What is it about the electoral college that makes presumably sane liberals go bonkers? OF COURSE, every vote should count equally. But changing to a popular vote for President doesn't accomplish that. Clearly, the most likely response to such a system would be for any rational candidate to focus their efforts in the places with the MOST PEOPLE, where population density is greatest. Since you seem to have a greater depth of historical knowledge on this subject than do I, surely you've noted that the tendency, when votes are sought from a particular region or group, will be for politicians to support policies that those voters favor, or that will favor those voters. Hence, while the South Dakota farmer's VOTE will be equal to the California farmer's, his needs, desires, & perspectives will be seen as far less consequential; do you call that equality?

    I'm not saying that the electoral system is w/o its flaws, or that it couldn't be improved. In fact, a number of states have changed from, " winner-take-all, " to proportioned allotment of electors, w/o the drastic overhaul you 're championing as the only answer. The truth is that it is NOT the straight-forward, black-&-white issue you & your fellows make it out to be. It's a delicate issue that requires, if one is looking for improvement, and fairness, more than an oversimplified, superficial solution.

    Look, I live in Connecticut, which is practically guaranteed to vote for the Democrat for President. So my vote, regardless of who I support, isn't as valuable as that of a swing-state voter. But I live in the the country's most sizeable concentration of population. So the change you propose would theoretically benefit me. In fact, I think the most salubrious effect of the switch to electing a President by popular vote would be the lessening of the incentive of any President to view states w/ the antipathy & favoritism so manifestly demonstrated by Pres. Trump; what candidate would be willing to abandon ALL of California's or New York's or, for that matter, Texas's or Florida's or any populous state's votes, even if there was no illusion of a chance of winning the majority? And yet, I'm not beyond being able to appreciate how this change might appear to someone in the heartland or in the western interior as a robbery of the import of THEIR votes. And, as already noted, the desired competition for all voters could be accomplished w/o diminishing the value of rural voters, if more states moved to proportional allotment of electors.

    Is it only that you prefer quick fixes to prolonged campaigns that causes you to ignore this option &, instead to go off on tangents about slavery, etc.? I mean, try reading yourself in an impartial way. Even just quickly scanning the look of your argument, one is presented w/ a liberal sprinkling **** of asterisks, w/ three different-colored print, boldface, random capital letters and, of course, a surfit of exclamation points ( personally, after an ellipsis, I question the appropriateness of even one, but three?!!!). In short, your opinion is dressed in the garb of a rant, given by someone it is easy to picture screaming at their computer screen while ripping the hair from their head. Believe it or not, I'm trying to give you some advice I see as helpful. How attentive are you to someone who, in discussing a fairly bureaucratic-type issue, goes off full-tilt into impassioned backstory which is no longer central to the current situation?
     
  23. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You wasted a Lot of time and space to try and present an Intellectual approach to incorrectly categorizing my exchange with Levant because (obviously) you don't like my position. Tough cookies....unless you can logically and factually support Levant's position, your sour grapes are worthless to consider.

    Bottom line: Levant made statements that were erroneous, irrational and illogical. I PROVED such via the links I provided. If you don't like the tenor of the discussion, blame the one who started it. I don't mince words or "place nice" with such folk. In the words of the late, great James Brown, "Don't start none, won't be none".
     
  24. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well I'm not sure what the point of your, " wasted space, " reply to me was, unless it was an attempt at tough talk, which doesn't really work w/ typing. My comments were NOT directed to you for the very reason I stated, which your reply to me only underscores, i.e., you need not hear anyone else's opinion on anything, except to correct them, since you've obviously already got it right.

    I admit I didn't read the entire back & forth between the 2 of you. But I read enough to make clear that Levant was saying that, COMPARED TO OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD, we don't have hunger in the U.S., using the unambiguous contrast between a video WHICH YOU SUPPLIED to prove there IS hunger, & pictures of ACTUALLY STARVING children in other parts of the world. While I stated, I think twice, that I wasn't taking Levant's side, no reasonable person can deny that food deficiency for any of America's children pales beside that of a significant part of the less-developed world. Again, this does not mean that I have no pity for OUR under-nourished youth; it is, in fact, absurd to imagine that, in this most wealthy nation in the world, not having children dying in the streets of starvation should be an acceptable benchmark. But this is not the tack your counterargument took. I stand by my comment that when you replied to Levant's comment which emphasized, "Diet Mountain Dew. cold. Diet Mountain Dew! " not by conceding that SNAP benefits, while not being sufficient, are nevertheless much more than many IN THE 3RD WORLD have available but, rather, by trying to make it out as if Levant were saying that the kid in the video was well-nourished BY VIRTUE OF the Mountain Dew-- which I guess is an easy argument to win, but is also patently ludicrous-- either you were deliberately misrepresenting his point, or were blind to it because your mind is so closed to anything that contradicts, in the slightest, any of the ideas in your precious head. Either way, such a person is a poor representative for any group, so excuse me if I wanted to do my part to clean up the load you'd just dumped on the liberal image, as well as genuinely feeling sympathetic toward Levant for having to deal with such an ass. Lastly, since I even speculated that I might agree w/ YOUR overall point, if I knew exactly what it was the two of you were trying to prove, the conclusion that I, " don't like (your) position, " is OBVIOUS to no one BUT YOU. Try re-reading my comment (I have). If there is any credible case to be made that the thing I didn't like about your argument was anything other than the WAY YOU MADE IT, I will humbly apologize. Otherwise, " if you don't like the tenor, " of my reply, " blame the one who started it. " Besides, it would be very hypocritical (adding another blotch to liberals' reputation) for someone who, " don't mince words or ' place nice(sic)' with such folk," to object to my speaking frankly. If you can dish it out, I assume you can take it or, along similar lines, a very learned man once quoted me the wise words, " Don't start none, won't be none."
     
  25. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My, but you are a real gas bag, aint' ya? You're not that clever or profound, just long winded in trying NOT to come off as condescending or in mental sync with Levant's erroneous clap trap.
    When you admit that you didn't read the entire exchange, then it becomes obvious that you have a bias in your review, as you proceed to comment on things THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL INFORMATION ON. It's called comprehensive reading.....ask any high school English teacher.
    Again, you waste time and space in trying to double down on your incorrect review of my exchange with Levant. Here's what transpired that pulls the rug out from under your assertion: Clearly, unless you have emaciated kids in rags being assisted by the Red Cross in a decrepit area, your (Levant) mindset discounts any other form of poverty or hunger in this country.

    So go back and READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY THE ENTIRE EXCHANGE, or just read Levant's screeds as he responds to others. Then you can attempt an intellectually honest discussion (minus your bias about "liberals").
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2020

Share This Page