How The Game is Played

@averagejoe1 said
But Marauder, dispensing with the semantics of what is democratic or republic blah blah blah, if we get rid of the electoral college, we will in fact have where 51% of the country can tell the other 49% to kiss off, or whatever.
Marauder, to our less-informed readers, that is what is generally referred to as mob rule. You are the saying that you are all for mob rule.
Confirm, please?

I'm not going to keep responding to such nonsense.

No, a democratic society doesn't mean that anything can be done to the minority as I already explained:

"Of course the prior post is subject to the restriction against violating an individual's Natural Rights, but that surely does not include a "right" not to pay some share of society's cost nor to have a personal veto power over the tax system."

Getting rid of the EC as presently constituted hardly would be an affront to any minority; in fact, as it now works, the minority in any State have no representation on that State's set of Electors - ironically it does exactly what you are complaining about i.e. tells the minority to "kiss off".

@no1marauder said
I'm not going to keep responding to such nonsense.

No, a democratic society doesn't mean that anything can be done to the minority as I already explained:

"Of course the prior post is subject to the restriction against violating an individual's Natural Rights, but that surely does not include a "right" not to pay some share of society's cost nor to have a personal ...[text shortened]... s - ironically it does exactly what you are complaining about i.e. tells the minority to "kiss off".

I may be wrong, but with no EC, all votes in the country are equal (which is not the case now ).. is that correct? And Could you zero in, clarify, What do you mean by minority. You see, if a vote happens with no EC, all votes countig 1person, 1 vote, no ‘minority’ can exist or be determined until After the vote.

@averagejoe1 said
I may be wrong, but with no EC, all votes in the country are equal (which is not the case now ).. is that correct? And Could you zero in, clarify, What do you mean by minority. You see, if a vote happens with no EC, all votes countig 1person, 1 vote, no ‘minority’ can exist or be determined until After the vote.

If you abolished the EC and went by direct popular vote, yes every vote would be equal. Just like they are in every other election.

That would be a problem ........................................ why?

@no1marauder said
I'm not going to keep responding to such nonsense.

No, a democratic society doesn't mean that anything can be done to the minority as I already explained:

"Of course the prior post is subject to the restriction against violating an individual's Natural Rights, but that surely does not include a "right" not to pay some share of society's cost nor to have a personal ...[text shortened]... s - ironically it does exactly what you are complaining about i.e. tells the minority to "kiss off".

I am being serious with this question, i don't pretend to know all the ramifications, pros and cons do abound.
But what do you mean when you say abolishing the EU would not be an affront to the minority?.My knee jerk response would be that 51% controlling the lives of the other 49% (is this the minority you are speaking of?) would on its face be an affront.

I can see maybe 66% ....but 51%.?????

@averagejoe1 said
I am being serious with this question, i don't pretend to know all the ramifications, pros and cons do abound.
But what do you mean when you say abolishing the EU would not be an affront to the minority?.My knee jerk response would be that 51% controlling the lives of the other 49% (is this the minority you are speaking of?) would on its face be an affront.

I can see maybe 66% ....but 51%.?????

I don't think you understand how the EC presently works at all.

I know you hate links but learn something before you make such ridiculous claims: https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION/ELECTORAL-COLLEGE/qzjpqaeqapx/

Of particular interest:

"All but two states use a winner-take-all approach: The candidate that wins the most votes in that state gets all of its electoral votes."

Isn't that what you are complaining about i.e. the minority having no say at all?

@no1marauder said
I don't think you understand how the EC presently works at all.

I know you hate links but learn something before you make such ridiculous claims: https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION/ELECTORAL-COLLEGE/qzjpqaeqapx/

Of particular interest:

"All but two states use a winner-take-all approach: The candidate that wins the most votes in that state gets all of its e ...[text shortened]... ectoral votes."

Isn't that what you are complaining about i.e. the minority having no say at all?

Well, what I am having to complain about is that your website leaves me to think that certain states like CA and NY have too much power, certainly you know this, and states like WY and Idaho aren't even THOUGHT about when money is on the table. The EC is all about having politicians pay attention to people in rural areas and small states like Wyoming.
I think libs want to get rid of it because of its very purpose:...To divide power between state and federal govt. It helps to avoid an overly strong central government. Libs and you would love a strong center one-party government.

So, that is a 3 point list. Wyoming left in the dust by hippies and frisbee throwers in CA, a strong central government would evolve like some star trek episode, and thirdly, the Fed govt would overtake the state governments. ONE government, Marauder. So how would you come down on these 3 points.?
Would your answer be the same if the republicans were in power when the feds take over the whole works?

@averagejoe1 said
Well, what I am having to complain about is that your website leaves me to think that certain states like CA and NY have too much power, certainly you know this, and states like WY and Idaho aren't even THOUGHT about when money is on the table. The EC is all about having politicians pay attention to people in rural areas and small states like Wyoming.
I think libs wa ...[text shortened]... ld your answer be the same if the republicans were in power when the feds take over the whole works?

Your objections are absurd; no one pays any attention to Wyoming as a result of the EC. But in a popular vote election, a person voting in Wyoming would have the same say as someone voting in California.

Nor is the President the only source of political power in this country; as silly as it might be, Wyoming has just as many Senators as California and thus retains a disproportionate amount of power in the legislative branch.

So your points are BS.

@no1marauder said
Your objections are absurd; no one pays any attention to Wyoming as a result of the EC. But in a popular vote election, a person voting in Wyoming would have the same say as someone voting in California.

Nor is the President the only source of political power in this country; as silly as it might be, Wyoming has just as many Senators as California and thus retains a disproportionate amount of power in the legislative branch.

So your points are BS.

You ARE ABSOLUTELY wrong on your first paragraph. The EC is All About not leaving the small states out in the cold. Consider this......Wyoming, with a few people, might have barbed wire problems, and NY has subway problems.
Hey, Marauder, which way do you think the final vote will go? Subways, I imagine. Let's get them fixed up. Certainly you see that????? You are way off on that one.

On paragraph 2, you are going liberal on me and bringing in extraneous yawner information. It means nothing as we regard the EC in this post. Thought you have grown away from that. Did you see the thread where I was writing about a simple shoe cobbler working for a rich man, and Kev, in response, glommed on to the 'rich man' in my analogy. He just jumped on it, Like Sonhouse. Even I forgot what the thread was about!!!
So I simplified it for him, took out that the little man was working for the rich man, and said instead that the little man was working on his own. After that, I didn't hear from Kev. I'll check, maybe he came back on it.

So anyway, your post here has no traction. Again, para 2 is irrelevant.

@averagejoe1 said
You ARE ABSOLUTELY wrong on your first paragraph. The EC is All About not leaving the small states out in the cold. Consider this......Wyoming, with a few people, might have barbed wire problems, and NY has subway problems.
Hey, Marauder, which way do you think the final vote will go? Subways, I imagine. Let's get them fixed up. Certainly you see that????? ...[text shortened]... he came back on it.

So anyway, your post here has no traction. Again, para 2 is irrelevant.

That you talk yourself into deciding what other people write is "irrelevant" doesn't mean it is. Your whole argument is about the distribution of political power in the US and now how the Senate is organized is "irrelevant"? Don't be so blatantly stupid.

The fact of the matter is no major party candidate wastes time campaigning in Wyoming because: A) It has only three electoral college votes; and B) It is solidly Republican. So the EC does nothing to enhance its influence in national politics.

@no1marauder said
That you talk yourself into deciding what other people write is "irrelevant" doesn't mean it is. Your whole argument is about the distribution of political power in the US and now how the Senate is organized is "irrelevant"? Don't be so blatantly stupid.

The fact of the matter is no major party candidate wastes time campaigning in Wyoming because: A) It has only three ...[text shortened]... d B) It is solidly Republican. So the EC does nothing to enhance its influence in national politics.

Whew. I think the senate is not behind the closed doors at EC. Nor in the 330M voting moments (well, 140,000,000 to be exact) If you are on that bent, why not bring up how the SCOTUS is organized, one of three branches. Whoop de' do.
You are a cross between Suzianne and the Duchess, with Kev as backup

@averagejoe1 said
You ARE ABSOLUTELY wrong on your first paragraph. The EC is All About not leaving the small states out in the cold. Consider this......Wyoming, with a few people, might have barbed wire problems, and NY has subway problems.
Hey, Marauder, which way do you think the final vote will go? Subways, I imagine. Let's get them fixed up. Certainly you see that????? ...[text shortened]... he came back on it.

So anyway, your post here has no traction. Again, para 2 is irrelevant.

Regarding "what the thread was about" you seemed to think the immigration crisis was all caused by Joe Biden, who is apparently simultaneously changing the moral fabric of our country and a drooling marionette. I'm not sure how he can be both but... cool.

Through all your meandering arguments about how conservatives are tough on immigrants (which you never adequately defended) and how corps deserve welfare benefits but not people (which doesn't make sense) and this new jag on Wyoming, I think the common theme of this thread is... modern conservatism is a joke.

We can discuss all day about which politician used which buzzword (America first or USA or True Patriot or Black/Blue/Brown/LGTBQ Lives matter) but what do they do? Many of the big name politicians who tweeter all the time don't write bills or even debate any issues with anyone. All they want to do is create division. I can't stand it. If you think immigration policies need to be reformed, reform them. That's the hard job but it's the one that people should pay attention to. Trump never did that and never wanted to do it. Who wants to solve problems instead of creating new ones?

@wildgrass said
Regarding "what the thread was about" you seemed to think the immigration crisis was all caused by Joe Biden, who is apparently simultaneously changing the moral fabric of our country and a drooling marionette. I'm not sure how he can be both but... cool.

Through all your meandering arguments about how conservatives are tough on immigrants (which you never adequately def ...[text shortened]... never did that and never wanted to do it. Who wants to solve problems instead of creating new ones?

OK, nice post. But you see, your last sentence....creating new problems. If that man from Mars was asked his opinion on which party is creating new problems? He will say the Dems wake up every day (Woke, I guess) and create several new problems. All the news is about what has been stirred up by the Dems. What do you think the Repubs are 'creating' to make problems? We just want to the stay the 250-yr old course. You, beginning with Obama's "We will transform America, spread the wealth around".., have been transforming America. Have the Republicans been transforming America, the land of oppotunity? Hello?
You may come back with something like 'we are making it better', but then I will come back with 'Does handing out free money make a country better"? Welll Wildgrass, does it? Do you think a Republican would propose something so ludicrous? You libs have got us conservatives telling our kids everyday what the real world is about, and, not to upset you, telling them how to prevail and win in business over the competitors, how to get rich, be self sufficient, self-reliant, independent.
Yes, sorry to disagree, (as to tough on immigrants), but you fellows want to feed them ice cream to get them into our country, regardless of merit. Tough is better, they should earn it.
Corps on welfare....Hundreds of legislators for years, including democrats, would disagree with you, and they were more knowledgable about corporate financial structures when they realized there should be 'tax breaks' to keep them afloat in bad times. So it is ether follow your and Kev's reasoning, or studied legislators who have been lobbied. Have you ever been lobbied? If you were, you would say,,,,"ohhhh, I see. This should be done."

And what in the world do you mean when you say 'welfare benefits do not benefit people''''???????' Isn't free stuff what you fellers write about all the time!?!? Holy Smokes....

All conservatives want to do is create division??. Do Woke and Canceling create division? Who does that?

@averagejoe1 said
OK, nice post. But you see, your last sentence....creating new problems. If that man from Mars was asked his opinion on which party is creating new problems? He will say the Dems wake up every day (Woke, I guess) and create several new problems. All the news is about what has been stirred up by the Dems. What do you think the Repubs are 'creating' to make problems? ...[text shortened]... onservatives want to do is create division??. Do Woke and Canceling create division? Who does that?

... but then I will come back with 'Does handing out free money make a country better"?

No, it does not.

You know, if you've been paying attention, that I was NOT talking about taxes when I mentioned corporate welfare. When referring to corporate welfare I am referring to direct cash payments from government to corporations.

In the bill written by conservatives and voted for by conservatives, huge corps took $350 billion out of the PPP in two weeks. Direct cash payments to individuals came months later. The conservatives are handing out free money alright, they're just making sure the rich guys get it first.

The Trump administration also orchestrated a massive government program to hand out, yearly, $32 billion to farmers. This government aid welfare program stayed relatively steady ~$10 billion under Obama. Trump tripled it and those payments are still going out today. It's created a completely unsustainable problem in farming because their crops can't be sold for what they cost to produce. That's before the fact that more than half of farm workers are illegal. Why're we paying them to fail at capitalism?

The last big bailout, mostly for banks, was also orchestrated by conservatives. TARP funds of > $400 billion given in one year as direct cash welfare payments to corps for failing to cover their own bottom line. CEOs in charge of companies that should have gone bankrupt instead got a raise while millions were out of work. Do you think maybe that created a problem?

Conservatives also love military spending. Lots and lots of it. A lot of that spending goes directly to corps for building stuff. A lot of that stuff the military does not need. The Pentagon is a corporate welfare program.

Then there's the living wage subsidy that corps get. Conservative "principles" wrapped in the guise of capitalism allows corps to pay their workers less than it costs to live. There is a very high public cost to low wages. Over $100 billion a year.

Corps (especially big ones) get special handouts from the government that we don't get. They spend hundreds of millions on lobbying for access to politicians so they get the military contract but their competition doesn't. It's perverted capitalism, and these problems were all caused by conservatives with a myopic view of what capitalism is. Trickled down economics was invented by corps to get money from taxpayers that they didn't earn.

Conservatives also love military spending.

@wildgrass said

... but then I will come back with 'Does handing out free money make a country better"?

No, it does not.

You know, if you've been paying attention, that I was NOT talking about taxes when I mentioned corporate welfare. When referring to corporate welfare I am referring to direct cash payments from government to corporations.

In the bill written by con ...[text shortened]... rps to get money from taxpayers that they didn't earn.

Conservatives also love military spending.

The picture is a bit bigger than you depict. The government is quite interested in corporations, which as you know have a lot to do with the success of the progress in our country. Given that, the government naturally is going to be involved in doing whatever it can to have companies be able to make your car and your computer. You’ve gone to great lengths to go into detail about the various ways, programs, and regulations that the government puts into play to accomplish this. And i am sure your details are accurate.
Do you know that the USA controls the price of oil? Would you rather another country control the oil?
Or, The bigger question is, what else would you have our government do as regards the daily operation of corporations? Be careful what you wish for, I think it is best that the government is in there to watch the books and everything else. You fellersure do lambast the relationship of government and corporation. It does make one wonder what you would think would be a better scenario.
I’m reminded of Suzanne, who is all bent out of shape anout people who own businesses making money ‘on the backs of’ the people that they employ.
Same question....What would Suzianne consider a better scenario?

@averagejoe1 said
The picture is a bit bigger than you depict. The government is quite interested in corporations, which as you know have a lot to do with the success of the progress in our country. Given that, the government naturally is going to be involved in doing whatever it can to have companies be able to make your car and your computer. You’ve gone to great lengths to go into detai ...[text shortened]... he people that they employ.
Same question....What would Suzianne consider a better scenario?

The government is quite interested in corporations

Interested in corporations and citizens, I would hope. The economy should work for us, not the other way around.

Your post above was about conservatives telling their kids what the real world is about because libs are creating all these problems. So are they telling them the truth: the easiest path to financial success is to move to the greater D.C. area and register as a lobbyist and work for a military contractor? It's no coincidence that the top 3 richest counties in the USA are shoehorned around the capitol building. Those people aren't working for SNAP "handing out money", they're working for Boeing and Lockheed for billion dollar no bid contracts.

We've now had three in a row of Republican (conservative?) presidents who massively increased our debt and led the country into a recession. I think one can make excuses for each one of these, but in the end they're not actually acting like conservative stewards of our money.

It does make one wonder what you would think would be a better scenario.

Spend less money. It doesn't seem complicated. Conservatives talk about it all the time. They just never do it.

In my day Republicans were the party of limited government. Now they're just the party of debt. Tell that to your kids. They'll have to pay for it.