Seth

No, he continued to lead from the front, and that included getting out and about, not hiding in a basement, like Biden is "famous for."

You lefties are the only misguided ones among us -- you revel in being duped by a century old scam that only useful idiots who don't learn from history succumb to, and then you attack critical thinkers who haven't fallen for the most disastrous con job in modern history as being the stupid ones.

You portsiders have brought deflection to a new level.

SSDD

Port side, starboard side... Not for me, too easy to go overboard on either side, prefer right here in the middle hugging the crap out of the mast, less likely to end up in the drink if one stays near the center.



Sorry, I couldn't help myself. All joking aside, as long as the sea isn't terribly tumultuous, I am fine standing at either rail, but politically, I kinda prefer moderation, slightly left of center sometimes, slightly right of center sometimes, just not really into venturing too far from median. It would be totally awesome if BOTH parties were to work their ways towards the more sane center ground, though sadly, it doesn't look like either side seems all too willing to be the first to flinch.

Seth

This was not always the case.

Up until early in this century, there was a sliding scale of cooperation between the two major parties, then, right after 2000, the left side of the equation began this "our way or the highway" kind of imperiousness that continued, especially accelerating during the Obama years, into what we have now.

Whether you see it or not, the aggressors have been the left, challenging every American tradition and pushing the right into a defensive role, seeing every victory as a mandate to push even harder, leaving the right no room to maneuver short of striking back.

This has reached an unprecedented scale and is not the product of any normal influence -- it comes from politicians on the left having been corrupted by external forces -- globalists and their Chinese allies in large part, and what we are seeing here is exactly the same template employed by the engineers of Marxist insurrections throughout the Twentieth Century, right down to the rioting, looting, arson and random violence in Democrat run cities.

These people have hijacked the Democratic Party. Look back and try to find that party going anywhere near that far left. You won't find anything even close, and if the people behind it have their way, there won't even be a safe mast to grab onto.

Everything is being politicized by the left. Education, media, entertainment, sports, no matter where you turn, there is little escape from left wing politics.

This is not a natural social evolution, it is a late stage of an engineered long term plan, calculated to turn Americans against Americans and promote even more violent chaos than we've seen so far.

All the evidence is staring us right in the face, yet too many people are ignoring it as they allow the left to deflect, sugar coat and misdirect.

If they win, an awful lot of people are going to sit there and wonder what happened to America, and how we no longer enjoy the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

SSDD

Oh... I have seen some previously unthinkable extremism from some on the left and some policies proclaimed to be "communist" by some, Obamacare comes to mind, though interestingly enough, it shares some striking similarities to another program that predates it, enacted on the state scale that is accredited to a Republican.

I considered it rather humorous that this same Republican was so critical of somewhat the same concept being looked at, at the federal level. Granted, there are also some striking differences between the two programs as well, some of which may help explain the differing viewpoints on the two programs by the same politicians.

All the same, we really do need for the two sides to work their way back towards center. Right now the system is completely broken and nothing can come from such a broken system, at least nothing good at any rate.

straightUp Loc: California

So you like it better the way it is now... with the lives of those living on the west coast and upper east coast being controlled by the sparsely populated red states.

Did you know that one citizen in Wyoming has the power outvote five citizens in California?

If your answer is yes, then I know that fairness means nothing to you, as long as you get what you want.
If your answer is no, then you are like the majority of the American people and just don't really know what the problem with the EC is.

I can explain that.

First thing to know... There is nothing wrong with the EC itself.

According to the U.S.Constitution, the people elect their representatives and the representatives elect the president. So in a sense, no one on this site has EVER elected a president. All we have done is cast votes for which president we would like our representative to elect. The representative is not legally obligated to vote according the will of his district, but if he wants to be re-elected, then he ought to, right?

But what if there are more convincing reasons for a representative to vote against the will of his constituents? I mean, corruption can be a powerful thing. Well, the founders thought of that and their answer was to use surrogate voters that would be chosen in the same way as jurors are. So, regular citizens chosen to help the government make decisions. Together, these surrogate voters (one per representative) form the Electoral College.

So the EC was established as an anti-corruption system. It was NEVER meant to be a population compensation system. In other words, they did NOT invent the EC to prevent large states from controlling small states. They actually had a different system for that. The number of seats in the House of Representatives would expand in relation to population growth in order to maintain a consistent ratio of representative to citizens. This way ALL voters have equal power, regardless of size differential between states. So that's the second thing to know.

The third thing to know is that the Apportionment Act of 1911 stopped the expansion and set the number of seats to 433. A few years later two more seats were added (Arizona and New Mexico joining the union) and it's been set to 435 seats ever since. Meanwhile, the population continued to boom, faster in some places than other places, which is important to point out because the ratios diverge.

So the problem is that one representative is shared with more people in densely populated districts than in sparsely populated districts. This is why a voter in Wyoming has more power that four voters in California.

The way to fix that is to take the total population and divide that by 435 to get the required population per district. But watch out - California would wind up with a lot more districts (and therefore EC votes). But that doesn't mean anyone in California has any more power than anyone in Wyoming. It DOES mean California will get more districts, but then again California has more people.

debeda

I agree, Seth. Terrific post👍👍

debeda

I agree both sides need to shake off the more radical parts of their parties. In my opinion, tho, the left has embraced the radical proglibs, while leaving their more measured constituents under or even un represented.
As far a Mitt Romney goes, he's no Republican, I'm not sure what his game is. But he mostly parrots the left, so theres something in it for him personally, IMO.

straightUp Loc: California

LOL - OOH-KAAY!


Actually, you uptighty-righties are the misguided ones as Trump has demonstrated for us... "Oh, you mean you CAN get the virus if you don't wear a mask? Oh, you mean hydroxychloroquine DOESN'T work?"

Dugh!!!!

Another example... telling me that lefties (such as myself) are being duped by a century old scam that only useful idiots succumb to... Let's see, might you be talking about Marxism? ...That's hilarious. It's not going to matter how many times you hear us say we don't follow or care about Marxism, you're going to keep saying it. So, what's the deal? Do you think if you say it enough it will become true? Or do you really not know the difference between communism and democratic socialism?

As for critical thinking... there isn't any in the alt-right herd. What you got is a frenzy of parrots squawking about what their channels told them. It's not surprising... the right has been trying to defund liberal arts programs for decades... Liberal arts is where students explore and develop critical thinking. The right is also more influenced by congregational culture, where people are conditioned from a very early age to simply accept what they are being told. Remember all those books that were banned and burned? None of that was done by people on the left.

Yeah, the "left" attacks critical thinkers


You mean reflection. The deflection is pretty much all you starboarders.

debeda

The part that you are missing is that the STATES need to be represented, not just the people. People jammed into cities have little to no awareness of the needs of farming, ranching, or dairy communities - tho if those are underrepresented it would affect those in cities more than anyone. Densely populated areas also tend to produce less self reliant and free thinking people (my opinion). It is important that all states have reasonable representation, not just California, New York city and Chicago.....

marinevet73

I think letting the majority of the US control who our President is the way it should be. Not sure it really matters where they are from.

SSDD

Ah, yes, the "Rino" label. Perhaps he is, perhaps he may not be. It may be possible that he might still be conservative, just not AS conservative as one might desire. I don't know to be honest, to me, he just seems moderate, but then again, I haven't been all too focused on critiquing his leanings or party loyalty.

SSDD

Perhaps a compromise may be to exchange the electoral college for maybe a system where popular vote within the state carries the state and all it's "electoral weight" (that is of course assuming this proposed new system would retain states maintaining their "electoral weight") if any states carry more "weight" than the others within the final draft of proposed new system.

Just offering up a suggestion and not even one that I have put any real thought to nor necessarily endorsing, just one that may or may not be worth consideration, likely in need of tweaks to be hammered out with input heard from both sides.

straightUp Loc: California

So what actually happened is that you folks were being outvoted. And when you get outvoted you get all pissed off and start crying about how the left won't let you have your way.


LOL - I love it... you have no examples or evidence because there is none, so you just tell us that it doesn't matter if we see it or not - it's true. Is that because YOU say so? Is this where we all turned into Marxists without knowing it? LOL


Wow... that's a big load of confusion. It would take me two pages to untangle that rant, so I'll pass. Thanks for the laugh though.


The Democratic Party was hijacked by LBJ way back in 1964. That's when the Democrats ceased to be the conservative party and started it's leftward path to equality and civil rights for ALL people. Boy did that piss off the Jim Crow racists in the South who disowned the Democratic Party and called themselves Dixiecrats. But the genius of Barry Goldwater's Southern Strategy helped the Nixon campaign recruit those pissed of bigots to the Republican Party.


Stop being such a drama-queen. All the "left" means is that everyone is included... So black lives matter, immigrants are welcome, gay people can get married, etc... The "right" is about exclusion... so white supremacy, nativism, nationalism, walls on the border, etc...

It was the same a century ago only the political options were different. So, on the extreme right you had Nazism, a nationalist movement that excluded Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals. On the left you had Marxism, which promised an international revolution to end the class system

Hitler blamed the communist movement for Germany's defeat in WW1, because German communists were coordinating with Russian communists during the war. And since almost all the German communists were Jewish, he hated them too.


Well, you listed liberal institutions... it's the liberals that push for more education and a LOT of the media and the entertainment industry is saturated with liberals and it's the liberals that don't seem to have a problem with athletes making political statements. Trust me, switch the channel to NASCAR or Big Bass fishing and you will find plenty of right-wing politics.


Turning citizens against each other and promoting violence is actually a fascist technique and Trump is the first president to try it out.


In other words... there is no such evidence, which is why we can't see it but we can always say it's because the left is hiding it.


More unfounded fear... I know you've heard this a million times and a million and one isn't going to make any difference but the 2nd Amendment is NOT being threatened, so get a grip.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

[quote=straightUp]So you like it better the way it is now... with the lives of those living on the west coast and upper east coast being controlled by the sparsely populated red states.

Did you know that one citizen in Wyoming has the power outvote five citizens in California?{ Not true~~}

If your answer is yes, then I know that fairness means nothing to you, as long as you get what you want.
If your answer is no, then you are like the majority of the American people and just don't really know what the problem with the EC is.

I can explain that.

First thing to know... There is nothing wrong with the EC itself.

According to the U.S.Constitution, the people elect their representatives and the representatives elect the president. So in a sense, no one on this site has EVER elected a president. All we have done is cast votes for which president we would like our representative to elect. The representative is not legally obligated to vote according the will of his district, but if he wants to be re-elected, then he ought to, right?

But what if there are more convincing reasons for a representative to vote against the will of his constituents? I mean, corruption can be a powerful thing. Well, the founders thought of that and their answer was to use surrogate voters that would be chosen in the same way as jurors are. So, regular citizens chosen to help the government make decisions. Together, these surrogate voters (one per representative) form the Electoral College.

So the EC was established as an anti-corruption system. It was NEVER meant to be a population compensation system. In other words, they did NOT invent the EC to prevent large states from controlling small states. They actually had a different system for that. The number of seats in the House of Representatives would expand in relation to population growth in order to maintain a consistent ratio of representative to citizens. This way ALL voters have equal power, regardless of size differential between states. So that's the second thing to know.

The third thing to know is that the Apportionment Act of 1911 stopped the expansion and set the number of seats to 433. A few years later two more seats were added (Arizona and New Mexico joining the union) and it's been set to 435 seats ever since. Meanwhile, the population continued to boom, faster in some places than other places, which is important to point out because the ratios diverge.

So the problem is that one representative is shared with more people in densely populated districts than in sparsely populated districts. This is why a voter in Wyoming has more power that four voters in California.

The way to fix that is to take the total population and divide that by 435 to get the required population per district. But watch out - California would wind up with a lot more districts (and therefore EC votes). But that doesn't mean anyone in California has any more power than anyone in Wyoming. It DOES mean California will get more districts, but then again California has more people..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why is it so many of your posts do not “quote reply”?? Frustrating it is...

I’m sure you are aware of the recent Supreme Court ruling case on electoral college votes right?

2020
On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states have the power to require presidential electors to vote for their party’s candidate for president.

More specifically, the decision allows states to pass laws requiring presidential electors to cast their votes in a manner that faithfully reflects their commitment to vote for the person they promised to choose when they were nominated as an elector.

So unless I misunderstand your comment of : The representative is not legally obligated to vote according the will of his district, but if he wants to be re-elected, then he ought to, right? ~ then I must respectfully disagree..Faithless electors is not what States look for when appointing their Representatives and do hold them accountable based on their own state laws of such..

This clear reaffirmation of the power of states to appoint their electoral votes “in whatever way it likes” supports the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and Article II, section 1 upon which National Popular Vote is based. States have broad authority over their electors, and nothing in this case would suggest this plenary power would suddenly be limited if the states’ electors were awarded to the National Popular Vote winner.
And second, the Court’s decision reinforces the validity of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under National Popular Vote, states that combine for at least 270 electoral votes agree to award their electors to the presidential candidate who wins the most individual votes across the nation. (Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, totaling 196 electoral votes, have already passed the measure.)

In the 18 states currently without faithless elector laws, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would operate in a manner identical to the system that they have been using for over 200 years. In these states (which currently use the state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes), the presidential electors are chosen by the political party whose presidential candidate receives the most popular votes inside the state, and there are no additional requirements placed upon the elector.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would operate in the same way, except that the presidential electors would be persons chosen by the political party whose presidential candidate receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia....


Finally, I disagree whole heartedly with your closing paragraph.... Cali, NY etc would control the election given their over populated states...Exactly why our founders made sure to address the EC vote to balance it all out..

This Supreme Court decision, is so strong that it would seem to allow states to remove faithless electors even without a state law...

Plenty to read should you wish..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/07/14/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-validates-case-for-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/amp/

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

You call it true in saying; This has reached an unprecedented scale and is not the product of any normal influence -- it comes from politicians on the left having been corrupted by external forces -- globalists and their Chinese allies in large part, and what we are seeing here is exactly the same template employed by the engineers of Marxist insurrections throughout the Twentieth Century, right down to the rioting, looting, arson and random violence in Democrat run cities.

Glaringly obvious with the proof before our eyes regardless of how many deflection tactics they try to throw up to deny exactly what “ their actions confirm.”

The Democratic Party is in shambles and trying everything they can to gain control jumping on the bandwagon of the UN and their mission for a one world order to come. To that I say when hell freezes over darling!!!

Socialism their mission, communism there ultimate intent....