Special Counsel Appointed for Russia Investigation

[Resurgo]

As compared to how most elections now are largely dictated by a handful of swing states with a fraction of the total US population?

I'd rather candidates had to actually court large population centers where folks actually live (especially considering these are usually the hubs of economic activity, and far more important to the US government and economy than bumfuck nowheresville) instead of going to states to court populations the size of single cities (Ohio has 11.5M residents as of 2015, while New York City (not state) has 8.5M as of 2014, for context).

You know, actual democracy. It shafts folks in bumfuck nowhere a bit, but welcome to living in bumfuck nowhere.

Supposing that's the case, in today's numbers, a politician pretty much only needs to campaign in California, NY and NJ and they'd likely have the whole election on lockdown. Yes, that is a bit extreme, but no less extreme than being ruled by the folks in bumfuck nowhere =P

[Skroe]

Yep, agreed 100%. I haven't supported republicans for a long time, but I agree with you about Kaisich. I don't support him on a lot of his positions, but he seems to be much more reasonable than the alt-reich theocrats that have taken over the republican party in recent years.

Preach it! My only problem with Kaisich is that he was a pork-creating asshat that modestly fucked US securitywhen he killed the B-2 Bomber (which was produced in California) to protect the B-1B Lancer (which was produces in Ohio) when he was in Congress. But the B-1B has proven to be a rather amazing work horse. He made a significant military-impacting decision to protect local jobs.

Sides that, I'm a fan.

[Stormspark]

I think you just don't want people in ButtFuck, Nebraska to vote period. Since you keep calling it that.

Nope. Those 10 people in Buttfuck, Nebraska get the same vote that every single person in the country does. 1 person, 1 vote. Their vote countes just as much as anyone else's. That's how it should be.

[NYC17]

We already know that you are bad at two things:
1. Logic
2. Words

I think you MUST agree that there is no point to pay ANY attention to whatever you say.

Let's recap:

You: that sounds kinda treasonous

Me: How so?

You: Because Z, Y, Z

Me: That doesn't make any sense. You obviously don't know what words mean

You: I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS!!!

Me: You literally just explained why you believe it does. You are bad at this

You: You're really the one whose bad at logic and words

...

[Dextroden]

No. There was no point in blaming the EC then because he won with our without it. Fuck it's like I'm trying to teach calculus to an infant.

You missed the people saying he needed the popular vote as he won it.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. Those 10 people in Buttfuck, Nebraska get the same vote that every single person in the country does. 1 person, 1 vote. Their vote countes just as much as anyone else's. That's how it should be.

No. I think you just don't want them to vote.

People that say ButtFuck, Middle America State seriously tend to think everyone in the South or Middle America are inbred rednecks undeserving of a vote.

[Stormspark]

Preach it! My only problem with Kaisich is that he was a pork-creating asshat that modestly fucked US securitywhen he killed the B-2 Bomber (which was produced in California) to protect the B-1B Lancer (which was produces in Ohio) when he was in Congress. But the B-1B has proven to be a rather amazing work horse. He made a significant military-impacting decision to protect local jobs.

Sides that, I'm a fan.

Yeah, he's the governor of my state. He supports a lot of crap like the "defense of marriage act" and stripping money from planned parenthood and privitizing prisons...but at the same time he isn't all bad. He supports some drug decriminalization and is much more open to universal healthcare (or the beginnings of it) than most republicans are. I can't say I'd vote for him, but if he were president instead of Trump I don't think things would be too bad.

[Edge-]

Supposing that's the case, in today's numbers, a politician pretty much only needs to campaign in California, NY and NJ and they'd likely have the whole election on lockdown. Yes, that is a bit extreme, but no less extreme than being ruled by the folks in bumfuck nowhere =P

Agreed, but that's kinda how democracy works. You go where the most folks are, usually, and appeal to them there. But even then, that's not necessarily the best strategy because you're never going be able to fully reach all those folks. There's still huge benefits to hosting rallies and campaigning hard in states with solid overall populations but no major population hubs a la NYC/SF.

There's no perfect way for it to end up due to the fact that population distribution is extremely uneven, but more steps towards a proper democratic election and away from the nonsense that is the EC is always a good thing.

[Resurgo]

Fun fact: the fastest growing cities in the country are in Red States, due to cost of living in places like New York City and San Fransisco. The concern about Urban domination is unfounded: 80% of Americans already live in urban areas.

But that's also entirely fair in a sense. Yes, it may produce more liberal Presidents. But equally, what's more important: winning or democratic principles? I say that because fundamentally everything the government does is about money... it taxes to do things. These urban areas contribute a far larger share to the federal pool than rural areas. So should their citizens not have a one person / one vote say in how their money is being used, even if that means that "my side" loses?

It is more important to live consistent with our principles than to rig the system so that one side or another wins. If conservatives SHOULD win, we should craft arguments and approaches to appeal to urban voters to get them to vote for us. Massachusetts proves that it is ENTIRELY possible to do so with great success. That may mean alienating the country bumpkins, but if the new set of policies reflects more Americans, and wins that is also, far more democratic than the situation now.

That's a pretty fair argument. Better than I would have thought, however, that doesn't reflect the realities of "now".
You and I both would agree we would (possibly in the short term?) see more Liberal Presidents.

While I'm forced to rethink the idea of how "fair" it is, I can't help but think you've touched on something a bit. Just seems like you're really cutting out a portion of the country pretty harshly when you have to realize that the "country bumpkins" are going to be alienated for sure.

[alexw]

I'm curious then...
How do you account for the possibility that all elections will end up being decided by major metropolises like NY and California? By and large, those two alone tend to be more liberal and are a huuuuge chunk of the popular vote.

That's exactly what should happen. They should have a greater voice in determining who the president is due to their larger populations. The senate exists to give smaller less populous parts of the country an out-sized say. The presidency was never intended for that role.

Moreover your argument automatically presumes that the political make-up of the parties don't change. However under a one person one vote system the republican party will almost certainly moderate and shift away from their hard-right stance. The republican party should not be able to keep 1950's values in the 2010's and hold power in all branches of government when the majority of the population do not hold those values. What you/they are arguing for is a tyranny of the minority nothing less.

[Stormspark]

You missed the people saying he needed the popular vote as he won it.

- - - Updated - - -



No. I think you just don't want them to vote.

People that say ButtFuck, Middle America State seriously tend to think everyone in the South or Middle America are inbred rednecks undeserving of a vote.

Except you're contradicting what I said. Their vote counts just as much as every other person in the country. You're just upset that it doesn't count MORE.

[KyleEverett]

Trump says appointment of special counsel 'hurts our country terribly'

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/18/trump...-terribly.html

"I believe it hurts our country terribly, because it shows we're a divided, mixed-up, not-unified country. And we have very important things to be doing right now, whether it's trade deals, whether it's military, whether it's stopping nuclear — all of the things that we discussed today. And I think this shows a very divided country," Trump said. "It also happens to be a pure excuse for the Democrats having lost an election that they should have easily won because of the Electoral College being slanted so much in their way. That's all this is. I think it shows division, and it shows that we're not together as a country. And I think it's a very, very negative thing. And hopefully, this can go quickly, because we have to show unity if we're going to do great things with respect to the rest of the world."

[Lenonis]

Nope. Those 10 people in Buttfuck, Nebraska get the same vote that every single person in the country does. 1 person, 1 vote.

True

Their vote countes just as much as anyone else's.

False. A voter in Montana has something like 4x the weight of a voter in California when it comes to electing the president. It's mathematical fact based on the EC.

So you are half right and half so very very wrong.

EDIT -- i just picked up on the context and think I replied to the wrong poster. So I'm leaving the content as it relates to anyone who thinks the current system actually means each vote is equal across the states. But apologies if you meant shifting to popular vote.

[Skroe]

No. I think you just don't want them to vote.

People that say ButtFuck, Middle America State seriously tend to think everyone in the South or Middle America are inbred rednecks undeserving of a vote.

They are deserving of a vote. One vote. Equal to mine. Right now that is not the case. Because of the EC it is mathematically not the case. America will never be living up to it's principles to be a democratic society and a global beacon of democracy until it is gone. It is a contradiction. It is like a guy who lectures everybody around him on eating healthy but finishes dinner every night with a dozen Ho-Hos.

[Edge-]

Trump says appointment of special counsel 'hurts our country terribly'

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/18/trump...-terribly.html

"I believe it hurts our country terribly, because it shows we're a divided, mixed-up, not-unified country. And we have very important things to be doing right now, whether it's trade deals, whether it's military, whether it's stopping nuclear — all of the things that we discussed today. And I think this shows a very divided country," Trump said. "It also happens to be a pure excuse for the Democrats having lost an election that they should have easily won because of the Electoral College being slanted so much in their way. That's all this is. I think it shows division, and it shows that we're not together as a country. And I think it's a very, very negative thing. And hopefully, this can go quickly, because we have to show unity if we're going to do great things with respect to the rest of the world."

Trump's daily dose of projecting is especially strong today.

[Dextroden]

Except you're contradicting what I said. Their vote counts just as much as every other person in the country. You're just upset that it doesn't count MORE.

Nope. Seeing as I live in Florida and people bitch about the votes we get, it's not just the ten people in Nebraska people are mad at.

[Stormspark]

True False. A voter in Montana has something like 4x the weight of a voter in California when it comes to electing the president. It's mathematical fact based on the EC.

So you are half right and half so very very wrong.

No, I'm talking about how it would count under my proposed popular vote system (after abolishing the EC). Not how it is now. I know how it works now.

[Elim Garak]

Trump says appointment of special counsel 'hurts our country terribly'

Well, he is right, I don't even keep up with my domestic news anymore, all the entertainment is coming out of the US government.

[Lenonis]

No, I'm talking about how it would count under my proposed popular vote system (after abolishing the EC). Not how it is now. I know how it works now.

Yup -- see my edit. Sorry about that!

[Felya]

I'm curious then...
How do you account for the possibility that all elections will end up being decided by major metropolises like NY and California? By and large, those two alone tend to be more liberal and are a huuuuge chunk of the popular vote.

So? Why does it mater where the American citizen voting lives? Congress represents states and districts, while the president represents the whole country. The checks and balances that electoral college bring, already exist in our 3 branches of federal government. In districts and in state elections, each vote counts the same, regardless how many people live in your neighborhood. In those elections California has no impact on who you select. Electoral college on the other hand, now for the second time in less than 20 years, went against the majority vote. In effect making those voting in places like California, have a vote that is worth a fraction of those in other states.

On top of that, California and NY disproportionally pay more federally, than they receive back. Punishing them further for being the top contributor by cutting the worth of their vote makes no sense. NY and California should have more say in politics, because they simply have more Americans.

This is why things like "real Americans" was created... so you can shit on people's vote, without guilt.

[Skroe]

True False. A voter in Montana has something like 4x the weight of a voter in California when it comes to electing the president. It's mathematical fact based on the EC.

So you are half right and half so very very wrong.

EDIT -- i just picked up on the context and think I replied to the wrong poster. So I'm leaving the content as it relates to anyone who thinks the current system actually means each vote is equal across the states. But apologies if you meant shifting to popular vote.

Bingo



"This map shows each state re-sized in proportion to the relative influence of the individual voters who live there. The numbers indicate the total delegates to the Electoral College from each state, and how many eligible voters a single delegate from each state represents."