Getting rid of the Electoral College

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "What we do know for sure is that Reagan's approval ratings were in the 48-53% range in 1988. Not terrible, but certainly not anything like you're implying."

What we DO know is that Reagan was re-elected in 1984 with the MOST electoral votes EVER won by a presidential candidate - AND that he became the first president since Andrew Jackson to be popular enough to see his incumbent vice president win the White House immediately after him! No small accomplishments, either one of those!

"Did they "trash him unmercifully", or did they tell the truth about his record and his platform?"

In 2008, the media did what it had to do to defeat John McCain and help get Barack Obama elected president - and YES, if this included trashing their favorite Republican then that's what they did, along with completely IGNORING Barack's many shortcomings. And after Obama moved into the White House, they dedicated themselves to shielding & protecting him from negative news as best they could - and they did a crappy job of it, as Barack's popularity began to steadily whither away almost immediately, with his party losing BOTH houses of congress before culminating with his winning an astounding three-&-a-half million FEWER votes when he ran for re-election!

"Okay, now I'm officially persuaded that you know nothing whatsoever about his record. And I'm not surprised"

And YOU are seemingly unaware that Donald Trump understands how a business works, knows how to meet a payroll, and how to create jobs!

"Let's at least get one thing straight here, Dumpington: your view on who the best or worst Democratic candidates might be has no credibility whatsoever."

I'm simply pointing out some unpleasant facts about your party's presidential candidates that you are understandably hesitant to acknowledge.

"While I don't support him, he did run up a great track record as Obama's VP and he does have a knack for appealing to some of the groups where the Dems need to shore up their support if they're going to beat Trump."

Joe Biden's got name recognition, which will initially help him in some of the early primaries where Democrat voters want nothing to do with several of these other candidates running. But his "track record" as a declared Democratic Party presidential candidate (see: 1988 & 2008) is an exceptionally POOR one!

 

[Dumpington]

SissySalina writes: "You do understand that the States can change the way the Electoral College works if they want to. They can choose for the representatives to be proportioned or all based on the popular vote and the States can hold the representatives binding to the popular vote. You do understand that it is the political parties that do not want to change this in order to hold their power, correct?"

If BOTH parties choose to make changes to our U.S. Constitution, they can do so - but if only ONE party wants to make those changes, it's probably not going to happen.

Individual states can make the necessary adjustments to end the "winner-take-all" system currently in place in states like California, where Mrs. Clinton won ALL fifty-five electoral votes despite Donald Trump winning 4,483,814 popular votes in that state! Maine & Nebraska have ALREADY re-apportioned their electoral votes according to individual congressional districts (which does seem more fair!)

 

[BotanyBoy]

I note without surprise that you don't even try to defeat my argument.

Oh not hiding behind iggy, nice.

The rich pay most the taxes in the US, which has one of the most progressive tax codes on the planet. And if you had done any homework on the issue you'd know the rest of the "civilized" world taxes their lower 47% of income earners HEAVILY....like over 60% in some places.

The US PAYS it's lowest earners. So the real question is when will the lower 47% of US earners start paying their fair share?? They need to come up off the same percentage as everyone else for the tax burden 'share' to be truly fair.

Just like consumption taxes...everyone pays the same, that's fair.



Also, wealth redistribution programs, arbitrarily capping incomes and nationalizing huge segments of the economy to pay for it like Warren wants to is NOT the same as raising taxes to provide civil services or consumption taxing for public infrastructure. You're conflating liberalism and socialism, it's not the same thing.

It's only "socialism" in the same way that clean streets, maintained sidewalks, the police force and the interstate highway system are socialism.

Making this ^^ either total ignorance or dishonesty....which is it??

 

[icanhelp1]

Close, yes, but that's beside the point.



That had a lot more to do with Dukakis being a wimp than with Reagan's popularity (which was nothing to write home about in 1988).



McCain was always a darling of the media. That's why he got away with rebranding himself as a maverick when really he was a fairly down the line conservative vote.

And it's funny how the party that bills itself as a bulwark of "personal responsibility" always blames everyone but themselves when they lose.




It isn't. But that's not what Trump did.




That much is true. But again, that's nowhere near an accurate reflection of what Trump did that day on his golden escalator, nor what he has been doing almost every day since then.



Including the six times Trump got bailed out when he declared bankruptcy? You've got a point there - that was certainly a giveaway to someone who didn't deserve it.



Me too. We can start by cutting military bloat, and spend that on badly needed infrastructure and safety net programs instead.



By some measures, yes. On the other hand, we've seen the impact it has on, for example, the agricultural sector when we crack down on illegal immigration: suddenly there's no one willing to pick those crops anymore at the wages they were paying.



I was referring to Trump's use of that characterization in his campaign kickoff speech. I find it hard to believe you weren't aware of that.



And here we have the endgame of Republican economic policy. Cut taxes on the rich a little more every year for 35 years, and now that we're up to our eyeballs in debt as a direct result of that, it's "gee, we can't afford health care, affordable education, etc." when the rest of the civilized world easily can. How do they do it? The rich pay their fair share, that's how. It's only "socialism" in the same way that clean streets, maintained sidewalks, the police force and the interstate highway system are socialism.




Believe it or not, I agree completely. He should have apologized to her decades ago or, better yet, not treated her like that in the first place.

There is no law holding back the use of migrants for work related projects, companies need to enforce green cards and other work related visas.

The number one responsibility of our government is the protection of our citizens. Military bloat? Are you aware of the damage to our readiness caused by the sequester debacle. Over 70% of F-18 hornets and super hornets non mission capable and 50% of air force fighter aircraft non mission capable due to lack of funding. The rise of both China and Russian militaries should be cause for concern. The words peace through strength are word to live by. There are so many threats out there it would boggle your mind.

The present tax cuts are working, 3.2% rise in GDP for the first quarter. The economy is booming, jobless rates for all categories are at all time lows. Companies are re-investing into our country and overseas migration is slowing to a trickle. Blaming the debt on tax cuts is disingenuous at best. Spending in the last 40 years has been out of control. What is killing us is the 400 billion we pay towards interest on the debt. Military spending is 3.6% of GDP. Is there some bloat, yes there is, but compared to the redundant programs we consistently fund, bloat is miniscule. We can't say no. The proposed bills of democratic presidential candidates doesn't make any sense. 100 trillion dollars in ten years?

We spend more on education per capita than any nation on earth and get less for it. 20 years age our education system was ranked in the top 3. Why did it fall? If you're a teacher you need to take a hard look within. It's not because of spending constraints. We let our colleges get away with murder. They're more interested in building these huge multi million dollar complexes and allowing the government to subsidize their programs through out of control loans as tuitions continue to go up. I paid my own way through, today, there's a stench of entitlement out there. We need to reel in the teachers union. We need an effective way to evaluate teachers, a way to seperate good teachers from bad teachers and compensate accordingly. There are so many good teachers that are lost among the not so good and therefor not rewarded. Our teachers are an intrical part of the fabric of our nation but they're not above being evaluated. There is disdain towards charter and Catholic schools. I can't believe some of the things I've read on this site. I guess competition is a bad thing to some. We rank 38 among the world, think about that. To stick your head in the sand ( not you personally ) is to accept waste, fraud and abuse of the funding we give them. When college students are asked simple questions like who was the first president, or how many senators in congress and they don't know I just roll my eyes. The inmates are running the asylum.

I won't even bring up the current scandal.

Our government is inherently responsible for social well being overall. We pay taxes for things like infrastructure, roads, military, education ect. To conflate that with socialism is disingenuous at best. We are a free market society ( capitalism ). When we the people become pawns for the government, we are socialist. When we surrender our right to the government, we're socialist. We hire the government to work for us not the other way around. I don't want government to dictate to me what medical insurance is best for me.They should spend their time and efforts taking care of the less fortunate. Just look at the VA, that's a microcosm of government controlled health care, the ineffectiveness of government to do healthcare right is right in front of our nose. Are we that collectively stupid as to not see that. To accept universal healthcare is to let big companies who provide healthcare to their employees off the hook and put the burden back on our people

I wonder what happens to all the tax and toll money collected for roads and infrastructure, I know!!! they spend it on other shit instead of what it was intended for, and then we have a crisis ( self inflicted )

When congress passes laws, I guess your assumption is, if it's a bad law it's republican and if it's a good law it's democrat. Why do democrats have such a problem accepting some of the blame for what ale's this country, at least their fair share. Just my opinion.

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "What we do know for sure is that Reagan's approval ratings were in the 48-53% range in 1988. Not terrible, but certainly not anything like you're implying."

What we DO know is that Reagan was re-elected in 1984 with the MOST electoral votes EVER won by a presidential candidate

True but irrelevant.

- AND that he became the first president since Andrew Jackson to be popular enough to see his incumbent vice president win the White House immediately after him!

Reagan's popularity had little to do with Bush's win. It was more about the negative campaigning and the Dems' complete failure to respond to it in any way until October.

"Did they "trash him unmercifully", or did they tell the truth about his record and his platform?"

In 2008, the media did what it had to do to defeat John McCain and help get Barack Obama elected president - and YES, if this included trashing their favorite Republican then that's what they did, along with completely IGNORING Barack's many shortcomings.

Apparently you and I saw two different campaigns. I remember the media falling hook, line and sinker for the completely baseless William Ayers allegations, just for starters.

And after Obama moved into the White House, they dedicated themselves to shielding & protecting him from negative news as best they could - and they did a crappy job of it, as Barack's popularity began to steadily whither away almost immediately, with his party losing BOTH houses of congress before culminating with his winning an astounding three-&-a-half million FEWER votes when he ran for re-election!

In a still-sluggish economy, he won re-election. No small achievement. And the president's party almost always loses ground in the midterm elections, as we saw just last year.

"Okay, now I'm officially persuaded that you know nothing whatsoever about his record. And I'm not surprised"

And YOU are seemingly unaware that Donald Trump understands how a business works, knows how to meet a payroll, and how to create jobs!

Keep talking, Dump. You're doing a better job than I could hope to do in illustrating your complete ignorance of the man and his track record.

"Let's at least get one thing straight here, Dumpington: your view on who the best or worst Democratic candidates might be has no credibility whatsoever."

I'm simply pointing out some unpleasant facts about your party's presidential candidates that you are understandably hesitant to acknowledge.

No, you're concern trolling. And not even doing a very good job of it.

"While I don't support him, he did run up a great track record as Obama's VP and he does have a knack for appealing to some of the groups where the Dems need to shore up their support if they're going to beat Trump."

Joe Biden's got name recognition, which will initially help him in some of the early primaries where Democrat voters want nothing to do with several of these other candidates running. But his "track record" as a declared Democratic Party presidential candidate (see: 1988 & 2008) is an exceptionally POOR one!

Your beloved Ronald Reagan ran unsuccessfully for his party's presidential nomination twice before he got it. Besides, just because you dislike all the other Democratic candidates doesn't mean our voters want nothing to do with them. You yourself said it: name recognition.

Why do democrats have such a problem accepting some of the blame for what ale's this country, at least their fair share. Just my opinion.

Perhaps because the Dems have only had full control of Congress and the presidency for four of the past 38 years, and they weren't even four consecutive years? To say both parties are equally to blame is just absurd when you look at where the balance of power has been.

 

[icanhelp1]

Oh not hiding behind iggy, nice.

The rich pay most the taxes in the US, which has one of the most progressive tax codes on the planet. And if you had done any homework on the issue you'd know the rest of the "civilized" world taxes their lower 47% of income earners HEAVILY....like over 60% in some places.

The US PAYS it's lowest earners. So the real question is when will the lower 47% of US earners start paying their fair share?? They need to come up off the same percentage as everyone else for the tax burden 'share' to be truly fair.

Just like consumption taxes...everyone pays the same, that's fair.



Also, wealth redistribution programs, arbitrarily capping incomes and nationalizing huge segments of the economy to pay for it like Warren wants to is NOT the same as raising taxes to provide civil services or consumption taxing for public infrastructure. You're conflating liberalism and socialism, it's not the same thing.



Making this ^^ either total ignorance or dishonesty....which is it??

Some corners of our government think that our money is theirs to do what they wish. I think people would be OK with paying more taxes if they could be reassure it would be spent more judiciously. There is tons of money procured for infrastructure and roads but it just seems to disappear and leaves us worst off than before. Social security is about to go bust and yet nothing is done. We have 100's redundant programs but we never consolidate for efficiency. Our education system spends 620 billion dollars on k-12 per year ( $13,000 per/student ) more that any country in the world and yet we continue to drop in status ( 38th ). But education is a sacred cow. People are moving to charter or catholic schools to exercise choice but there are people on this site who chastise such a move as religious indoctrination, which brings up the matter of freedom of religion and freedom of choice. Just look at the VA and you'll change your mind on the single payer system.
Read DawnODay recap of the british UHC system and the pros and cons ( more cons than pros )

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Reagan's popularity had little to do with Bush's win. It was more about the negative campaigning and the Dems' complete failure to respond to it in any way until October."

The Democratic Party ran its very BEST candidates in 1980, 1984, & 1988 - but all three got badly landslided - and Ronald Reagan's popularity played a key role in all three of those landslide wins! You can't just re-write history to change the truth, YDB95!

"Apparently you and I saw two different campaigns. I remember the media falling hook, line and sinker for the completely baseless William Ayers allegations, just for starters."

That "baseless William Ayers allegation" involved rookie candidate Barack Obama holding his first-ever political fundraiser in the Chicago living room of anti-American domestic terrorists William Ayers & Bernadine Dohrn, who founded the Weather Underground, a terror group that planted bombs trying to kill U.S. servicemen. And the media largely IGNORED it to protect Obama. Ditto the Reverend Jeremiah Wright!

"And the president's party almost always loses ground in the midterm elections, as we saw just last year."

QUIZ TIME: Which is worse:

a) - losing 63-House seats & 6-U.S. Senate seats
b) - losing 40-House seats while GAINING 2-U.S. Senate seats
c) - about the same

I'm going to say that "a" is easily the worst - what do YOU think?

 

[icanhelp1]

True but irrelevant.



Reagan's popularity had little to do with Bush's win. It was more about the negative campaigning and the Dems' complete failure to respond to it in any way until October.




Apparently you and I saw two different campaigns. I remember the media falling hook, line and sinker for the completely baseless William Ayers allegations, just for starters.




In a still-sluggish economy, he won re-election. No small achievement. And the president's party almost always loses ground in the midterm elections, as we saw just last year.



Keep talking, Dump. You're doing a better job than I could hope to do in illustrating your complete ignorance of the man and his track record.




No, you're concern trolling. And not even doing a very good job of it.



Your beloved Ronald Reagan ran unsuccessfully for his party's presidential nomination twice before he got it. Besides, just because you dislike all the other Democratic candidates doesn't mean our voters want nothing to do with them. You yourself said it: name recognition.



Perhaps because the Dems have only had full control of Congress and the presidency for four of the past 38 years, and they weren't even four consecutive years? To say both parties are equally to blame is just absurd when you look at where the balance of power has been.

Well I guess you're a democrat. I remember when Clinton has a repub house and senate and they managed to balance the budget together.

You two are obviously history buffs but what does any of what you argue about have to do with the electoral college, Just thinking out loud.

 

[phrodeau]

Dumpington, if you think the media largely ignored Ayers and Wright, you’re loopier than I thought.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Some corners of our government think that our money is theirs to do what they wish. I think people would be OK with paying more taxes if they could be reassure it would be spent more judiciously. There is tons of money procured for infrastructure and roads but it just seems to disappear and leaves us worst off than before. Social security is about to go bust and yet nothing is done. We have 100's redundant programs but we never consolidate for efficiency. Our education system spends 620 billion dollars on k-12 per year ( $13,000 per/student ) more that any country in the world and yet we continue to drop in status ( 38th ). But education is a sacred cow. People are moving to charter or catholic schools to exercise choice but there are people on this site who chastise such a move as religious indoctrination, which brings up the matter of freedom of religion and freedom of choice. Just look at the VA and you'll change your mind on the single payer system.
Read DawnODay recap of the british UHC system and the pros and cons ( more cons than pros )

Yea, it's the left wing idea that if you just set money on fire it will fix things.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I guess YDB95 is going to tuck tail......not at all shocking.

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "Dumpington, if you think the media largely ignored Ayers and Wright, you’re loopier than I thought."

No, phrodeau, the media DIDN'T completely ignore it, but they certainly DOWNPLAYED it! After all, they WANTED Obama elected president, even if that meant that they'd have to trash their favorite Republican John McCain (which they did!)

If Donald Trump had ever held a fundraiser at David Duke's house, we'd have never heard the end of it - and RIGHTLY SO - the media would report on it NON-STOP, and I'd complain if they didn't! But Barack & Michelle get all cozy with a murderous anti-American couple that founded the domestic terrorist "Weathermen" organization, and the major network news outlets almost mention it in passing, not wanting to damage his candidacy anymore than possible!

And simultaneously, Barack & Michelle attended church (for 22-years) where an anti-American pastor screamed "God DAMN America" and preached all kinds of vicious anti-American sermons, with Barack saying "I wasn't aware of it" - and the media gave him a pass? Again, Trump says that some of the people wanting to keep a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from being toppled are "good people," and they won't let it go! To the modern media, respecting Lee is an act of RACISM now?

http://jewishbreakingnews.com/wp-co...arack-obama-louis-farrakhan-photo-696x479.jpg - (Barack Obama shown with anti-Semitic hatemonger Louis Farrakhan in 2005)

Barack Obama was on very friendly terms (and supported by) homophobic, anti-American, dangerous racist lunatic Louis Farrakhan, but once again the major media outlets all DOWNPLAYED it to protect & shield him from negative coverage.