What are the key issues of US Election 2024?

[DaisyDay]

Honestly, I remember "Guns or butter" and an anti-war ad with politicians fighting personally (had I known about Burr and Hamilton, it wouldn't have as much of an impression). I don't remember "Guns and butter." Not dismissing it, only I don't remember it.

As a tangent, I do remember the dollar going off the gold standard and a political cartoon with a dollar leaping into a partially filled pool with a then well known politician (who I can't recall at the moment) saying "Let's see if it floats." It's a tangent memory, because there was already inflation when the US moved to fiat currency.

I believe WWII was "guns or butter" - goods were rationed. During most the Vietnam War, the economy boomed enough to revise the slogan to "guns and butter".

 

[Tuur]

I believe WWII was "guns or butter" - goods were rationed. During most the Vietnam War, the economy boomed enough to revise the slogan to "guns and butter".

It very well may date to WWII. I just remember it as a Vietnam War era argument for social programs instead of armaments.

 

[DaisyDay]

It very well may date to WWII. I just remember it as a Vietnam War era argument for social programs instead of armaments.

My memory is unreliable - you may very well be right.

 

[Tuur]

My memory is unreliable - you may very well be right.

Your memory could be right. Just because I first encountered it in the Vietnam era doesn't mean it originated then.

 

[QvQ]

I first encountered it in the Vietnam era doesn't mean it originated then.

It originated in 1916, Secretary of State Bryan at the start of WWI. William Jennings Bryan made it popular (1860 -1925)
That information is readily available on google search. It has been used in several different ways, most recently as the government spending on military and social programs running up the Nation Debt.

 

[Danthemailman]

I believe that if the leftist Democratic party remains in power in the White House after January 2025, then America will never ever be the same again. .... and not in a good way, either.

As for the first post in this thread, the OP did make more than a couple very valid, interesting, and informed points.

California Senate candidate and Congressmember Adam Schiff is calling for a major overhaul of American institutions, including getting rid of the Electoral College, expanding the Supreme Court and eliminating the filibuster in the name of protecting democracy.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-save-democracy-abolishing-electoral-college/

What the left means by "protect our democracy" is really protect THEIR power. Someone once said, "Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms." Sadly, that seems to be the direction America is heading.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I cannot vote in your election though close relatives can. But it seems to me that this election is one of the most important ever. So what advice would you give my relatives as to the most important issues in this election?

From my European perspective, the following seems most pertinent. But I would be interested to learn what Americans think are the key issues:

1) POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP threatens to split the country and even provoke a civil war - much to the delight of America's rivals. So what candidate can best unite America and reconcile those on both sides? How can personality politics, abortion obsessions, lies about election fraud, and 'plan-demics' be put into proper perspective?

2) AMERICAN PROSPERITY AND POWER ARE UNEQUALLY SHARED - Your super-rich grows richer while those at the bottom struggle with high prices, debt, a lack of proper health care, and educational disparities. Social mobility continues to decline and various voices among the superrich are too loud while those of the people can hardly be heard. Seething resentment is dismissed as socialism but this just feeds the underlying discontent.

3) PUBLIC DEBT levels are at a record high and this is becoming unsustainable. The political culture seems to disallow the possibility of a balanced budget.

I think you don't really understand the issues here.

#1 issue - the economy
#2 issue - open border, 8 million illegal immigrants in only 3 years... Not to mention the gotaway's...

The #2 issue only compounds and exacerbates issue number #1.

We are a very open and welcoming society, but big business/large corporations want slaves, not employees, and they are doing harm, permanent harm to American workers by promoting and encouraging this.

At this point this is an invasion of America - and actual invasion no different than a military conquest with the intent to remake our very nation into something the Founders would not recognize.

And I'm coming from a family of immigrants and this is what I see from my own perspective.

Allowing illegals in like this does a disservice to all those who followed all the laws and rules and came the right way out of respect for our nation and our laws.

It's also a slap in the face of every single working American who's jobs will be taken... Who's children are forced out of school to make room for people who disrespect everything about us as a nation.

(Just so you know, my son, a citizen of these United States, has lost employment opportunities to illegals before, more than once, because they work cheaper..)

I'm sorry but I don't want illegals here. They don't have the first ounce of respect for our nation and our laws - proving themselves unworthy of ever being the beneficiaries of the good America has to offer her citizens and guests...

We legally allow more than a million or around a million people in legally every year... Our government has the sovereign right to decide how many, who, when, and how. And how isn't skipping through the southern border. And the how many should never overwhelm existing systems of employment and housing etc.

Okay... There's far more than two points I would like to make but I'm sure I'm getting boring so I'll stop here for a break.

 

[Hazelelponi]

So in continuation -

Issue #3 - the full frontal assault by the "uniparty" of establishment Washington on the civil rights of American citizens.

Case in point:

The FBI hand in hand with the tech giants in removing the freedom of speech of Americans leading into the last election.

It was an unprecedented and unconditional attack against American citizens and the freedoms our government is sworn not to doll out at will, but sworn not to protect against infringement thereof.

But infringe they did. Plenty of proof.

Second case in point:

Breaking every single campaign finance law that exists in order to put Biden in the White House.

Billions upon billions of dollars worth of single sided news and single sided infringement of the rights of free speech of conservatives voters and speakers here in America.

^^^^ you better believe I want the math whiz's to calculate up the dollar value of that and I demand people go to jail over breaking campaign finance laws. It went directly into Joe Bidens campaign - and people up to and including Biden need to see jail over that.

Case in point #3

Removing the leading conservative candidate from the ballot - it's unconstitutional.

There's plenty more cases in point that could be made but this should suffice for our purposes.

They have declared war against the citizenry and we plebs have definitely had enough!

I'll take another break and then continue to my next point.

 

[SimplyMe]

California Senate candidate and Congressmember Adam Schiff is calling for a major overhaul of American institutions, including getting rid of the Electoral College, expanding the Supreme Court and eliminating the filibuster in the name of protecting democracy.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-save-democracy-abolishing-electoral-college/

What the left means by "protect our democracy" is really protect THEIR power. Someone once said, "Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms." Sadly, that seems to be the direction America is heading.

What makes those policies anti-democratic? So the Electoral College, if we get rid of it we get back to the concept of one citizen, one vote. What is anti-Democratic about that? Why is a vote in Wyoming worth roughly 3 votes, compared to a single vote in California and Texas -- is that Democratic? Is installing a President who came in second in the popular vote Democratic; largely because 160 years ago we needed a system where Black slaves were counted as getting 2/3rds of a vote each? I have a hard time seeing anything despotic there.

And what is the issue with expanding the Supreme Court? There are good arguments for doing it, in terms of the growth of the US, the number of cases appealed to the Supreme Court, and the limited number of cases the Supreme Court can hear and rule on due to only having nine members.

Or course, I'm guessing you'll claim I'm being "naive," that you issue isn't technically expanding the Supreme Court, it is the idea of packing the Supreme Court. Yet, if we are going to talk about anti-Democratic -- you find that easily in the actions taken by Republican Senators. A Supreme Court nominee is appointed over 8 months before the election, yet Republicans refuse to hold hearings for this nominee because it is "too close to the elections." Okay, that seems a stretch but isn't actually anti-democratic or despotic. But then the next nominee is appointed only about a month from the election, and because of who the President is, Republicans determine that they should immediately push this nominee through to the Supreme Court. I'm sorry, we've already had the despotic act to alter the political flavor of the Supreme Court -- it was done by Republicans and cheered on by them; there is really no way to claim those two actions, taken together, were not anti-Democratic.

Last, what is the issue with the filibuster? It is a long standing tradition that has been weakened over the last few decades. How is it anti-Democratic to provide better protections for the minority (requiring more than a simple 50% to do government business), restoring the filibuster to what it was back when it was installed?

 

[QvQ]

What makes those policies anti-democratic? So the Electoral College, if we get rid of it we get back to the concept of one citizen, one vote. What is anti-Democratic about that? Why is a vote in Wyoming worth roughly 3 votes, compared to a single vote in California and Texas -- is that Democratic? Is installing a President who came in second in the popular vote Democratic; largely because 160 years ago we needed a system where Black slaves were counted as getting 2/3rds of a vote each? I have a hard time seeing anything despotic there.

By your argument, why have 50 Senators?

 

[SimplyMe]

By your argument, why have 50 Senators?

Make an argument as to why they need to be increased and I'll listen. To me, though, the Senate is one body that has not really been affected by the increase in population, every state still gets their two Senators regardless of the number of citizens in the state; and the body still protects the smaller states from the larger ones, or the Western states from the Eastern states, or however you look at the role of the Senate).

The reason for the other changes is that 9 people did okay when America was under 100,000,000 people but 9 appears not to be enough when the country is over 3 times that size -- a good argument is that it is too much work for 9 judges, as there are too many lawsuits being appealed to them to adequately handle that workload.

And why limit it to the Senate? In the time of the founders, there were 33,000 people per Congressional district -- and they set rules that the number of Congresspeople would change based on the population of the country, so that the number of people represented by a single Congressperson would remain roughly the same. Of course, we got to over 400 Congresspeople and decided to "cap" Congress at 435 representatives and, rather than reapportioning according to population, we reapportioned districts to keep 435 Representatives, to the point we now have over 760,000 represented by a single Congressperson on average -- and in one state it is almost a million people per Congressional district.

It is also worth noting that it is that lack of Congresspeople, based on how the founders viewed it (where Congressional Districts would remain smaller), that is causing issues with the Electoral College.

Besides, though maybe I mistake your question about Senators, but I would think the better question is if we should change the states -- why do we have a state (with two Senators) with only about half a million people, when we have other states that have 50 times that population? Don't get me wrong, I'm not serious about this proposal, but it does seem like disparity in state sizes causes many issues (including in some of those larger states, where there are too many distinct areas that don't blend well).

 

[QvQ]

Besides, though maybe I mistake your question about Senators, but I would think the better question is if we should change the states -- why do we have a state (with two Senators) with only about half a million people, when we have other states that have 50 times that population? Don't get me wrong, I'm not serious about this proposal, but it does seem like disparity in state sizes causes many issues (including in some of those larger states, where there are too many distinct areas that don't blend well).

So you mean:
Why not apportion representation and government according to population. Just have Administrative Districts like Congressional Districts?
One Dirty Word: Gerrymander.
Congressional Districts were supposed to be apportioned by population. Create districts according to how many people were in that area. In our square states, the districts should not look like snake tracks. And that is exactly what Gerrymandering does. Snake Tracks.
The States are incapable of starting in one corner and drawing basically (in many States) square areas of equal population.

And the Courts entertain this nonsense of "redrawing congressional districts" according to race and lately, political persuasion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

California Senate candidate and Congressmember Adam Schiff is calling for a major overhaul of American institutions, including getting rid of the Electoral College, expanding the Supreme Court and eliminating the filibuster in the name of protecting democracy.

1. Electoral College: Isn't going away w/o 2/3rds vote in both houses + ratification of states. It wasn't that great in 1787 and it's been a bad idea and had needed to go for a long time.

2. The Supreme Court needs some changes, but I don't know that a simple expansion is the solution.

3. The filibuster is just a dumb Senate rule created by mistake 200 years ago. It should go.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-save-democracy-abolishing-electoral-college/

What the left means by "protect our democracy" is really protect THEIR power. Someone once said, "Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms." Sadly, that seems to be the direction America is heading.

"GP" = Jim Hoft's far right conspiracy and insurrection blog.

 

[Hazelelponi]

So you mean:
Why not apportion representation and government according to population. Just have Administrative Districts like Congressional Districts?
One Dirty Word: Gerrymander.
Congressional Districts were supposed to be apportioned by population. Create districts according to how many people were in that area. In our square states, the districts should not look like snake tracks. And that is exactly what Gerrymandering does. Snake Tracks.
The States are incapable of starting in one corner and drawing basically (in many States) square areas of equal population.

And the Courts entertain this nonsense of "redrawing congressional districts" according to race and lately, political persuasion.

I think one of the issues I see, is that due to different ways of living and different life challenges, large population centers vote differently than rural areas.

Having equal representation goes out the window when New York, for instance, can cancel out the representation the rural areas would like to have representing them.

Very similarly to just prior to the civil war, where Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in 10 states (just memory, I would have to look up again for precision in fact here) yet he got voted in as President.

It was proof to the citizenry of those 10 states they need never bother with voting, because they have no representation.

Representation really matters to people .. it's lack starts wars.

I know it doesn't seem fair or whatever to see rural areas that are less populous to have equal representation, but we are literally the bread and butter of America...

Without the rural areas cities would starve... What's wrong with us having representation?

I'm in southwest Virginia... Northern Virginia cancels out our vote every single election. Literally cancels it out except on those, increasingly rare occasions we might happen to agree.

It really is voting most the time for the sake of protest against establishment Washington. lol...

I live with a good size mama bear and her family (3 cubs this year!) Who dens a couple hundred feet from our front door. Our trees provide food (nuts, berries and fruits) for her and she lives without fear of being hunted so she is more sizable than other black bears...

She also uses our yard as a thoroughfare. It's nothing to step out on the porch and be altogether too close for comfort...

As a result, we don't want to use a gun on her (this is her home too!) But that doesn't mean we don't live in a certain amount of daily danger should we happen to startle her at the wrong time.

Therefore, we do (okay, my husband does.. I still don't) like to remain armed in some way just in case.

We had to declare our counties out here to be 2A sanctuaries as a result of actions of people who don't live with the same types of concerns the mountain people have to live with...

Over various concerns, my sheriff who was a Democrat at the time, switched parties to Republican. It got that bad.

He was such a good man that even though he was a registered Democrat all the Republicans and the Dems voted him in out here... But switch parties he was forced to do as a matter of conscious.

This was only a couple years ago...

I think we do need to acknowledge rural areas don't have the same concerns as wealthy city dwellers and we need to figure out how we get represented too .. so that we just aren't cancelled out every election...

It's a problem.

At least take rural concerns into real consideration for goodness sake and stop treating Americans like terrorists or something...

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I cannot vote in your election though close relatives can. But it seems to me that this election is one of the most important ever. So what advice would you give my relatives as to the most important issues in this election?

From my European perspective, the following seems most pertinent. But I would be interested to learn what Americans think are the key issues:

1) POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP threatens to split the country and even provoke a civil war - much to the delight of America's rivals. So what candidate can best unite America and reconcile those on both sides? How can personality politics, abortion obsessions, lies about election fraud, and 'plan-demics' be put into proper perspective?

2) AMERICAN PROSPERITY AND POWER ARE UNEQUALLY SHARED - Your super-rich grows richer while those at the bottom struggle with high prices, debt, a lack of proper health care, and educational disparities. Social mobility continues to decline and various voices among the superrich are too loud while those of the people can hardly be heard. Seething resentment is dismissed as socialism but this just feeds the underlying discontent.

3) PUBLIC DEBT levels are at a record high and this is becoming unsustainable. The political culture seems to disallow the possibility of a balanced budget.

At this point I really think it should be character and virtue, a kind of leadership that inspires others to be better people.
Yes, some will say they are not voting for a pastor. That is very short sighted. the president has influence and responsibility far beyond policies. The president represents us. The president is a symbol of who we think we are and want to be.

 

[QvQ]

I know it doesn't seem fair or whatever to see rural areas that are less populous to have equal representation, but we are literally the bread and butter of America...

I agree
And the Democrats would throw a fit if the small Congressional Districts that were created for racial groups were redrawn as part of the larger population. Those folks have representation equal to districts with much larger populations.
The Democrats want it both ways.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I agree
And the Democrats would throw a fit if the small Congressional Districts that were created for racial groups were redrawn as part of the larger population. Those folks have representation equal to districts with much larger populations.
The Democrats want it both ways.

They do...

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think one of the issues I see, is that due to different ways of living and different life challenges, large population centers vote differently than rural areas.

Having equal representation goes out the window when New York, for instance, can cancel out the representation the rural areas would like to have representing them.

Equal representation is 1 person = 1 vote. New York has rural areas. Those rural NY areas have their own Representatives.

Very similarly to just prior to the civil war, where Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in 10 states (just memory, I would have to look up again for precision in fact here) yet he got voted in as President.

It was proof to the citizenry of those 10 states they need never bother with voting, because they have no representation.

The new Republican party was regional. It wasn't operating in slave territory as it favored restriction on slavery expansion. Lincoln won the EC because the states that voted for him had a bigger population than the ones that didn't or couldn't. Same as every other presidential election.

Representation really matters to people .. it's lack starts wars.

The slaveocracy was a population minority. They didn't get to elect the president by themselves.

I know it doesn't seem fair or whatever to see rural areas that are less populous to have equal representation, but we are literally the bread and butter of America...

Without the rural areas cities would starve... What's wrong with us having representation?

Representative districts are equal in population. It takes the same number of rural people to make a district as it does urban people.

I'm in southwest Virginia... Northern Virginia cancels out our vote every single election. Literally cancels it out except on those, increasingly rare occasions we might happen to agree.

They don't "cancel you out", there are just more of them. Welcome to democracy.

It really is voting most the time for the sake of protest against establishment Washington. lol...

I live with a good size mama bear and her family (3 cubs this year!) Who dens a couple hundred feet from our front door. Our trees provide food (nuts, berries and fruits) for her and she lives without fear of being hunted so she is more sizable than other black bears...

She also uses our yard as a thoroughfare. It's nothing to step out on the porch and be altogether too close for comfort...

As a result, we don't want to use a gun on her (this is her home too!) But that doesn't mean we don't live in a certain amount of daily danger should we happen to startle her at the wrong time.

Therefore, we do (okay, my husband does.. I still don't) like to remain armed in some way just in case.

We had to declare our counties out here to be 2A sanctuaries as a result of actions of people who don't live with the same types of concerns the mountain people have to live with...

Over various concerns, my sheriff who was a Democrat at the time, switched parties to Republican. It got that bad.

He was such a good man that even though he was a registered Democrat all the Republicans and the Dems voted him in out here... But switch parties he was forced to do as a matter of conscious.

This was only a couple years ago...

I think we do need to acknowledge rural areas don't have the same concerns as wealthy city dwellers and we need to figure out how we get represented too .. so that we just aren't cancelled out every election...

It's a problem.

The further I read into your post the more I begin to wonder if you truly understand the rural/urban population divide.

At least take rural concerns into real consideration for goodness sake and stop treating Americans like terrorists or something...

Terrorists are terrorists, it doesn't matter where they live.

 

[SimplyMe]

So you mean:
Why not apportion representation and government according to population. Just have Administrative Districts like Congressional Districts?
One Dirty Word: Gerrymander.
Congressional Districts were supposed to be apportioned by population. Create districts according to how many people were in that area. In our square states, the districts should not look like snake tracks. And that is exactly what Gerrymandering does. Snake Tracks.
The States are incapable of starting in one corner and drawing basically (in many States) square areas of equal population.

And the Courts entertain this nonsense of "redrawing congressional districts" according to race and lately, political persuasion.

Actually, it should limit gerrymandering because it is much harder to make a "snake" out of 33,000 people than it is out of 700,000 people. For example, in my metro area there is no real way they can snake where I live to fit with a "rural" area -- no matter how they try to "snake" it, it would still be a suburban district. By contrast, today my Congressional district -- because of the number of people in it -- is combined with rural areas and it is even a relatively rectangular district.

I agree
And the Democrats would throw a fit if the small Congressional Districts that were created for racial groups were redrawn as part of the larger population. Those folks have representation equal to districts with much larger populations.
The Democrats want it both ways.

If we increase the number of Representatives, this suddenly becomes less of an issue. Again, with only around 33,000 people in a Congressional District it becomes much hard to gerrymander (though not impossible); though it likely also makes it much more obvious. If you have a Black area of 50,000 and start chopping off sections to match with White areas on its edges, making several districts that are 60% White and 40% Black, then is quickly becomes obvious what is being done. This is the same if you have a Democrat/Republican area that is chopped up so that most of the Representatives will be from the opposite party.

 

[Hazelelponi]

The further I read into your post the more I begin to wonder if you truly understand the rural/urban population divide.

And I'll give you that I may not ... It's definitely new thoughts and considerations I've only truly been noticing these last few years...

When I was younger, major issues of our day like gun control amongst other issues, never seemed like big issues as most were in agreement... but now I do honestly think we seem to be starkly divided between people with rural concerns and those with major city concerns.

Major issues like the loss of manufacturing to countries like China and how to recitify such job losses seem more divided by blue and white collar divisions.

But again, there's a lot of rural areas also heavily affected by loss of manufacturing to overseas countries and the importation of illegals who work for less money than legal citizens. So it often still appears to be a rural versus city issue....

Entire towns built up around manufacturing die when we lose the plants, or people loose homes and jobs to the illegals taking their place.

Cities are different than rural, and lately I think it's these differences causing the love/hate Trump divide because our differences literally rest in how to, or even sometimes whether to, recitify these problems for the good of us all.

What I don't understand is why the establishment (left and right) won't address and discuss people's very real concerns.