• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Needed Reforms

gungasnake

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2013
539
4
✟830.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Necessary Reforms

Money System and Financial Reforms

The money and banking system which was set up in 1913, along with the income tax and IRS which was set up to pay interest on debt while using debt as a primary basis for money, has reached the end of its useful lifespan. Glass-Steagal should be implemented immediately, the so-called "Super Priority" of derivative counterparties hould be abolished immediately, and a major effort should be made to devise a rational system of money for the United States. The Federal Reserve, the IRS, and the income tax should be abolished, and the power to coin money itself should be reclaimed by congress. No rational government should ever borrow money into existence.

Political Reforms

The first item of meaningful political reform HAS TO BE runoff elections or instant runoff elections for all public offices. Nobody should ever fear to vote his first choice, at least on a first ballot, and nobody should ever hold any public office with less than 50% of the vote.

There should be a None-Of-Above choice on all ballots for public office and if that choice ever wins, then the other candidates should be barred for life from holding ANY public office and the parties sponsoring them should be barred for at least ten years from sponsoring candidates for that particular office. The penalty for running dead wood for public offices should be severe.

There should also be some mechanism to prevent utterly unqualified people from holding high offices. Certainly a candidate for president or vice president, or for US Senator or member of the House of Representatives should need to obtain the same basic and simple secret level security clearance which anybody would need to be a guard at the gate of any military base in our land. That isn't asking for much but it would have spared us from the last two democrat presidents.

Another item on such a list would be a provision that when a president is impeached and removed, his VP goes out the door with him and the office is either vacant until the next election or an emergency election is held to fill the office for the remainder of the current term. Granted removing a president should be difficult but it should not be impossible and if we couldn't remove Slick, we'd not have been able to remove Hitler or Nero either.

Another item on such a voters' bill of rights should be something which would eliminate voting fraud for all time.

Our entire voting system is fubar and needs to be replaced and a fraud-proof system would not be that hard to devise; it would involve biometrics and p2p networking and the idea that ANYBODY could do his own vote tally and that all tallies should match. It also should involve the idea that a person could have total assurance that his vote did not disappear or get counted for the other guy. What I'd envision would be keeping my vote on MY computer with a fingerprint reader like you see on all govt computers i.e. a record of my contact info and a biometric reading and a national database to check biometrics for me and everybody else, and a p2p network to allow ANYBODY to do his own tally by calling for votes the same way you'd ask or a copy of "you aint nothing but a hound dog" on Kazaa, and all tallies should produce the same number within statistical limits.

We should consider the possibility that, when an election is within one percentage point, we send both people to congress with half of a vote each.

There is also a question as to the extent the people should be voting on some issues directly since we now have the technology to allow that, while the founding fathers did not. You could get some of these social issues settled once and for all and out of politics, and you could limit the scope for corruption and bribery by letting the people themselves settle at least some kinds of issues.

Fixing Outmoded Institutions

Ever wonder how states like Florida whose legislatures are overwhelmingly Republican still vote for bad dem candidates for president, or how you get a dem senator in a place like Louisiana? What you're seeing is that manufacturing votes cannot buy a state house. In other words, dems can manufacture all the votes they want in places like Dade County or Philly, and the GOP will still win its own territories, it's only in a national or atatewide race that vote manufacturing can decide a race for a public office.
That says that the very first thing we need to do is rescind the 17'th amendment and return the election of US senators to the state houses.

The office of the president should probably be abolished. In industry when a job goes for 30 - 50 years and only attracts villains and jerks, the usual solution is to abolish the job. The only legitimate function of a US president is to preside over uses of the US military which do not rise to the level of a declaration of war and, for that, some other solution such as a council of house and senate leaders and the joint chiefs could be found. Or, alternately, with the 17'th rescinded, presidents could be selected by the US senate.

Likewise the US capital should be made into a museum. Why should anybody living in Nebraska for instance, want their US senators living and working full time in Maryland or Virginia or D.C. with lobbyists working full-time to bribe and/or influence them, and largely out of reach to their constituents in Nebraska? Nothing in private industry works that way any more other than factories; every other sort of business is now conducted via Live-Meeting, Go-2-Meeting, and airplanes. The ONLY reason the US congress should ever need to be together in one place any more would be to declare war and, for that, they could rent out some football stadium for two days.

Drugs:

The "War on Drugs" and the Prison/Industrial Complex should be ended immediately, along with "No-Knock Raids".

The "war on drugs" leads to

  • "No-knock" raids, which are a clear violation of the fourth amendment and of the common law principle of a man's home being his "castle". In fact technically a homeowner who were to shoot and kill one or more government agents in the process of conducting a "no knock" raid would be entirely within his or her rights.
  • The incarceration of large numbers of people who would otherwise never have had contact with prison systems. For many this amounts to a career training program for serious crime.
  • Gang wars, drive-by shootings and the like.
  • Corruption, the rise of drug cartels, and outright civil wars in other nations which supply drugs to the illegal drug enterprises here.

It is that final item which some would use as a pretext to eviscerate the second amendment, which is the link pin of the entire bill of rights. Consider the following from the former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Bush administration no less:


The former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection called Monday for the U.S. to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons and take other measures to rein in the war between Mexico and its drug cartels, saying the violence has the potential to bring down legitimate rule in that country.
Former CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner also called for the United States to more aggressively investigate U.S. gun sellers and tighten security along its side of the border, describing the situation as "critical" to the safety of people in both countries, whether they live near the border or not.

Mexico, for its part, needs to reduce official corruption and organize its forces along the lines the U.S. does, such as a specialized border patrol and a customs agency with a broader mandate than monitoring trade, Mr. Bonner said in an exchange of e-mails.

"Border security is especially important to breaking the power and influence of the Mexican-based trafficking organizations," Mr. Bonner said. "Despite vigorous efforts by both governments, huge volumes of illegal drugs still cross from Mexico..."

The problem here clearly is not guns and it is clearly a problem of economics. The drugs one of these idiots would use in a day under rational circumstances would cost a dollar; that would simply present no scope for crime or criminals. Under present circumstances that dollar's worth of drugs is costing the user $300 a day and since that guy is dealing with a 10% fence, he's having to commit $3000 worth of crime to buy that dollar's worth of drugs. In other words, a dollar's worth of chemicals has been converted into $3000 worth of crime, times the number of those idiots out there, times 365 days per year, all through the magic of stupid laws. No nation on Earth could afford that forever.

A rational set of drug laws would:

  • Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.
  • Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.
  • Provide a lifetime in prison for selling LSD, PCP, and/or other Jeckyl/Hyde formulas.
  • Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.

Do all of that, and the drug problem and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years. That would be an optimal solution; but you could simply legalize it all and still be vastly better off than we are now. 150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no overwhelming drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out?
 

gungasnake

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2013
539
4
✟830.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Medical Reform:

The country does need medical reform, but not Obungacare.

The size of obungacare indicates to me that it is about power and not about health care. Likewise Mark Steyn notes that the job of director or head of public health has become the biggest govt. job in European countries which have public health care i.e. it would be a step upwards from PM or President or King or Grand Duke or anything else to head of health care. In other words, European health care is ultimate bureaucracy. If I had the power to I would institute a sort of a basic health care reform which would be overwhelmingly simple and which would resemble the thing we're reading about in no way, shape, or manner. Key points would be:

1. Elimination of lawsuits against doctors and other medical providers. There would be a general fund to compensate victims of malpractice for actual damage and a non-inbred system for weeding out those guilty of malpractice. The non-inbred system would be a tribunal composed not just of oher doctors, but of plumbers, electricians, engineers, and everybody else as well.

2. Elimination of the artificial exclusivity of the medical system. In other words our medical schools could easily produce two or three times the number of doctors they do with no noticeable drop off in quality.

3. Elimination of the factors which drive the cost of medicines towards unaffordability. That would include both lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies and government agencies which force costs into the billions to develop any new drug. There should be no suing a pharmaceutical for any drug which has passed FDA approval and somewhere between thalidamide and what we have now, there should be a happy medium.

4. Elimination of the outmoded WW-II notion of triage in favor of a system which took some rational account of who pays for the system and who doesn't. The horror stories I keep reading about the middle-class guy with an injured child having to fill out forms for three hours while an endless procession of illegal immigrants just walks in and are seen, would end, as would any possibility of that child waiting three hours for treatment while people were being seen for heroin overdoses or other lifestyle issues.

All of those things would fall under the heading of what TR called "trust busting". There would also be some system for caring the truly indigent, but the need and cost would be far less than at present.

By far the biggest item is that first one. I don't know the exact numbers but if you add every cost involved in our present out-of-control lawyering, it has to be a major fraction if not more than half of our medical costs. The trial lawyers' guild being one of the two major pillars of financial support for the democrat party is the basic reason nobody is saying anything about that part of the problem.

Other than that, you almost have to have seen some of the problems close up to have any sort of a feel for them.

Item 2, this is what I saw in grad school some time ago, although I do not have any reason to think much has changed. In the school I attended, there appeared to be sixty or seventy first year med students walking around and all but one or two of them would have made perfectly good doctors, they were all very bright and highly motivated. The only way the school should have lost any of those kids was either they discovered they couldn't deal with the sight of blood in real life or six months later they changed their minds and went off to Hollywood to become actors or actresses; the school should never have lost more than ten percent of them. But they knew from day one that they were keeping 35% of that class.

That system says that you know several things about the guy working on your body: You know he's a survivor, and that's highly unlikely to be from being better qualified than 65% of the other students; You know he hasn't had enough sleep (he's doing his work and the work of that missing 65%); You know he's probably doing some sort of drugs to deal with the lack of sleep... One of my first steps as "health Tsar" or whatever would be to tell the medical schools that henceforth if they ever drop more than15% of an incoming class, they'll lose their accreditation.

Item 3. My father walks into a pharmacy in Switzerland with a bottle of pills he normally pays $50 for in Fla. and asks the pharmacist if he can fill it. "Why certainly sir!", fills the bottle of pills and says "That will be $3.50." Seeing that my father was standing there in a state of shock, the man says "Gee, I'm sorry, Mr. V., you see, we have socialized medicine in Switzerland and if you were a Swiss citizen and paid into the systemn, why I could sell you this bottle of pills for $1.50 but, since you're foreign and do not pay into the system I have to charge you the full price, certainly you can appreciate that."

The guy thought my father was in shock because he was charging him too MUCH... Clearly whatever needs to be done with drugs amounts to trust busting, and not extracting more money from the American people.

Item 4. A caller to the Chris Plant show (D.C./WMAL) the other morning, an ER nurse, noted that much of the costs which her hospital had to absorb, as do most hospitals, was the problem of people with no resources using the ER as their first and only point of contact to the medical profession. She said that there were gang members who were constantly coming in for repairs from bullet holes and knife damage and drug problems, that they could not legally turn any of those people away, and that there was zero possibility of ever collecting any money from any of them, and that the costs of that were gigantic.

Clearly throwing money at that problems is not going to help anything either. Again if I'm the "Medicine Tsar", those guys would be cared for, but not at the ER or at least not the part of the ER where normal people go, and they would not be first in line. Mostly they'd be dealing with medical students who needed the practice patching up knife and bullet damage.

Immigration

As in the case of the "War on Drugs(TM)", the only real solution is to take the profit out of it and in this case the profit is measured in votes.

We need a law and possibly a constitutional amendment requiring a person to be a US citizen for 18 years before they ever vote in a US election. That would not be difficult to justify; I had to be a US citizen for eighteen years before I ever voted in a US election and I don't see any immigrant group which appears better or more deserving of rights than I am.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Necessary Reforms

Money System and Financial Reforms

The money and banking system which was set up in 1913, along with the income tax and IRS which was set up to pay interest on debt while using debt as a primary basis for money, has reached the end of its useful lifespan. Glass-Steagal should be implemented immediately, the so-called "Super Priority" of derivative counterparties hould be abolished immediately, and a major effort should be made to devise a rational system of money for the United States. The Federal Reserve, the IRS, and the income tax should be abolished, and the power to coin money itself should be reclaimed by congress. No rational government should ever borrow money into existence.

Political Reforms

The first item of meaningful political reform HAS TO BE runoff elections or instant runoff elections for all public offices. Nobody should ever fear to vote his first choice, at least on a first ballot, and nobody should ever hold any public office with less than 50% of the vote.

There should be a None-Of-Above choice on all ballots for public office and if that choice ever wins, then the other candidates should be barred for life from holding ANY public office and the parties sponsoring them should be barred for at least ten years from sponsoring candidates for that particular office. The penalty for running dead wood for public offices should be severe.

There should also be some mechanism to prevent utterly unqualified people from holding high offices. Certainly a candidate for president or vice president, or for US Senator or member of the House of Representatives should need to obtain the same basic and simple secret level security clearance which anybody would need to be a guard at the gate of any military base in our land. That isn't asking for much but it would have spared us from the last two democrat presidents.

Another item on such a list would be a provision that when a president is impeached and removed, his VP goes out the door with him and the office is either vacant until the next election or an emergency election is held to fill the office for the remainder of the current term. Granted removing a president should be difficult but it should not be impossible and if we couldn't remove Slick, we'd not have been able to remove Hitler or Nero either.

Another item on such a voters' bill of rights should be something which would eliminate voting fraud for all time.

Our entire voting system is fubar and needs to be replaced and a fraud-proof system would not be that hard to devise; it would involve biometrics and p2p networking and the idea that ANYBODY could do his own vote tally and that all tallies should match. It also should involve the idea that a person could have total assurance that his vote did not disappear or get counted for the other guy. What I'd envision would be keeping my vote on MY computer with a fingerprint reader like you see on all govt computers i.e. a record of my contact info and a biometric reading and a national database to check biometrics for me and everybody else, and a p2p network to allow ANYBODY to do his own tally by calling for votes the same way you'd ask or a copy of "you aint nothing but a hound dog" on Kazaa, and all tallies should produce the same number within statistical limits.

We should consider the possibility that, when an election is within one percentage point, we send both people to congress with half of a vote each.

There is also a question as to the extent the people should be voting on some issues directly since we now have the technology to allow that, while the founding fathers did not. You could get some of these social issues settled once and for all and out of politics, and you could limit the scope for corruption and bribery by letting the people themselves settle at least some kinds of issues.

Fixing Outmoded Institutions

Ever wonder how states like Florida whose legislatures are overwhelmingly Republican still vote for bad dem candidates for president, or how you get a dem senator in a place like Louisiana? What you're seeing is that manufacturing votes cannot buy a state house. In other words, dems can manufacture all the votes they want in places like Dade County or Philly, and the GOP will still win its own territories, it's only in a national or atatewide race that vote manufacturing can decide a race for a public office.
That says that the very first thing we need to do is rescind the 17'th amendment and return the election of US senators to the state houses.

The office of the president should probably be abolished. In industry when a job goes for 30 - 50 years and only attracts villains and jerks, the usual solution is to abolish the job. The only legitimate function of a US president is to preside over uses of the US military which do not rise to the level of a declaration of war and, for that, some other solution such as a council of house and senate leaders and the joint chiefs could be found. Or, alternately, with the 17'th rescinded, presidents could be selected by the US senate.

Likewise the US capital should be made into a museum. Why should anybody living in Nebraska for instance, want their US senators living and working full time in Maryland or Virginia or D.C. with lobbyists working full-time to bribe and/or influence them, and largely out of reach to their constituents in Nebraska? Nothing in private industry works that way any more other than factories; every other sort of business is now conducted via Live-Meeting, Go-2-Meeting, and airplanes. The ONLY reason the US congress should ever need to be together in one place any more would be to declare war and, for that, they could rent out some football stadium for two days.

Drugs:

The "War on Drugs" and the Prison/Industrial Complex should be ended immediately, along with "No-Knock Raids".

The "war on drugs" leads to

  • "No-knock" raids, which are a clear violation of the fourth amendment and of the common law principle of a man's home being his "castle". In fact technically a homeowner who were to shoot and kill one or more government agents in the process of conducting a "no knock" raid would be entirely within his or her rights.
  • The incarceration of large numbers of people who would otherwise never have had contact with prison systems. For many this amounts to a career training program for serious crime.
  • Gang wars, drive-by shootings and the like.
  • Corruption, the rise of drug cartels, and outright civil wars in other nations which supply drugs to the illegal drug enterprises here.

It is that final item which some would use as a pretext to eviscerate the second amendment, which is the link pin of the entire bill of rights. Consider the following from the former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Bush administration no less:




The problem here clearly is not guns and it is clearly a problem of economics. The drugs one of these idiots would use in a day under rational circumstances would cost a dollar; that would simply present no scope for crime or criminals. Under present circumstances that dollar's worth of drugs is costing the user $300 a day and since that guy is dealing with a 10% fence, he's having to commit $3000 worth of crime to buy that dollar's worth of drugs. In other words, a dollar's worth of chemicals has been converted into $3000 worth of crime, times the number of those idiots out there, times 365 days per year, all through the magic of stupid laws. No nation on Earth could afford that forever.

A rational set of drug laws would:

  • Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.
  • Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.
  • Provide a lifetime in prison for selling LSD, PCP, and/or other Jeckyl/Hyde formulas.
  • Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.

Do all of that, and the drug problem and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years. That would be an optimal solution; but you could simply legalize it all and still be vastly better off than we are now. 150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no overwhelming drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out?

I think you set the record for the most threads started. You have a lot of opinions to share, don't you?
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Relativity isn't exactly a big lie, but history of science books are not going to treat Einstein kindly...

Uh huh.

Well, as you have likely seen, your thread topics and content you produce aren't exactly treated kindly either, because they are destroyed with logic, and evidence.

But anyway, you seem to be on a role, so knock yourself out!
 
Upvote 0

gungasnake

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2013
539
4
✟830.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single

Simplest item...

Einstein described gravity as some sort of a four-dimensional differential geometry thing: there is no way to start with that and believe that gravity near the surface of our own planet could have changed much, but it is a simple demonstration that it has, i.e. that the large dinosaurs could not function in present gravity.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Simplest item...

Einstein described gravity as some sort of a four-dimensional differential geometry thing: there is no way to start with that and believe that gravity near the surface of our own planet could have changed much, but it is a simple demonstration that it has, i.e. that the large dinosaurs could not function in present gravity.

Not sure on the specifics on what you refer to here, but I will say this; the great thing about science, is it is self correcting over time. If one guy doesn't quite get it right, other scientists will happily correct them with evidence and science gladly accepts these corrections and modifications. You gotta love that!

Now, you can't say the same about religion, as religion can claim whatever they like, with zero evidence, because it is what they need to believe to make the story work.

Over the last 100 years, science has never had to refer to religion in anyway to do it's work. But, religion has most certainly had to adapt to the findings of science, which is why so many christians now agree with evolution. Give it some more time and religion will have to adapt even further and the gaps will keep getting more narrow to insert God.

That is reality. You don't like it, but it is reality.
 
Upvote 0

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,469
4,833
Washington State
✟385,897.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Simplest item...

Einstein described gravity as some sort of a four-dimensional differential geometry thing: there is no way to start with that and believe that gravity near the surface of our own planet could have changed much, but it is a simple demonstration that it has, i.e. that the large dinosaurs could not function in present gravity.

I would love to see the evidence for this....
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,428
7,165
74
St. Louis, MO.
✟425,231.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Ever wonder how states like Florida whose legislatures are overwhelmingly Republican still vote for bad dem candidates for president, or how you get a dem senator in a place like Louisiana? What you're seeing is that manufacturing votes cannot buy a state house. In other words, dems can manufacture all the votes they want in places like Dade County or Philly, and the GOP will still win its own territories, it's only in a national or atatewide race that vote manufacturing can decide a race for a public office.

Votes aren't being manufactured. Demographics have changed, and there are more Democratic-leaning voters, especially in urban areas. And more people now live in urban than rural areas. A heavy Democratic turnout in a state's population centers will probably give the Dem a majority of that state's popular vote. Meaning (except in only 1 or 2 states) he gets ALL of that state's Electoral Votes.

The EC, as it currently operates, does what is was orginally designed to avoid. Which is to favor populous states over smaller ones, and favor urban areas over rural. (It also makes it nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to ever be elected.) Getting rid of it would take a Constitutional amendment. Which several of your other proposals would also need. This ain't gonna happen.
 
Upvote 0

gungasnake

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2013
539
4
✟830.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Not sure on the specifics on what you refer to here, but I will say this; the great thing about science, is it is self correcting over time. ...


Might have been true once upon a time, long ago, when scientists' lives didn't depend on government grants....
 
Upvote 0

gungasnake

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2013
539
4
✟830.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Votes aren't being manufactured.

One example, the dimpled and/or hanging chads in the 2000 race in Flori-duh were artifacts of vote manufacturing. People tried to produce them experimentally and the only way anybody could was by trying to punch 20 - 25 of those cards at a time.
 
Upvote 0

morningstar2651

Senior Veteran
Dec 6, 2004
14,557
2,591
40
Arizona
✟74,149.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Too long; didn't read.

didn_6a9c64_2096351.gif
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,428
7,165
74
St. Louis, MO.
✟425,231.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
One example, the dimpled and/or hanging chads in the 2000 race in Flori-duh were artifacts of vote manufacturing. People tried to produce them experimentally and the only way anybody could was by trying to punch 20 - 25 of those cards at a time.

Did any of that change the outcome? It didn't seem to help Al Gore.

Getting rid of the EC is necessary. It's obsolete. The way it works now favors the populous states and the big urban areas. Which only helps Democrats. It forces the candidates to campaign mainly in a few "swing" states, and allows them to ignore the others. A 3rd party, or independent candidate has almost no chance of ever being President. The President should be whoever gets the most popular votes nationwide. Big state or small state, urban or rural--every person's vote counts the same and adds to the total. We don't need middlemen electing our President.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
42,659
20,481
Finger Lakes
✟328,999.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Simplest item...

Einstein described gravity as some sort of a four-dimensional differential geometry thing: there is no way to start with that and believe that gravity near the surface of our own planet could have changed much, but it is a simple demonstration that it has, i.e. that the large dinosaurs could not function in present gravity.
What?
^_^
 
Upvote 0

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
41
✟34,002.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Did any of that change the outcome? It didn't seem to help Al Gore.

Getting rid of the EC is necessary. It's obsolete. The way it works now favors the populous states and the big urban areas. Which only helps Democrats. It forces the candidates to campaign mainly in a few "swing" states, and allows them to ignore the others. A 3rd party, or independent candidate has almost no chance of ever being President. The President should be whoever gets the most popular votes nationwide. Big state or small state, urban or rural--every person's vote counts the same and adds to the total. We don't need middlemen electing our President.

It also helps to make voter fraud more difficult.

You could stuff all the ballot boxes you want, in, say, Chicago, but, it won't effect anything more than Illinois' electoral votes.

Why do liberals want to repeal something that makes voter fraud harder?
 
Upvote 0