Shaggy
Member
And I'll add that argument of "middle America carrying more weight" is a heavily flawed and hypocritical argument.
By that token should the NE corridor speak for the entire country. I say absolutely not.
-
Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!
Political Thread
- Thread starter Bama Ravens
- Start date
- Status
And I'll add that argument of "middle America carrying more weight" is a heavily flawed and hypocritical argument.
By that token should the NE corridor speak for the entire country. I say absolutely not.
ghost1
Member
But don't you see that you are saying regional demographics should control the POTUS election and I'm saying all votes should be counted and weighed equally regardless of where someone lives. Under the EC (which I think is an outdated system now thanks to technology advancements in the last 200 yrs), the most populous states can decide the election. The voters in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio if they are aligned, can essentially determine the President and voters in Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, the Dakotas and the other 35 or so states would have no voice, even if the popular vote was 10 to 20 million more for the losing candidate. I don't think the states with large populations should wield that power over the voters in smaller states
Downeastnc
Member
Well technically this is a republic not a democracy and the states actually pick the president and thus the electoral college which ensures that rural areas and smaller states get somewhat of a equal say in determining the president. The country should not be a popular vote wins all setup for president.
If it was decided strictly by popular votes then no candidate would ever waste time campaigning or even caring what people in 40 of the 50 states thought or believed. They would focus on the large population centers etc....so your example actually supports why the EC is needed, it prevents or at least mitigates the power that the heavily populated states have....that said we do need to look at the EC there is probably some changes that can be made to the way its done....only 4 times in history has the popular vote winner not won...
pcbjr
Member
This morning, for impeachment coverage, the local news radio station was playing REO Speedwagon “Take it on the Run.” Specifically, “Heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from another…”
Perfect!
Perfect!
So you actually gave some good examples of the advantage of "states rights," but most often I see that argument used in a way that would support restricting of people's freedoms. The use of the term by defenders of the Confederacy doesn't help either.
Shaggy
Member
Well I believe we can exact more change locally than nationally. I can vote for my representatives and hold them accountable when they screw it up. During the ACA debacle pelosi,reid did what they wanted without reading the bill and there was squat i could do about it. On the other hand after Colorado passed over restrictive gun laws the dems that led that were recalled.
That was a good example of the power of the people and how our votes can count in state elections way more than in national elections.
We are not a one size fits all type of society. Sweeping national reforms and laws will not work for everyone. Let state make choices for themselves and as long as those states dont pass unconstitutional laws then let their citizens worry about changing it if they dont like it.
Last edited:
Downeastnc
Member
This does not change the fact that the founders did intend for the states to have more power than the federal government. Federalism was what they intended and over the decades we have gotten away from that....
I’m watching these impeachment hearings and I’ve gotta say, what a snoozfest.
Last edited:
Yes, this. ^^ I personally don't think most even know this. Democracy is essentially 2 wolves and 1 lamb voting on who's for dinner.
Shaggy
Member
What was your perception when you turned on the TV? Were you thinking trump was already innocent or guilty?
Reading reports from the media be it pro-vs trump it's like people are watching 2 different hearings. In one aspect its damning evidence on the other a snoozefest. Both opinions probably predetermined by what the people writing the articles want them to be.
All questions being asked are worded in a way as to set up a desired answer or ending point. Today was mostly the republicans hammering home the fact that this is indeed a sham and the latest instance of the “boy who cried wolf”. The Democrat side of the isle spent the day attempting to convince the people that the sitting US president is not allowed to hire a new foreign diplomat without providing a reason and basically asking them for permission before doing so. It’s all just very unfortunate that we can’t move past the 2016 election and get on with our lives.
Flurry
Member
I think Jerry Springer is getting better ratings!!
It is probably somewhere in between. That's why I generally dislike political discussions. Comments are predictable/predetermined for the vast majority depending on what side they're on. Tribalism on both sides. Why don't more folks take a middle of the road stand on this and other things?
After watching 2 days of the hearings I see nothing that would make me move to impeach the sitting President of the United States. Even if it was Hillary, Obama or anybody else. Even if it were Hillary I would be a uncomfortable if dems could not call witnesses or not aloud to speak. Farce. Not going to end well for dems in this instance. Not good for our country all the way around.
Last edited:
Obama just said something to that effect to the dems. Said they were going way too far left. We use to be this way basically. The media would help in this situation. Be fair and equal...
Downeastnc
Member
The only thing not good for our country in all this is the President of the USA using military aid and his office to attempt to force another country to do something that benefits him personally. Its also concerning that the president of the US is buying into these conspiracy theories about Crowdstrike etc.....though I am not surprised the leader of the birther movement believes conspiracy theories.
Cad Wedge NC
Member
Agree. I would not approve of it, even if it was the Republicans going after a Democrat. Now, Bill Clinton.... that was a different case. It was not about the affair, it was about lying under oath.
Downeastnc
Member
Honestly though IMO lying about a BJ and trying to coerce a foreign government through extortion into interfering in our elections are not even in the same universe.....what Trump did is so much worse.....
pcbjr
Member
When you take an oath to testify truthfully, you have entered a realm that allows no fudging ... no exceptions ... none ...
Downeastnc
Member
I agree and I didnt have a problem with impeaching Clinton for it.....I am just saying that lying about getting a hummer in the Oval Office is no where near the same as trying to extort a foreign government to interfere in the US presidential election process while using military aid ( IE taxpayer's money) to get compliance.
- Status