Recruiting Forum Off-Topic Thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#6,451
#6,451
glichtenwalter said:
No. My argument is that the people in the flyover states matter just as much and those in the urban areas. The large majority of welfare recipients live in urban areas and can be "bought" with the promise of more government assistance and programs. How about this, we go to a popular vote but if you are on welfare you give up your right to vote. Just like Congress shouldn't be allowed to vote them selves a pay raise, you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you stand to benefit without providing equal benefit in exchange.
Click to expand...

The liberal Democrat way.
 
#6,453
#6,453
Dust10 said:
The Electoral College was created as a check against foreign influence in our elections.

Your argument is basically people in "flyover" states are somehow wiser and better morals than those in urban areas?
Click to expand...

Which is why it is working. Voting blocks in highly populated liberal states universally side with globalism.
 
#6,454
#6,454
glichtenwalter said:
No. My argument is that the people in the flyover states matter just as much and those in the urban areas. The large majority of welfare recipients live in urban areas and can be "bought" with the promise of more government assistance and programs. How about this, we go to a popular vote but if you are on welfare you give up your right to vote. Just like Congress shouldn't be allowed to vote them selves a pay raise, you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you stand to benefit without providing equal benefit in exchange.
Click to expand...

Why stop at welfare? How about if you benefit from any of these government programs - you lose the right to vote because your vote is "bought" - social security, public education, police, fire, hospital, roads, etc.

You're actually arguing that "flyover" state voters should matter more.

I really don't care where you live and what party you're affiliated with. One person, one vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,456
#6,456
Vols4us said:
Except it is not. We are a republic per the Constitution. Which makes where you live foundational to the union of states when it comes to voting. Change it and watch how fast the union dissolves.
Click to expand...

This is a bunch of hyperbole. The Union will dissolve because everyone's vote counts as "1"? Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,460
#6,460
Dust10 said:
Why stop at welfare? How about if you benefit from any of these government programs - you lose the right to vote because your vote is "bought" - social security, public education, police, fire, hospital, roads, etc.

You're actually arguing that "flyover" state voters should matter more.

I really don't care where you live and what party you're affiliated with. One person, one vote.
Click to expand...

Social Security - I think it was and is a horrible program. It provided a safety net but hasn't evolved with the times. If each person had a private account that they could invest in a series of investment options like TSP then at least Congress couldn't get their greedy hands on it to spend it on pork and other non-related garbage.

Public Education - This needs to be in the hands of the states. The federal government is to big and bloated. The states can better decide what education programs best suit their citizens needs

Hospitals - These are mostly privately funded corporate enterprises.

Police, Fire, Roads, etc. - Those things are the purpose of governments and generally the people that receive the benefits from them are those that pay taxes.

You can't prevent a welfare recipient from receiving police assistance, nor would I want to, but you could suspend their right to vote. There are generational welfare recipients that have not contributed any benefit to society in decades. They are often uneducated and are motivated by fear and the desire to keep the freebies coming. If you said Party A will cut off your free stuff but Party B will keep it going and even give you a free cell phone, how would most of those generational welfare recipients vote. They have been robbed of their pride and opportunity to rise above themselves by the very system that was put in place to supposedly help them. Then they are kept in their plight by the threat that they will lose the very thing that is now the only thing that keeps them from starving. It should never have been the governments role to become a welfare provider because it has created this system of keeping the poor "in their place" with fear and threats of taking away their "assistance". They shouldn't call it government assistance anyway. They should call it "Keep You In Your Place Money" because that is what it does.

For the recipients of all of those things you mentioned, many of us pay taxes and thus get a return benefit. We pay our taxes for those benefits. We don't get them for nothing. Your argument is built on sinking sand and you should give it up while your behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,461
#6,461
Dust10 said:
This is a bunch of hyperbole. The Union will dissolve because everyone's vote counts as "1"? Lol
Click to expand...
It's moot because you need 38 states to amend the constitution. You think all those red states are going to hand the presidency over to the Ds for the foreseeable future?
 
#6,462
#6,462
Dust10 said:
My argument would remain the same if a Republican won the national vote and lost the Electoral College. Would yours? Would you truly say the Democrat "deserved" that victory because you believe in the the Electoral College that much?
Click to expand...

I would. Our country, prior to popular belief is not a democracy. We are a representative republic and our founding fathers, for all their faults, were extremely intelligent and foresaw this issue when they created the electoral college. They knew that the union would only be able to hold together if the less populace states felt fairly represented in Congress and that their voice in the election of the President was fairly heard as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,463
#6,463
VolunteerHillbilly said:
It's moot because you need 38 states to amend the constitution. You think all those red states are going to hand the presidency over to the Ds for the foreseeable future?
Click to expand...

This is the first reasonable thing I have ever seen you post.
 
#6,464
#6,464
VolunteerHillbilly said:
It's moot because you need 38 states to amend the constitution. You think all those red states are going to hand the presidency over to the Ds for the foreseeable future?
Click to expand...

That's why I said my argument stands if the situation were reversed, and I'd truly like to see it because I want to see what happens.

My belief system is consistent regardless of party. My opinion on this is not "sour grapes." I'd caution anyone about making assumptions based on this one issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,465
#6,465
glichtenwalter said:
I would. Our country, prior to popular belief is not a democracy. We are a representative republic and our founding fathers, for all their faults, were extremely intelligent and foresaw this issue when they created the electoral college. They knew that the union would only be able to hold together if the less populace states felt fairly represented in Congress and that their voice in the election of the President was fairly heard as well.
Click to expand...

Maybe like the congress and the senate it should be a combination of the popular vote and the electoral college. How that works, I don't know but it would possibly fix the problem of losing the popular vote but winning the election which does seem fundamentally flawed.
 
#6,466
#6,466
bignewt said:
Maybe like the congress and the senate it should be a combination of the popular vote and the electoral college. How that works, I don't know but it would possibly fix the problem of losing the popular vote but winning the election which does seem fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...

It is a combination of popular vote and electoral college. The winner of the popular vote in each state gets the EC votes. However, because the smaller states have proportional representation in Congress, they cannot be ignored when the Presidential election comes around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,467
#6,467
glichtenwalter said:
I would. Our country, prior to popular belief is not a democracy. We are a representative republic and our founding fathers, for all their faults, were extremely intelligent and foresaw this issue when they created the electoral college. They knew that the union would only be able to hold together if the less populace states felt fairly represented in Congress and that their voice in the election of the President was fairly heard as well.
Click to expand...

You know good and well that in Presidential elections the only thing that matters now is whether or not your state is "in play." Some small states matter, some don't. Some big states matter, some don't.

The Electoral College is an antiquated system that worked for one period of time, but is no longer what's best for the country, imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,468
#6,468
glichtenwalter said:
It is a combination of popular vote and electoral college. The winner of the popular vote in each state gets the EC votes. However, because the smaller states have proportional representation in Congress, they cannot be ignored when the Presidential election comes around.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about awarding EC votes by Congressional district instead of winner take all - as they do in Maine and Nebraska?

This would be a massive boom for the Republican Party, btw.
 
#6,469
#6,469
Dust10 said:
You know good and well that in Presidential elections the only thing that matters now is whether or not your state is "in play." Some small states matter, some don't. Some big states matter, some don't.

The Electoral College is an antiquated system that worked for one period of time, but is no longer what's best for the country, imo.
Click to expand...

But the popular vote is. There are certain swing states that influence the election but getting rid of the EC would even further minimize the impact of the smaller state voters. It may not be perfect but it is better than the popular vote.
 
#6,471
#6,471
Dust10 said:
My argument would remain the same if a Republican won the national vote and lost the Electoral College. Would yours? Would you truly say the Democrat "deserved" that victory because you believe in the the Electoral College that much?
Click to expand...

I'm not a Republican.
 
#6,472
#6,472
Dust10 said:
If by "revolt" you mean get out and vote? That would be awesome. We may get better than 50% voter participation if people actually believed their vote counted the same.

This idea that candidates would campaign in 10 urban cities and ignore the rest of the country is a falsehood.
Click to expand...

This is very true. After the primaries, where my vote actually meant something even if my candidate still lost, I came very close to skipping the general election. I knew TN was going for Trump and kinda felt like why bother waiting in line. Ultimately my wife talked me into going but I still fetl like my vote was pointless.

As it stands now there are just 7-8 battleground states that determine the election for the rest of us. The flyover states have no real say in the matter anyway. So how is that different than 7-8 cities?

Now having said that I don't necessarily think the EC should be completely abolished but the proportion of EC vote to individual vote is way out of whack. Some states like Wyoming an individual vote is worth 4x that of a California individual vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,475
#6,475
glichtenwalter said:
Social Security - I think it was and is a horrible program. It provided a safety net but hasn't evolved with the times. If each person had a private account that they could invest in a series of investment options like TSP then at least Congress couldn't get their greedy hands on it to spend it on pork and other non-related garbage.

Public Education - This needs to be in the hands of the states. The federal government is to big and bloated. The states can better decide what education programs best suit their citizens needs

Hospitals - These are mostly privately funded corporate enterprises.

Police, Fire, Roads, etc. - Those things are the purpose of governments and generally the people that receive the benefits from them are those that pay taxes.

You can't prevent a welfare recipient from receiving police assistance, nor would I want to, but you could suspend their right to vote. There are generational welfare recipients that have not contributed any benefit to society in decades. They are often uneducated and are motivated by fear and the desire to keep the freebies coming. If you said Party A will cut off your free stuff but Party B will keep it going and even give you a free cell phone, how would most of those generational welfare recipients vote. They have been robbed of their pride and opportunity to rise above themselves by the very system that was put in place to supposedly help them. Then they are kept in their plight by the threat that they will lose the very thing that is now the only thing that keeps them from starving. It should never have been the governments role to become a welfare provider because it has created this system of keeping the poor "in their place" with fear and threats of taking away their "assistance". They shouldn't call it government assistance anyway. They should call it "Keep You In Your Place Money" because that is what it does.

For the recipients of all of those things you mentioned, many of us pay taxes and thus get a return benefit. We pay our taxes for those benefits. We don't get them for nothing. Your argument is built on sinking sand and you should give it up while your behind.
Click to expand...

Bewm..
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top