Vaccine

[Desert Hound]

Sorry getting rid of the Electoral College (which is not a perfect system) is a bridge too far for me, and its hardly a minority that are deciding. I don't think anyone considers 70+ million citizens and 45+ states a minority. You disenfranchise millions when you allow the coasts, specifically LA and NYC to determine our president. Could you imagine the corruption potential putting that power in a few cities and the amount of graft that would be used to influence those communities. You're a reasonable person but you've clearly not thought this one through. It's a very slippery slope when you start to change the constitution, particularly when its done just to suit your political affiliation.

Yep I like our system.

The thing about those complaining about the electoral college, senators, etc., there is a solution. Our system allows for constitutional amendments. So convince enough people/states, etc and get the change you want. It will be hard to do, but then again changes to the constitution are supposed to be hard.

 

[crush]

Warning: Please you guys, watch this and watch what you inject into your blood. The blood circulates throughout your body and it's all the blood you got. Don't taint your blood from a bunch of weirdo scientists who lie for living. That not good.

GREAT RESET VAX Prince / VAXXED MAN / ASDA VAX BUS (AN INCONVENIENT [TRUTH] COLLAPSE...)

GREAT RESET VAX Prince #RESIST MEDICAL TYRANNY ================ (world orders review) ================ GREAT RESET VAX Prince / VAXXED MAN / ASDA VAX BUS (AM INCONVENIENT [DISOBEDIENT] & UNTIMELY COLLAPSE...) https://www.bitchute.com/video/8PZCyUuP54tb/ [SHARE] ================ Royale Babylon...

www.bitchute.com

 

[espola]

Yep I like our system.

The thing about those complaining about the electoral college, senators, etc., there is a solution. Our system allows for constitutional amendments. So convince enough people/states, etc and get the change you want. It will be hard to do, but then again changes to the constitution are supposed to be hard.

Here is my list of changes --

Elect President and Vice President separately.
Keep the electoral college (it limits vote-counting mischief in any state to that state's electors), but require proportions -- if a candidate gets 1/3 or more of the popular votes in a state, he gets at least a third of the state's electoral votes. Individual states could decide to divide the pie even more fairly if they wish, but the 1/3 number recognizes that all states have at least 3 votes.
Elect the Attorney General and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court directly with the same Electoral College process.
Create a class of Life Senators who no longer have to seek campaign contributions to stay in office. Possible selections would be all former Presidents and Vice Presidents, and members of Congress of long standing.

 

[Desert Hound]

Here is my list of changes --

Elect President and Vice President separately.
Keep the electoral college (it limits vote-counting mischief in any state to that state's electors), but require proportions -- if a candidate gets 1/3 or more of the popular votes in a state, he gets at least a third of the state's electoral votes. Individual states could decide to divide the pie even more fairly if they wish, but the 1/3 number recognizes that all states have at least 3 votes.
Elect the Attorney General and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court directly with the same Electoral College process.
Create a class of Life Senators who no longer have to seek campaign contributions to stay in office. Possible selections would be all former Presidents and Vice Presidents, and members of Congress of long standing.

Well first off I would like to congratulate you. Seriously.

Instead of saying link or what and not contributing anything you actually gave an opinion that can lead to a discussion. So thank you.

Let me ponder your points and I will give feedback. Probably in the morning since it is late.

But you finally gave an opinion on something that allows a back and forth. Thanks!

 

[Grace T.]

Well first off I would like to congratulate you. Seriously.

Instead of saying link or what and not contributing anything you actually gave an opinion that can lead to a discussion. So thank you.

Let me ponder your points and I will give feedback. Probably in the morning since it is late.

But you finally gave an opinion on something that allows a back and forth. Thanks!

The only thing I’ll weigh in on is I hate the idea of electing judges. I think those progressive reforms have worked poorly in states that have judges elected. My main complaint is there is too much of a tendency to ignore the actual law for political partisanship— so you get “hang em high” on the right and critical though progressivism on the left.

as for a us House of Lords I’ll only noteboth the right and left in the uk have been unhappy with theirs but maybe that’s the point

 

[crush]

Well first off I would like to congratulate you. Seriously.

Instead of saying link or what and not contributing anything you actually gave an opinion that can lead to a discussion. So thank you.

Let me ponder your points and I will give feedback. Probably in the morning since it is late.

But you finally gave an opinion on something that allows a back and forth. Thanks!

I think Espola shared more from his brain in one post then he has the last two years. I think it was respectful to you Hound. He still ignores me but that's ok.

 

[crush]

The only thing I’ll weigh in on is I hate the idea of electing judges. I think those progressive reforms have worked poorly in states that have judges elected. My main complaint is there is too much of a tendency to ignore the actual law for political partisanship— so you get “hang em high” on the right and critical though progressivism on the left.

as for a us House of Lords I’ll only noteboth the right and left in the uk have been unhappy with theirs but maybe that’s the point

Term limits need to be installed asap or blow the sucker up and start over. Like I said before Grace T, being Bought, Bribed and Blackmailed to do as told is what has caused most of the problems in politics 101. Life time members cheat!!!!

 

[crush]

They ((the cheaters & Liars) want YOU to be godless, sexless, genderless, childless, depressed, anxious, afraid, fat, drug addicted, lonely, booze, physically weak, mentally weak, in debt, isolated, living in Pod, dependent on Nanny, take boosters until told no more and then die all alone!!

 

[espola]

The only thing I’ll weigh in on is I hate the idea of electing judges. I think those progressive reforms have worked poorly in states that have judges elected. My main complaint is there is too much of a tendency to ignore the actual law for political partisanship— so you get “hang em high” on the right and critical though progressivism on the left.

as for a us House of Lords I’ll only noteboth the right and left in the uk have been unhappy with theirs but maybe that’s the point

The point is to get people in office who are not looking for campaign contributions throughout their whole term.

 

[crush]

The point is to get people in office who are not looking for campaign contributions throughout their whole terms.

I fixed it for you. When EJ first came on these boards to talk all the garbage in youth soccer ((politics, dads buying clubs and dads on boards to get kid picked for YNT and then all the abuse the girls and some moms took from some Doc heads)) you were my support. EJ told you that he was going to get to the bottom of all this. Well, all you did was ignore my facts. So sad Espola because........

 

[whatithink]

Sorry getting rid of the Electoral College (which is not a perfect system) is a bridge too far for me, and its hardly a minority that are deciding. I don't think anyone considers 70+ million citizens and 45+ states a minority. You disenfranchise millions when you allow the coasts, specifically LA and NYC to determine our president. Could you imagine the corruption potential putting that power in a few cities and the amount of graft that would be used to influence those communities. You're a reasonable person but you've clearly not thought this one through. It's a very slippery slope when you start to change the constitution, particularly when its done just to suit your political affiliation.

The problem with the cries of 74M voted for T thing is that 81M voted against T. The minority are perfectly happy to pursue their agenda and ignore the majority if they win power, as noted with T and the Senate for 4 years happily packing the judiciary from SCOTUS down despite both T & the Senate representing a minority of the electorate. "You" can't then cry when you lose and those that represent the actual majority want to go a different path. There's plenty of "corruption to go around, neither party has a monopoly on it or is immune to it. My point is that if the system allows for minority "rule", which it does, and that minority consistently legislates against the wishes of the majority, then that's not sustainable.

For the record, I don't have a political affiliation. I vote R or D depending on the candidate. I would happily have voted for Flake for example if he were the candidate in AZ. In fact, the AZ GOP could have two Rs in the Senate still if they had a clue, but they have been taken over by extremists and present candidates that won't will state wide in AZ.

For the record, I'd advocate for a system that is far more inclusive and would be a radical change in the US. It will never happen though, specifically

• Publicly funded elections, i.e. remove the money
• Proportional representation, i.e. negate the influence of the primary nonsense which is empowering the extremes on both sides
• Everyone must vote, such as Australia
• Term limits for Congress and SCOTUS - a blanket 12 years

 

[crush]

Hold the Line America for which she stands!!! Notice none of the NYFD have mask on?

MY NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS!!! HOLD THE LINE!!!

NO MORE MANDATES!!! New York City workers are getting ready to go across the Brooklyn bridge in protest of vaccine mandates. A great deal of firefighters are among the crowd. 10-25-21 Subscribe to il

rumble.com

 

[Desert Hound]

“You see hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands people all packed together – not a mask in sight. I understand it’s outdoors,” Wallace stated, “but what does it tell you that there have not been spikes in most of these communities when you have people crowded into football or baseball stadiums?”

Good question right? And note that many told us it would be a disaster by allowing this. And yet...nothing happened. At some point we need to realize most of our "experts" are winging it.

‘Not A Mask In Sight’: Chris Wallace Asks CDC Director Why Packed Football Stadiums Aren’t Creating Spikes

Chris Wallace asked CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, why packed sports arenas weren't contributing to a rise in COVID cases on his 'Fox News Sunday' broadcast.

dailycaller.com

 

[Desert Hound]

despite both T & the Senate representing a minority of the electorate.

No they put people on court benches because they had a majority in the Senate. That is they way our Republic works.

By the way T would never had gotten in so many judges had the Ds left alone the filibuster rule. But for a short term victory they ditched it. It was obvious to many that once they did that, R's would also ditch it to suit themselves.

That is why it is important to keep norms in place even if by doing so you give up a win you could have.

• Publicly funded elections, i.e. remove the money
• Proportional representation, i.e. negate the influence of the primary nonsense which is empowering the extremes on both sides
• Everyone must vote, such as Australia
• Term limits for Congress and SCOTUS - a blanket 12 years

Publicly funded doesn't remove money from elections. It just means the people in power get to determine how money is distributed.

Proportional rep won't eliminate extremism. It will enhance it. Instead of appealing to a state as a whole, you would would instead preach to your core supporters in any state.

Everyone shouldnt vote. A substantial percentage of people have no interest in voting. If they are not currently interested, it is also fair to assume they are not close to knowledgeable on the topics. Forcing them to vote doesn't make things better in the least.

Term limits for Congress would be great. Unfortunately the ones in there now would be the ones voting to limit their own tenure. They will never do that.

No need for term limits on the SC. That said there could be a mandatory retirement age.

 

[Desert Hound]

Here is my list of changes --

Elect President and Vice President separately.
Keep the electoral college (it limits vote-counting mischief in any state to that state's electors), but require proportions -- if a candidate gets 1/3 or more of the popular votes in a state, he gets at least a third of the state's electoral votes. Individual states could decide to divide the pie even more fairly if they wish, but the 1/3 number recognizes that all states have at least 3 votes.
Elect the Attorney General and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court directly with the same Electoral College process.
Create a class of Life Senators who no longer have to seek campaign contributions to stay in office. Possible selections would be all former Presidents and Vice Presidents, and members of Congress of long standing.

What would be the point of electing the Prez and the VP separately? It changes nothing to be honest. You kind of want the VP to be from the same party as the P.

Why proportions? All that means is that a candidate doesn't have to try to appeal to the state at large. He/she would focus on their party only for the most part.

The attorney general is part of the cabinent. Presidents should be able to fill their cabinets with like minded people.

Why would electing a chief justice improve anything? I don't like the idea of judges running for election.

Life senators is a bad idea. Without the need for running for election, they are not constrained by what the people of their state would like. In other words these people would become even bigger creatures of Washington. Having them get elected means they somewhat have to cater to the people of their home state.

 

[Grace T.]

What would be the point of electing the Prez and the VP separately? It changes nothing to be honest. You kind of want the VP to be from the same party as the P.

The one thing it would lead to is shenanigans regarding a president who has committed malfeasance or is undergoing a disability.

Assume it came to light Trump really had colluded with the Russians to engage in fraud in the 2016 elections and Tim Kaine had been elected Veep because Americans like to ticket split. The Kavanaugh Supreme Court appointment is on the line. Would Republicans expeditiously without dragging their feet and uniformly be more or less likely to remove Trump from office?

Assume in 2020 Joe Biden had been elected President but Mike Pence is the Vice President. Wouldn't at the current time Mike Pence be agitating to remove Biden for disability? Would the Ds be more or less likely to remove him if Pence would become the President? Seems like a recipe for "Weekend at Camp David" to me.

If the Veeps are from the same party as the President, the results will act as a separate power base (a shadow cabinet) from which the President can be checked. If the Veeps are from a different party, it will lead to shenanigans where the opposition party will pretextually try to remove the President. In the Soviet Union and in some Latin American countries, it's been enough to form a power base from which a coup can be launched.

 

[espola]

The one thing it would lead to is shenanigans regarding a president who has committed malfeasance or is undergoing a disability.

Assume it came to light Trump really had colluded with the Russians to engage in fraud in the 2016 elections and Tim Kaine had been elected Veep because Americans like to ticket split. The Kavanaugh Supreme Court appointment is on the line. Would Republicans expeditiously without dragging their feet and uniformly be more or less likely to remove Trump from office?

Assume in 2020 Joe Biden had been elected President but Mike Pence is the Vice President. Wouldn't at the current time Mike Pence be agitating to remove Biden for disability? Would the Ds be more or less likely to remove him if Pence would become the President? Seems like a recipe for "Weekend at Camp David" to me.

If the Veeps are from the same party as the President, the results will act as a separate power base (a shadow cabinet) from which the President can be checked. If the Veeps are from a different party, it will lead to shenanigans where the opposition party will pretextually try to remove the President. In the Soviet Union and in some Latin American countries, it's been enough to form a power base from which a coup can be launched.

Many states follow that practice today. California elects Governor and Lt Governor separately and also Attorney General, Secretary of State, Treasurer, and other principal officers. The Governor still has his Cabinet, but he doesn't have undue influence on the enforcement of laws and the like.

 

[espola]

The one thing it would lead to is shenanigans regarding a president who has committed malfeasance or is undergoing a disability.

Assume it came to light Trump really had colluded with the Russians to engage in fraud in the 2016 elections and Tim Kaine had been elected Veep because Americans like to ticket split. The Kavanaugh Supreme Court appointment is on the line. Would Republicans expeditiously without dragging their feet and uniformly be more or less likely to remove Trump from office?

Assume in 2020 Joe Biden had been elected President but Mike Pence is the Vice President. Wouldn't at the current time Mike Pence be agitating to remove Biden for disability? Would the Ds be more or less likely to remove him if Pence would become the President? Seems like a recipe for "Weekend at Camp David" to me.

If the Veeps are from the same party as the President, the results will act as a separate power base (a shadow cabinet) from which the President can be checked. If the Veeps are from a different party, it will lead to shenanigans where the opposition party will pretextually try to remove the President. In the Soviet Union and in some Latin American countries, it's been enough to form a power base from which a coup can be launched.

Your hypothetical situation with VP Kaine assumes that Republcans would keep a traitor in office rather than yield partisan power. Is that what you meant to propose?

 

[whatithink]

No they put people on court benches because they had a majority in the Senate. That is they way our Republic works.

By the way T would never had gotten in so many judges had the Ds left alone the filibuster rule. But for a short term victory they ditched it. It was obvious to many that once they did that, R's would also ditch it to suit themselves.

That is why it is important to keep norms in place even if by doing so you give up a win you could have.

Publicly funded doesn't remove money from elections. It just means the people in power get to determine how money is distributed.

Proportional rep won't eliminate extremism. It will enhance it. Instead of appealing to a state as a whole, you would would instead preach to your core supporters in any state.

Everyone shouldnt vote. A substantial percentage of people have no interest in voting. If they are not currently interested, it is also fair to assume they are not close to knowledgeable on the topics. Forcing them to vote doesn't make things better in the least.

Term limits for Congress would be great. Unfortunately the ones in there now would be the ones voting to limit their own tenure. They will never do that.

No need for term limits on the SC. That said there could be a mandatory retirement age.

You reinforce my point on the Senate/Republic.

The filibuster doesn't really make sense and shouldn't exist.

Public funding makes far more sense than the current system, e.g. the sight of various GOP candidates paying homage/tribute, on bended knee, to Sheldon Adelson was bizarre.

The primary system is literally driving extremism as the extremes are far more motivated to vote for their nutter, left or right. Once a candidate has an R or D beside them, they will get votes, irrespective of their merit.

5-10% of the voters decide every election, of the 66% (v. high turnout) eligible to vote. The vast majority of voters will tick a D or R irrespective of the candidate - that's not engaged or knowledgeable, and I'm not going into the massive misinformation that is prevalent these days.

I think term limits make more sense than a retirement age for the SC, but would take either.

 

[Grace T.]

Your hypothetical situation with VP Kaine assumes that Republcans would keep a traitor in office rather than yield partisan power. Is that what you meant to propose?

Yes, just like my situation with the Ds proposes someone who isn't mentally fit remaining in office as well. Feel free to swap up...my estimation of either political party isn't particularly high.

I think it's less of an issue with the states as well because there's less at stake. States and provinces in the world typically don't have coups, for example. But the federal government has become so pervasive in its influence, that control over the levers of power seems existential to some wings of both parties. The states (with certain exceptions like Maryland and Virginia which may wind up tearing each other apart) aren't as tense because of the Great Sorting. I expect we'll see more situations like Maryland, Virginia and Jefferson in the coming years.