Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/16/2018 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/16/2018 9:48:00 AM (view original):
Not at all. The current setup gives a voice to the entire country instead of a few heavily populated pockets.

Exept the people not in the pockets have more power than those inside of it. How is that fair?

How do they have more power?

Their votes count more. The number of electoral votes Wyoming has per person is far greater than California. It isn't proportionate.

Cripes Tangy........... I applaud you for being a good young citizen.......... be proud of being a liberal.......... this Country was founded on Liberal principles......

BUT, that statement of yours regarding Wyoming, Calif. the # of residents, and the # of (Corresponding!) Electoral Votes might just be the dumbest daggone thing you've ever said here!

How about doing some BASIC Historical research.........??
States like Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, the Dakotas, etc have the LEAST amount of influence within the Electoral College system..........
How many freaking electoral votes does Idaho get anyway?? 2?? Wow......... I'm gonna spend a LOTTA my dollars campaigning there!
Jeeesh.

Bob

I have never disagreed with you more. Tang has said way more dumber things than that.

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/16/2018 11:21:00 AM (view original):
No parents and teachers push kids to college and then kids go and many drop out quickly. There is nothing wrong with trade schools and other type of work. As it is we have more graduates than jobs. Wait til you are a parent. You will sing a different tune.

And what is the harm in that?

Posted by dino27 on 3/16/2018 10:17:00 AM (view original):
im worried about mcmaster getting fired and replaced by bolton.......many consider bolton to be a dangerous hawk with no restaraint........he and trump together could be scary.

Ding Ding Ding! On the money Dino...........

Bolton is a total nutjob....... He's an actual believer in a "winnable" limited NUCLEAR engagement as a means of achieving U.S. foreign policy aims!!
He would actually recommend/endorse/CAJOLE the whiner-in-chief to roll the dice with a Nuclear attack on Iran and/or No. Korea.............Russia (maybe even China in regards to NK) would likely retaliate. Take cover!

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/16/2018 11:30:00 AM (view original):
Bob

I have never disagreed with you more. Tang has said way more dumber things than that.

Funniest statement so far today! You probably got me on that one Boris!

I like the trade school route as well. It just doesn't make any sense at all to come out of college with $60k in debt for a business or arts degree.

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/16/2018 11:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/16/2018 11:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/16/2018 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/16/2018 9:48:00 AM (view original):
Not at all. The current setup gives a voice to the entire country instead of a few heavily populated pockets.

Exept the people not in the pockets have more power than those inside of it. How is that fair?

How do they have more power?

Their votes count more. The number of electoral votes Wyoming has per person is far greater than California. It isn't proportionate.

Are you counting legal people in Cali or illegals too?

It works either way. The results don't change. You can cross supply this with NY, Texas, etc.

Can you name an election that Wyoming has impacted with their 3 electoral votes? While it is possible the probability that Wyoming will influence an election is incredibly low.

The vote still counts more. Don't think of it as 'Wyoming gets 3 votes', think of it as 'in Wyoming, 1 electoral vote is 180k voters, and in California, 1 electoral vote is 650k voters.'

Posted by laramiebob on 3/16/2018 11:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/16/2018 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/16/2018 9:48:00 AM (view original):
Not at all. The current setup gives a voice to the entire country instead of a few heavily populated pockets.

Exept the people not in the pockets have more power than those inside of it. How is that fair?

How do they have more power?

Their votes count more. The number of electoral votes Wyoming has per person is far greater than California. It isn't proportionate.

Cripes Tangy........... I applaud you for being a good young citizen.......... be proud of being a liberal.......... this Country was founded on Liberal principles......

BUT, that statement of yours regarding Wyoming, Calif. the # of residents, and the # of (Corresponding!) Electoral Votes might just be the dumbest daggone thing you've ever said here!

How about doing some BASIC Historical research.........??
States like Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, the Dakotas, etc have the LEAST amount of influence within the Electoral College system..........
How many freaking electoral votes does Idaho get anyway?? 2?? Wow......... I'm gonna spend a LOTTA my dollars campaigning there!
Jeeesh.

You missed my point. I am not talking about the states having more power. I am saying the voters in the states have more power.

The number of Electoral votes is attached to the census 10 yr. count of residents. AS IS the number of Representatives in the House each State receives.
Thus, (I think!) Alaska only has 1 Representative (BUT 2 Senators), and (correspondingly, I think) 1 Electoral Vote.

Some would say that, despite a lower emphasis during Presidential campaigns, small States actually have more political clout because they have 2 Senators for a very Small amount of population and thus each citizen has much higher access/clout with their elected federal official.
BUT, that only works for REAL Small populated states. Generally, if you're so small that you only have 3 or 4 (or less) electoral votes, MOST times as a stste you have very little clout in the Presidential election. Just the way it is!

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/16/2018 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 3/16/2018 11:03:00 AM (view original):
Explain to me how Ben Carson, who never held a governmental position and who he himself said he really wasn't even qualified to serve in a cabinet position, was more qualified than Kasich:

An Ohio state senator, 9 terms serving in the US HoR, 18 years on the House Armed Services committee, 6 years chairman of the house budget committee, 2 terms as Ohio Governor.

I admit the resumes are close, Carson did some great surgeries involving conjoined twins and gave a great conservative speech at the National Prayer Breakfast one year, and he survived cancer.

You gotta say that Kasich is just SLIGHTLY more qualified to be president though, don't you?

Easy. I wanted a non-politician. I thought Carson was very well spoken, thoughtful, medical background to maybe solve the medical insurance issues we have and again an outsider to maybe clean up some of the internal corruption. Kasich by your own definition was an insider.

That's fine, but don't say Carson was more qualified to run a country. He's never even run a town government.

Posted by laramiebob on 3/16/2018 11:43:00 AM (view original):
The number of Electoral votes is attached to the census 10 yr. count of residents. AS IS the number of Representatives in the House each State receives.
Thus, (I think!) Alaska only has 1 Representative (BUT 2 Senators), and (correspondingly, I think) 1 Electoral Vote.

Some would say that, despite a lower emphasis during Presidential campaigns, small States actually have more political clout because they have 2 Senators for a very Small amount of population and thus each citizen has much higher access/clout with their elected federal official.
BUT, that only works for REAL Small populated states. Generally, if you're so small that you only have 3 or 4 (or less) electoral votes, MOST times as a stste you have very little clout in the Presidential election. Just the way it is!

This is incorrect. In California, 1 electoral vote is 650k voters. In Wyoming, 1 electoral vote is 150k voters.

he would have a nice kitchen cabinet.

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 3/16/2018 11:43:00 AM (view original):
The number of Electoral votes is attached to the census 10 yr. count of residents. AS IS the number of Representatives in the House each State receives.
Thus, (I think!) Alaska only has 1 Representative (BUT 2 Senators), and (correspondingly, I think) 1 Electoral Vote.

Some would say that, despite a lower emphasis during Presidential campaigns, small States actually have more political clout because they have 2 Senators for a very Small amount of population and thus each citizen has much higher access/clout with their elected federal official.
BUT, that only works for REAL Small populated states. Generally, if you're so small that you only have 3 or 4 (or less) electoral votes, MOST times as a stste you have very little clout in the Presidential election. Just the way it is!

This is incorrect. In California, 1 electoral vote is 650k voters. In Wyoming, 1 electoral vote is 150k voters.

That maybe true Tangy (I didn't bother to do the math)......... BUT, in practical REALITY..... it's meaningless........ NObody gives a flying orangeheaded doofus ABOUT Wyoming's electoral votes (except Wyoming's FEW actual voters!) during their decisions on where to spend any EFFORT when running for POTUS.
Alaska is worse! Thus, in practice, California (even with way less per vote Electoral representation) has WAY WAY more clout in deciding the Presidential outcome. It's really kinda simple, Tangy! Don't argue just to argue, that makes you a timewaster........ kinda like a troll.

Posted by laramiebob on 3/16/2018 11:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 3/16/2018 10:17:00 AM (view original):
im worried about mcmaster getting fired and replaced by bolton.......many consider bolton to be a dangerous hawk with no restaraint........he and trump together could be scary.

Ding Ding Ding! On the money Dino...........

Bolton is a total nutjob....... He's an actual believer in a "winnable" limited NUCLEAR engagement as a means of achieving U.S. foreign policy aims!!
He would actually recommend/endorse/CAJOLE the whiner-in-chief to roll the dice with a Nuclear attack on Iran and/or No. Korea.............Russia (maybe even China in regards to NK) would likely retaliate. Take cover!

thank you....this is the all important development.

Posted by laramiebob on 3/16/2018 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 3/16/2018 11:43:00 AM (view original):
The number of Electoral votes is attached to the census 10 yr. count of residents. AS IS the number of Representatives in the House each State receives.
Thus, (I think!) Alaska only has 1 Representative (BUT 2 Senators), and (correspondingly, I think) 1 Electoral Vote.

Some would say that, despite a lower emphasis during Presidential campaigns, small States actually have more political clout because they have 2 Senators for a very Small amount of population and thus each citizen has much higher access/clout with their elected federal official.
BUT, that only works for REAL Small populated states. Generally, if you're so small that you only have 3 or 4 (or less) electoral votes, MOST times as a stste you have very little clout in the Presidential election. Just the way it is!

This is incorrect. In California, 1 electoral vote is 650k voters. In Wyoming, 1 electoral vote is 150k voters.

That maybe true Tangy (I didn't bother to do the math)......... BUT, in practical REALITY..... it's meaningless........ NObody gives a flying orangeheaded doofus ABOUT Wyoming's electoral votes (except Wyoming's FEW actual voters!) during their decisions on where to spend any EFFORT when running for POTUS.
Alaska is worse! Thus, in practice, California (even with way less per vote Electoral representation) has WAY WAY more clout in deciding the Presidential outcome. It's really kinda simple, Tangy! Don't argue just to argue, that makes you a timewaster........ kinda like a troll.

You are still looking at it wrong... We are not looking at whether California, the state, has more political clout than Wyoming. We are looking at whether Wyoming's voters have more political power than California's do (they do). It is a waste of time to compare how many electoral votes they get. Look at individual electoral votes and what they represent.

And I am arguing because I think it is an injustice that needs to be fixed.... many others do as well.