i think we should all take some time to bow our heads for the passing of Steven Hawking.......an advancer of quantum physics....cosmology........Einstein...and a communicator to the great scientifically unwashed...........say hello to your new next door neighbor...Albert Einstein..

Posted by The Taint on 3/16/2018 11:45:00 AM (view original):

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.

My mistake. I mean IMO the best candidate at this time.

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 12:27:00 PM (view original):

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.

Again can you name one election that Wyoming has ever influenced?

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 11:32:00 AM (view original):

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?

Harm in what?

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/16/2018 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 12:27:00 PM (view original):

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.

Again can you name one election that Wyoming has ever influenced?

That question is irrelevent. Can you name an election where 1 electoral vote changed the whole thing?

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/16/2018 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 11:32:00 AM (view original):

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?

Harm in what?

Kids going to college and dropping out.

It wastes time, money and frustrates the kids. Duh.

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/16/2018 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 12:27:00 PM (view original):

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.

Again can you name one election that Wyoming has ever influenced?

That question is irrelevent. Can you name an election where 1 electoral vote changed the whole thing?

1876: Rutherford Hayes beats Samuel Tilden by 1 Electoral vote

And Wyoming didn't even influence that one.

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/16/2018 1:56:00 PM (view original):
It wastes time, money and frustrates the kids. Duh.

... if college were free... Who is making excuses now?

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/16/2018 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/16/2018 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 12:27:00 PM (view original):

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.

Again can you name one election that Wyoming has ever influenced?

That question is irrelevent. Can you name an election where 1 electoral vote changed the whole thing?

1876: Rutherford Hayes beats Samuel Tilden by 1 Electoral vote

Fair enough. The question is still irrelevant.

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/16/2018 1:56:00 PM (view original):
It wastes time, money and frustrates the kids. Duh.

... if college were free... Who is making excuses now?

Books, fees, room & board = not free. Just tuition. Are you really this dumb?

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 12:27:00 PM (view original):

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.

What are you talking about? WHAT injustice? IF some Californian doesn't like it there, he/she can move to Wyoming if they want.

You're not seriously arguing for the "messing around"/elimination of the Electoral College voting system for President are you??
While that's not necessarily nuts (there have been lots of studies/assertions/theories on this) it is foolhardy.
Our system of Government has worked pretty daggone will for 100's of years........... long before you whippersnappers came along with your "brilliant" ideas and concepts...........long enough to establish it's "principles" of governing as sound.......... we'd do well not to begin tinkering with matters such as these.

Posted by laramiebob on 3/16/2018 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/16/2018 12:27:00 PM (view original):

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.

What are you talking about? WHAT injustice? IF some Californian doesn't like it there, he/she can move to Wyoming if they want.

You're not seriously arguing for the "messing around"/elimination of the Electoral College voting system for President are you??
While that's not necessarily nuts (there have been lots of studies/assertions/theories on this) it is foolhardy.
Our system of Government has worked pretty daggone will for 100's of years........... long before you whippersnappers came along with your "brilliant" ideas and concepts...........long enough to establish it's "principles" of governing as sound.......... we'd do well not to begin tinkering with matters such as these.

Someone shouldn't have to move to Wyoming to gain equality.

And yes, I would support changing it to something better, and more equal. Change is good.

The Electoral College is in place to prevent the majority vote of densely populated states from overpowering the rest of the nation. US is a Republic not a Democracy. A democracy is rule by majority. A republic is rule by law. In our case, the law is the Constitution.

Read the Federalist Papers.