So how would you justify theft of another’s labor as opposed to paying taxes that are proportional to what someone makes? I never understood the logic on why people would support a progressive tax policy!
Quoting myself here since i already summarized my theory of this
Yeah I am going to disagree with you on all accounts. The EC was specifically designed to balance out how the votes are represented in a national election as opposed to the popular vote in which concentrated populations would be disproportionate to geography and thus is unfair. Also totally disagree on the GOP gerrymeandering part, and voter suppression part (to be honest I am surprised you are throwing that out there because there is nothing there IMO that supports that claim) and steal Scalia’s seat part. You should at least be honest and acknowledge that the precedent was set by Obama and Harry Reed by exploiting recess appointments and deciding to go the nuclear option by eliminating the fillibuster.
Yeah sorry, that is a convoluted word salad. A flat tax is actually fairer and would probably achieve a lot more in addressing the same things you would be advocating for as opposed to a progressive tax policy that seeks to steal from others and encourage the wealthy to seek safe havens.
We will have to disagree on this one. I do not believe this is fair, nor is it the only reason the EC was created.
Both parties use gerrymandering when they are in power. Voter suppression is harder to prove, but there have been many examples that seem quite clear to me.
Yes, the dems began the nuclear option, and they are kicking themselves now. It does not mean Mitch did not play dirty, even if it was legal. It is one more example of the huge divide between right and left. Each side will do whatever it takes to get their way.
Sorry you feel that way. Makes perfect sense to me. It is more of a social and political issue than a financial one, imo
That makes no sense to me. As the saying goes you eventually run out of other people’s money to pay for those social causes you so advocate for. You don’t make a case pro or con for either Tax policy!
I am sorry I am a little short on trust here, but you did say in your previous comment from our introductory conversation that you are a moderate, but it appears based on the things you want to support falls more in line with the socialist agenda. So is it safe to assume you are learning toward Bernie Sanders or a similar candidate in the up coming elections based on everything you say you are in favor of supporting?
Who stole Scalia’s seat?
Republicans are not suppressing the LEGAL vote, they are trying to free up the voter rolls from those voting illegally and trying to ensure that those who show up to the polls are actually who they claim to be and are eligible voters.
What examples specifically are you referring to? If requiring Voter ID is one, then yes I would have to whole hardheartedly disagree with you on it! It is quite simple what it means and a majority of the conservative base support such policies. illegals or foreign nationals should not be given the right to decide our elections and that is what Voter ID aims to eliminate!
Well you can’t have it both ways. Democrats always play dirty, and when Republicans strike back it is always the left that cries foul. As the saying goes two wrongs never makes a right, and so your argument is a losing one at best!
Aside from practicality the major reason behind the EC was to keep elections “Federal” as opposed to “National”.
The “majority” needs to be tempered or else you end up with mob rule.
I agree! Show me a better system and I would be open to considering that as an idea, but the popular vote is def. not one of them!
The best system would skip the EC vote altogether and simply apportion EC votes to each state based on population.
You win the state, you win the number of electors from each district represented.
The flaw in this is that something could happen such as a president elect being shown to be a traitor between election day and the meeting of electors. The EC does provide hedge against seating a known traitor.
Think of it this way. After election day the Chinese threaten a total nuclear strike on the US unless the president elect grants them special favors and the PE then relents. That would be within his purview as CE but it would be a traitorous act to surrender the country without a shot being fired.
Now theoretically an impeachment could solve that problem beginning on inauguration day but by then the Chinese could have successfully occupied the country.
Its a trend, both sides becoming more and more cutthroat. And its not just the left that whines when they dont get their way.
Popular vote is the only thing that makes sense, why is it such a bad idea?
Im going to modify my last comment.
Within our 2 party system, the popular vote makes the most sense when voting for president. That said, I hate the 2 party system. I think this could be changed with a proportional representational republic. Also, being able to vote for a first, second, and third choice would open up more possibilities than just the two current, massively flawed parties holding power.
Where in the constitution does to state the Senate must give a hearing to an appointee?
Perhaps a national voter ID would help eliminate voter suppression. It would also go a long way to prevent vote fraud.
The Popular vote is a extremely bad idea, and I already explained that in a previous comment. I don’t want to repeat myself.
Hard to justify that when the left controls MSM, and the Educational institutions! Especially in News media where opinions far outweigh an objective presentation of facts, so I will have to disagree again on that assertion as well. It is always the left that has been crying the most especially whenever Trump tweets something, this is a classic example.
Yeah I am not on board with this method and can see why a lot of Australians I talk to don’t like it either. I live here in Hong Kong where I work with a few Australian nationals who are highly critical of their system, they say it isn’t fair and they always mention to me about how its rigged and corrupt. IMO all current political models in the world are outdated ones and thus we always end up at the status quo. I can’t see how this will ever fly in America either, but if it does I sure do hope I am long gone by then. What I could see happening first in acknowledgement of your avocation for a multiparty system is a third maybe 4th party emerging, but as of right now the country with its competing ideologies is in great peril and may not make it, thus sending it into a major conflict that will eventually weaken it ultimately surrendering it to another foreign invader. As it is going right now, China seems to be doing just that.