Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: LuckyPhowUmm... maybe. Maybe not. Can't find my source right now, but I recently saw a demographic analysis that indicated 50 percent of the US population would live in just four states (maybe by 2040? 2050? Cannot recall exactly, but the trend is clear).
I'm going to go with a no chance on this. Top four (California, Texas, New York, Florida) are currently around 30%. Florida is likely going to be hurt by hurricanes and global warming to continue to grow -- the next generation of old people are going to be looking elsewhere. Metro New York is bursting at the seems -- growth of less than half the rest of the country since 2000. They could add millions to upstate NY, but that would indicate an overall shift toward rural areas, which would correlate with increases in places like Kentucky and Kanasas as well. California and Texas do have the strong combination of land area, cities, and climate -- but so do Georgia, Colorado and about 20 others. California has been stagnant at around 12% of US population since I first learned about the Electoral College in 1992 (if not earlier).
In the political landscape, my prediction is that the R will generally hold an advantage in the Electoral College, but it will swing back and fourth. In 2004 Kerry was in a position to lose the popular vote, but win the presidency. Between 2008 and 2012 Obama lost four million votes, but only lost two states. Between 2012 and 2016, the D held their vote totals and lost less than 1% of major party votes (from 52% to 51%), but six states switched sides.
So in the five elections this century, the EC gave an edge to the D twice (2004 and 2012), the R twice (2000 and 2016) (and no real effect in 2008).
There are tapes!!!
FBI siezed tapes Michael Cohen made including conversations with Donald Trump
Quote: darkozBreaking News:
There are tapes!!!
FBI siezed tapes Michael Cohen made including conversations with Donald Trump
wow
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/20/us/politics/michael-cohen-trump-tape.html
Quote: TomG
So in the five elections this century, the EC gave an edge to the D twice (2004 and 2012), the R twice (2000 and 2016) (and no real effect in 2008).
I find your argument as to 2004 and 2012 intriguing, but I strongly disagree with 2012. Obama won the popular vote by nearly 4%, and sure he dropped two states, but how can you say his winning the EC indicates a Democratic advantage? He won the popular vote, convincingly.
Hillary won it by 2.1%, she did her job there, even though that mostly was just running up the score on the coasts.
I’m inclined to partially agree with you for 2004, but even then, not really. I guess I don’t flatly disagree, but I don’t agree, either.
In your favor: Bush won the popular vote by 2.4% (and had a majority), he also won 31 states compared to 19 + DC for Kerry. Yet, had Kerry been able to swing either Florida or Ohio, he, not Bush, would have won the election.
Against: The guy who won the popular vote still won at the end of the day. Kerry lost Ohio to the tune of the exact rate he lost the national popular vote (2.1%) and he lost Florida by significantly more (5.01%).
In other words, for Florida to swing Kerry would essentially necessitate a popular vote that ALSO swings his way nationally, and then the EC result just does what the popular vote does.
In effect, Ohio is the only single state that Kerry could have realistically swung to win the Presidency while still losing the popular vote.
Granted, that could happen and you could have had a reverse 2000 or 2016 situation, because he doesn’t have to swing enough of Ohio to also be indicative of a shift in the popular vote. He could have swung Ohio and lost the popular vote very narrowly.
Although, had he won Ohio it would indicate enough of a shift in the national popular vote to also give him Iowa, so from an EC standpoint, it would look a lot like 2016, except Kerry then wouldn’t have lost the national popular vote by 2.1% like Trymp also did. (Probably 1-1.5%)
In terms of practical effect, though, two of the last three times s Republican has won the Presidency have come by way of winning the EC and losing the popular vote. Can’t change that. But, I also think it’d be garbage had Kerry won the EC while losing the popular vote.
If you go back to 1976, it’s another one. If Ford had been able to flip Ohio and Wisconsin, (what a weird looking map compared to today!) then he could have conceivably won the EC while losing the popular vote. I don’t think any others were close enough to be flipped without the popular vote result changing to Ford, too.
The 1960 election was really fascinating because, while Kennedy dominated in the electoral college, the popular vote was a squeaker that saw him winning by only 0.17%. More than that, I think five states were within 1%. There were also a few unpledged Electors (14?) who voted for some Byrd Democrat who wasn’t actually running. Those votes would have went to Kennedy, otherwise.
So, you have all kinds of crazy scenarios! A few states could have hopped to Nixon. Nixon could have won 1% more in the popular vote and then he would have dominated the EC. The Electors could have screwed Kennedy out of the Presidency outright because, say it with me, the #ConstitutionSucks had Kennedy otherwise carried 283 electoral votes, or fewer, but greater than 268.
Wilson(D) v. Hughes in 1916 was another close one that saw Wilson win by 3.1% in popular vote, but only 23 votes in EC. The map looked MUCH different then, but the difference in California was only 0.38% and could have changed the EC by itself with Wilson nonetheless winning the popular by a comfortable margin.
I think that covers all of them since 1900 that have even been particularly close.
So, I would say you have:
-Two that absolutely benefited Republicans.
-Two that could have definitely changed the result in favor of Republicans.
-One that arguably could have changed the result to favor Republicans...but quite likely would also changed the popular vote.
-One that could have definitely changed the result to Democrats’ favor.
-One that you say could have (2012), but I disagree, because Obama won the popular vote with a lot to spare.
Anyway, the Electoral College sucks regardless of who it benefits, but it exists because the #ConstitutionSucks and we need an Amendment that we’ll never get because Republicans will look at recent history and say, “F-you, no way!”
Quote: Mission146
Anyway, the Electoral College sucks regardless of who it benefits, but it exists because the #ConstitutionSucks and we need an Amendment that we’ll never get because Republicans will look at recent history and say, “F-you, no way!”
It does suck, and Republicans will be frothing at the mouth to get rid of it as soon as they lose a few elections in a row because they won the popular but lost the electoral.
I mean, even Trump himself has already said he wants to go with the popular vote.
Quote: TigerWuIt does suck, and Republicans will be frothing at the mouth to get rid of it as soon as they lose a few elections in a row because they won the popular but lost the electoral.
Yeah, but then the Democrats will want to keep it and it won’t get changed because the #ConstitutionSucks.
See? People don’t like the #ConstitutionSucks, they find it very upsetting, sometimes. Triggering, if you will. But, when we can point out obvious flaws combined with a binary political system, which is in fact a result of the Constitution itself and is also the direct cause of the fact that the Constitution won’t be amended...what other conclusion can be reached?
You agree with me, but let me beat the counterargument makers to the punch: Yes, I know why they came up with the idea of an Electoral College. But, the founding fathers did not have electricity, so could not have seen coming the readily available (and instant) forms of mass communication that we have today. Yet, we continue to defer to something that the reasoning for last made sense probably about 50-60 years ago because, again, the #ConstitutionSucks.
The system put in place by the founders makes a lot of sense--we screwed with it by changing the way Senators are picked (good or bad? I would have to study more), but I don't want California, New York, and Florida (transplants from NE Liberal states are a lot of the population) being the "decider" of not only the House but of the President. Way more power than any state or set of states was supposed to have.
I guess it makes sense in some ways, but I am troubled by the willingness of people from either side to grow the least responsive government--the Federal one--at the expense of the States and local governments.
We may all be troubled from time to time by who is elected...but it will be fine in the end.
He said "President Tootin...Putin..."
Quote: RonCThe Electoral College may not be perfect in every aspect but it is important to keeping the Republic together.
I guess my first question might be, given all of the binary social/economical beliefs, why is keeping the Republic together a worthy goal? But, I don’t think anybody is ready for that, yet.
Anyway, the only aspect I’d get rid of is that it decides the Presidency. I don’t see how that’s necessary if we want the Republic to remain together. There would still be huge advantages inherent to the binary system, or as we see in Britain, temporary coalitions of multiple major parties.
If it’s all popular vote and you can get 50.000000001% of the population to think you’re better than the other candidates, you automatically win, it’s that easy.
Quote:The system put in place by the founders makes a lot of sense--we screwed with it by changing the way Senators are picked (good or bad? I would have to study more), but I don't want California, New York, and Florida (transplants from NE Liberal states are a lot of the population) being the "decider" of not only the House but of the President. Way more power than any state or set of states was supposed to have.
That the people should get to directly vote for more office holders? Unequivocally, undeniably, indubitably, irrevocably good.
I’m fine with proportional population representation as relates the House of Representatives. If nothing else, I’m confused by how a state could have two Senators and only one Representative, the Senate arguably being the more important of the two houses. I’d expand the House to include a minimum of two representatives from every state if it was up to me.
With fair district drawing, I think the races would be localized enough that you wouldn’t see one side of the other absolutely dominate any other than the least populous states.
Quote:I guess it makes sense in some ways, but I am troubled by the willingness of people from either side to grow the least responsive government--the Federal one--at the expense of the States and local governments.
We may all be troubled from time to time by who is elected...but it will be fine in the end.
I wasn’t always a big states rights guy, I think I’ve only warmed up to it in the last five years, or so. That said, the prevailing political philosophies state-to-state are just so wildly different that I really believe you’d have more harmony on the national scene by giving the states a hell of a lot more power. Crime, drugs, guns, abortion (not gay marriage because that impacts Federal-Level freedoms) and a bunch of other stuff.
When we talk about severe gun restrictions, nationally. When you’re talking a Federal minimum wage of $15/hour. When you’re talking a Federal Government that wants to tell individual cities, I repeat, individual cities that they can’t be sanctuary cities if they like...it’s all completely overboard.
I know it’s far left and far right, though I’m not sure quite how far it has to be anymore, but you have people on both sides who want to control everything from a national level...and to me, that’s just nuts.
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
It's time for it to go.
Quote: darkozBreaking News:
There are tapes!!!
FBI siezed tapes Michael Cohen made including conversations with Donald Trump
McDougal's attorney:
"When Donald Trump said we WERE lying, do you think he meant we WEREN'T?"
L.O.L.
Quote: Dalex64If the number of seats in the House were increased, the relative strength of a vote in the presidential election would get closer.
Yeah, but not as close as 1 = 1.
Quote: RonC.... I don't want California, New York, and Florida (transplants from NE Liberal states are a lot of the population) being the "decider" of not only the House but of the President. ....
Why would those states be the "deciders?"
Texas has more people than New York. Are you worried about Texas being a decider?
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (three red states) combined have almost as much as California. Are you worried about those three states being deciders?
With a popular vote, the 77,000,000 people living in New York, California, and Florida have the exact same voting power as 77,000,000 people living in the rural south and midwest.
One popular vote in NYC equals one popular vote in rural Montana, and as of 2015, 181,000,000 people live in "red states" and 140 million people live in "blue states."
Quote: terapinedwow
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/20/us/politics/michael-cohen-trump-tape.html
So what?
He’s a serial philanderer who pays the ladies for silence. He also covets his neighbor’s wife by, “Moving on her like a *****.”
The Bible supports doing both of those things as often as possible, which is clearly why he dominated in the vote amongst White Evangelical Christians and why same demographic continues to be amongst his most ardent supporters.
Haven’t you ever read the Bible? You’re totally supposed to sleep around on your wife.
Quote: Mission146...who want to control everything from a national level...and to me, that’s just nuts.
Mission146 from 2002 just called and threatened to kick my @$$!
Quote: Mission146I don’t think you’re a racist, but I do think a good many people who see that as a problem in and of itself are sometimes racists.
Gee, that’s a relief. The fact you even though of it is a conditioned response.
Anyone who complains about anything democrat, is possibly a racist, homophobe, misogynist. Got it.
Quote: Mission146Besides, maybe you would do well not to assume minorities are automatically going to vote Democrat.
The dem party obviously does.
LBJ wasn't interested in passing a civil rights act, until he saw the potential of the Black vote.
Wikipedia
“I’m going to have to bring up the n...er bill again” - According to his Special Council Harry McPherson
“We’re gonna have to let this n....er bill pass” - LBJ to Senator John Stenis (D-MS)
“I’ll have them n...ers voting democrat for 200 years” - LBJ - Allegedly said to two governors according to air force one steward Robert MacMillan.
It only passed when 80% of the the Republicans voted for it, versus only 60% of the democrats. CNN
Thanks to the media, the dems get all the credit for passing it.
Then, instead of waiting 25 years to allow the Blacks to sow the seeds for their future, they passed the immigration act of 1965. Forcing them to compete with what is now more than one million new arrivals each year.
"You might not be a racist if you are a republican. But if you ARE a racist, you are probably a republican."
Quote: TankoGee, that’s a relief. The fact you even though of it is a conditioned response.
Anyone who complains about anything democrat, is possibly a racist, homophobe, misogynist. Got it.
No:
1. I actually don’t think I consider myself a Democrat anymore. I’m pretty sure Libertarian applies more than anything, though your average Libertarian would find me too far left economically.
2. Everybody is possibly a racist, homophobe, misogynist. I’m possibly a racist, homophobe, misogynist. Why would I not be, because I say I’m not? I seriously doubt if most racists actually consider themselves to be racist. Hell, maybe a lot of them aren’t even racists, maybe they just think the structure of this country is such to FAVOR minorities disproportionately. I don’t know how the hell they might get to that conclusion, but maybe that’s where they are.
3. Please explain what you meant by changing demographics. You’ll notice that my first two paragraphs didn’t address racism at all, and as such, were my primary response. I’d respectfully request that you respond to those, as those were actually my main position.
4. I meant it when I said I don’t think you’re a racist. That wasn’t a passive-aggressive hint at anything. Most racists wouldn’t be on a gambling forum, because the Bible generally tends against gambling (though never directly) and most racists are Southern/Midwestern White Evangelical Christians.
Quote:The dem party obviously does.
LBJ wasn't interested in passing a civil rights act, until he saw the potential of the Black vote.
Wikipedia
“I’m going to have to bring up the n...er bill again” - According to his Special Council Harry McPherson
“We’re gonna have to let this n....er bill pass” - LBJ to Senator John Stenis (D-MS)
“I’ll have them n...ers voting democrat for 200 years” - LBJ - Allegedly said to two governors according to air force one steward Robert MacMillan.
It only passed when 80% of the the Republicans voted for it, versus only 60% of the democrats. CNN
Thanks to the media, the dems get all the credit for passing it.
Then, instead of waiting 25 years to allow the Blacks to sow the seeds for their future, they passed the immigration act of 1965. Forcing them to compete with what is now more than one million new arrivals each year.
Okay, so assuming I don’t deny the truth of any of your quotes, the hell does any of that have to do with today?
I mean, I get that minorities as a whole tend Democratic, but what does that have to do with convincing one individual person of something?
Quote: SteverinosWhich is why this quote holds true today:
"You might not be a racist if you are a republican. But if you ARE a racist, you are probably a republican."
More conditioning.
Keep thinking that way. Enjoy life on the plantation, where you and yours, only get the scraps the dems give you, and everyone dies broke.
Quote: Tankonjoy life on the plantation, where you and yours, only get the scraps the dems give you
Don't rely on anybody to give me anything. Maybe you are the one with conditioned thinking.
Quote: TankoMore conditioning.
Keep thinking that way. Enjoy life on the plantation, where you and yours, only get the scraps the dems give you, and everyone dies broke.
You aren’t the first person to predict the end of the world and you won’t be the last, but you’ll be just as wrong as any of them before or after. You’ll be just as wrong as the ones who called Obama the beginning of the end and just as wrong as those who said the same about Trump winning.
Quote: Mission146You aren’t the first person to predict the end of the world and you won’t be the last, but you’ll be just as wrong as any of them before or after. You’ll be just as wrong as the ones who called Obama the beginning of the end and just as wrong as those who said the same about Trump winning.
Trump is not the end of the world
Just the end of the world as we know it
Quote: darkozTrump is not the end of the world
Just the end of the world as we know it
I would like to say Obama was also the end of the world as we know it (a BLACK U.S. president)
But all the racism exploded in 2016 so actually Obama resulted in simply the world AS WE KNEW IT
EDIT: Cant help thinking of that campaign slogan
What was it?
Oh yea Make America Great Again
Quote: Mission146You’ll be just as wrong as the ones who called Obama the beginning of the end and just as wrong as those who said the same about Trump winning.
I always wondered what it was like to live in this alternate reality that some conservatives seemed to have lived in between 2008-2016 where unemployment skyrocketed, the stock market tanked, everyone had their guns taken away, people were forced to hate each other and be divisive, and we came this close to living under Socialist Sharia law.
I'm glad I lived in the real world, because that sounds like a terrible place.
Sorry, it was too easy of a shot.
Quote: mcallister3200Don’t you live in Oklahoma....
Sorry, it was too easy of a shot.
Haha... I guess I set myself up for that one.
I do live in Oklahoma, and much of it sucks, but the highly urban areas are starting to come around. Within the last two years we've also expanded our liquor and gaming laws, legalized medical marijuana, and recreational marijuana might be on the ballot later this year. Cheap as hell to live here, too.
Not sure what that means, Sesame Street - "Today's letter is P"
Don't eat the yellow snow. Frank Zappa
Quote: rxwineMueller's team is reported to have contacted someone called, "The Manhattan Madam" in relation to their investigation.
I thought it would have taken longer to get Melania to sit down for an interview than that!
In light of this news, I think we can expect Donald’s approval rating with evangelicals to tick up a couple more points.
I wish I were joking.
Quote: ams288
In light of this news, I think we can expect Donald’s approval rating with evangelicals to tick up a couple more points.
"Pff.... I don't care because:
a) at least Hillary isn't president!"
b) I don't care what a politician does in their private life unless they're a Democrat."
c) librul tears!"
d) Седина́ в бо́роду, бес в ребро́.
Correct on both counts about yet another ineffective federal government program. An advisory source that Mission uses in this thread makes it really clear just what a total farce the Social Security “controls” are:Quote: Mission146they wouldn't be working here illegally under the initial condition that you describe. It would only be after the work VISA expires that what you are describing would apply.
However, as you will see in my post immediately prior to this one, there are ways for people who absolutely are here illegally (and never were here legally to begin with) to pay into the tax system.
“How do Undocumented Workers File Tax Returns Without a Valid Social Security Number?
Though certain non-citizens are eligible for to receive Social Security numbers to pay taxes, unauthorized immigrants are ineligible to receive one. However, it is still law that individuals who reside in the United States, whether legally or not, and earn income here must pay taxes on that income, and file a tax return, regardless of whether the income was earned as an undocumented worker—a complicated legal conundrum.
Further, the IRS will not allow a tax return to be filed with a fake or stolen Social Security number. Therefore, unauthorized workers who wish to file their taxes–and potentially get future credit for it— must find another way. Thus, many use the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or ITIN, which allows immigrants without Social Security numbers to legally file tax returns and claim the income reported on their W-2’s to the IRS.” – bipartisan policy
In case of any doubts, Scotus seems to have proclaimed stupidity as a valid defense, in the Flores-Figueroa case::
“That follows a ruling last year by the U.S. Supreme Court that a Mexican man who gave a false SSN to get a job at an Illinois steel plant could not be convicted under federal identity theft laws because he did not knowingly use another person's identifying number. The ruling overturned an opinion by a federal appeals court in St. Louis -- and contradicted earlier findings by circuit courts in the Southeast, upper Midwest and the Gulf states.” NBC News
Quote: SanchoPanza
In case of any doubts, Scotus seems to have proclaimed stupidity as a valid defense, in the Flores-Figueroa case::
“That follows a ruling last year by the U.S. Supreme Court that a Mexican man who gave a false SSN to get a job at an Illinois steel plant could not be convicted under federal identity theft laws because he did not knowingly use another person's identifying number. The ruling overturned an opinion by a federal appeals court in St. Louis -- and contradicted earlier findings by circuit courts in the Southeast, upper Midwest and the Gulf states.” NBC News
Yeah, because they were trying to charge him with identity theft. He was using a SSN, that he didn’t know belonged to anyone (nine digit number, essentially) in order to pay his fair share of taxes.
He wasn’t trying to get a car loan, open a credit card, get credit at a furniture store....no, he was trying to pay taxes.
Do you want them to pay taxes or don’t you? Do you want them to come, work under the table for less than minimum wage...as you so often claim...or do you want them to pay their fair share of taxes?
Again:
PICK. ONE.
Read it:
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/individual-taxpayer-identification-number
Quote:An ITIN does not:
Authorize work in the U.S.
Provide eligibility for Social Security benefits
Qualify a dependent for Earned Income Tax Credit Purposes
Read the history of Government agencies.
You know what the IRS cares about? That they get their money. Legals, Aliens, Legally Earned, Illegally Earned, doesn’t matter. TheIr job is to collect taxes, and as long as they feel like they’re doing that, it’s all good.
I'm Canadian and I have an SSN and had paid into your social security system. Canada has an agreement that allows for those credits to be used in the Canadian pension plan benefit calculation. For me I have each total of about 15 quarters. I have no plans to get to 40 though one never knows.
US law requires that you report all income, including income obtained through illegal means, and pay tax on that income, which is what ITIN is for. Social Security I believe is only paid into via employment. But to be employed in the US legally one must have an SSN and employers must validate the SSN with the feds.
Quote: TigerWuWhy would those states be the "deciders?"
Texas has more people than New York. Are you worried about Texas being a decider?
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (three red states) combined have almost as much as California. Are you worried about those three states being deciders?
With a popular vote, the 77,000,000 people living in New York, California, and Florida have the exact same voting power as 77,000,000 people living in the rural south and midwest.
One popular vote in NYC equals one popular vote in rural Montana, and as of 2015, 181,000,000 people live in "red states" and 140 million people live in "blue states."
I live in Texas. I would not want Texas to overly influence the election, either.
The way I see it, the EC and two Senators per state help protect individual states from the tyranny of other states. If "everything" were to become allotted simply by population, the larger states, now with more power, could use their expanded power to exert more control over the individual smaller states. Taking power away from the states with a huge federal government is a problem, and giving more power to bigger states could make it worse.
I don't want to live in a country unduly influenced by California and many liberals probably don't want to live in one unduly influenced by Texas.
As an Obama supporter, I would have been so effing embarrassed if Obama ever said that about himself.
So flippantly I might agree, my favorite president did nothing wrong. My favorite president is not Trump.
Reallisticlly, I would have to say it isn't true, because I don't think any president has done nothing wrong.
Quote: RonCI live in Texas. I would not want Texas to overly influence the election, either.
Well, regardless of a popular vote discussion, the EC is broken. Otherwise there would be no such thing as "swing states," as every single state would be equally as important, and no single state would have more "voting power" than any other. They would all be equal, which is certainly not the case now.
So, something needs to change. The EC needs to be fixed, or we need a new voting structure.
Quote: RonCI live in Texas. I would not want Texas to overly influence the election, either.
The way I see it, the EC and two Senators per state help protect individual states from the tyranny of other states. If "everything" were to become allotted simply by population, the larger states, now with more power, could use their expanded power to exert more control over the individual smaller states. Taking power away from the states with a huge federal government is a problem, and giving more power to bigger states could make it worse.
I don't want to live in a country unduly influenced by California and many liberals probably don't want to live in one unduly influenced by Texas.
I absolutely grant and agree 100% with your point about two Senators per state. 100%. No dispute whatsoever.
I disagree with respect to the Electoral College. Aside from Executive Orders, (which can be overruled with actual Congressional acts) the Executive Branch has no capacity whatsoever to make the law. It is the job of the Executive Branch to enforce the laws that are passed by Congress. Granted, the President does have veto power, so that can swing things a bit, but there's a pretty big difference between being able to veto would-be laws and actually being able to create, abolish or change existing laws...which the President absolutely cannot do.
Given these concerns about President having too much power combined with the absence of an Electoral College, then you can always make it such that no bill passes (Constitutional Amendment, which would also be needed to get rid of the EC anyway) without approval of 60% of the Senate. That basically forces the Republicans and the Democrats (or whoever else may be in there, whether Liberal, Moderate or Conservative) to work across the aisle to get anything passed. If you require that sort of percentage for the passage of any bill whatsoever, then it's very difficult to imagine one side or the other coming to absolute power and being able to do whatever the hell they want.
That's kind of the other problem with this binary political structure, we saw it when the ACA got passed. I'm not saying the ACA was a bad thing, but it did, in fact, have more than half of the citizens of the country against it at the time of passage.
However it ultimately turns out and is looked upon historically, measures that over half of the entire population is against should not get passed. You saw what happened, Democrats got DESTROYED in the 2010 House of Representatives Elections. Good. They deserved it.
Maybe 60% of both bodies of Congress. I think it's too easy and too feasible for one side to come into absolute power and do whatever the hell they want now.
However, I would absolutely want to get rid of the Electoral College. Getting rid of the Electoral College is going to have the result of candidates from both sides being more moderate. Why? Because your target audience is everybody. I would think, in the course of the campaign process, most candidates would do at least one stop in every state because they would all matter. Every vote would matter if it were based on popular vote.
Quote: boymimbo
US law requires that you report all income, including income obtained through illegal means, and pay tax on that income, which is what ITIN is for. Social Security I believe is only paid into via employment. But to be employed in the US legally one must have an SSN and employers must validate the SSN with the feds.
That may be, but even then, that would just be illegals simply not paying into a system that they cannot possibly reap the benefits of. I'm not sure I see anything wrong with that. Besides, my understanding would be the employer would still be paying into that if he/she/they are reporting correctly on their end.
And, actually, the employers I've had subtract your SS contribution from your check, anyway. I don't know that you would need an SSN for that to happen. On direct, any employer I've ever had pays it all for both sides.
That being said, the Democratic Socialist movement seems to be gaining a little traction. They are using a candidate--Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez--who studied international affairs but has a hard time with questions about that area. She is very photogenic and can spout the Occupy/Socialist agenda very well. Free everything for everyone!! Do you think, as James Comey does, that Democrats need to be wary of moving too far this way?
The other thing that is interesting is the positioning of the Democrats--like Hilllary Clinton--on immigration. President Trump's policies, along with the complete failure of the Congress (both when led by Democrats and Republicans) to put together any meaningful immigration reform over the past few years, seem to have turned them into different people on the immigration issue. Now Hillary wants to bus people in to reunite families, which sounds very nice, but would sadly only encourage more attempts at illegal entry. She has been against illegal entry in the past...even in favor of a 700 mile fence.
I think that the Democrats are going too far left and it may not help them in the coming election. Americans want sane immigration policy even if they don't want families broken up. Americans who work may like the idea of free college for everyone, but they also know that we can't balance the budget now...and wonder how much it will cost them in extra taxes--which is also an age issue...if your kids are out of college, are you going to be in favor of paying more taxes for others to go for free?
Could it be that President Trump is not helping the Republicans in the 2018 elections with his errors and missteps but that Democrats may help them more than he hurts them with their swing to the left?
Quote: RonCIt is an interesting world out there...I know President Trump will always be the target of many media stories, both because he is bombastic and because he does and says things that upset people...some of which I strongly disagree with...for example, I wish he had an attache or something to filter his tweets a bit before going out...
That being said, the Democratic Socialist movement seems to be gaining a little traction. They are using a candidate--Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez--who studied international affairs but has a hard time with questions about that area. She is very photogenic and can spout the Occupy/Socialist agenda very well. Free everything for everyone!! Do you think, as James Comey does, that Democrats need to be wary of moving too far this way?
The other thing that is interesting is the positioning of the Democrats--like Hilllary Clinton--on immigration. President Trump's policies, along with the complete failure of the Congress (both when led by Democrats and Republicans) to put together any meaningful immigration reform over the past few years, seem to have turned them into different people on the immigration issue. Now Hillary wants to bus people in to reunite families, which sounds very nice, but would sadly only encourage more attempts at illegal entry. She has been against illegal entry in the past...even in favor of a 700 mile fence.
I think that the Democrats are going too far left and it may not help them in the coming election. Americans want sane immigration policy even if they don't want families broken up. Americans who work may like the idea of free college for everyone, but they also know that we can't balance the budget now...and wonder how much it will cost them in extra taxes--which is also an age issue...if your kids are out of college, are you going to be in favor of paying more taxes for others to go for free?
Could it be that President Trump is not helping the Republicans in the 2018 elections with his errors and missteps but that Democrats may help them more than he hurts them with their swing to the left?
I'm sure that's true. They see the revulsion of the middle and "true" conservatives to Trump methods, policies, and personal failings, and seem to have deluded themselves into thinking a far-left agenda will take advantage of that. They're leaving a hole big as a beer truck for moderate or even status-quo candidates to catch hold.
I don't know who that is. It's possible that Mitt Romney and John Kasich, or someone from that side, could team up in either order, or even bring on a popular but moderate Democrat with one of them, and run a successful mixed ticket for 2020.
I don't see Bernie/Warren/Harris/far left able to win unless Trump finally finds that shockingly elusive thing that shakes his cult of personality enough that his bloc dissolves. I think it takes an effective Republican in the race, because I think his hard-core base is only about 30% of those who claim to support him right now, and the rest would move to a better candidate if they were Republican. They, along with moderates and Democrats turned off by the far-left pipe dreams, would constitute a voting majority.
Quote: RonCIt is an interesting world out there...I know President Trump will always be the target of many media stories, both because he is bombastic and because he does and says things that upset people...some of which I strongly disagree with...for example, I wish he had an attache or something to filter his tweets a bit before going out...
I honestly don't care what he Tweets. The way I see it, his overall tendency to Tweet is more likely to result in him being voted out of office than it is to keep him in office, so I consider that a desirable consequence. Although, that doesn't automatically mean I'll vote for his Democrat opponent. Don't get me wrong, I preferred Clinton to Trump, they would have been probably eighth and ninth, respectively, in the order of people who were actually running that I'd vote for.
Quote:That being said, the Democratic Socialist movement seems to be gaining a little traction. They are using a candidate--Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez--who studied international affairs but has a hard time with questions about that area. She is very photogenic and can spout the Occupy/Socialist agenda very well. Free everything for everyone!! Do you think, as James Comey does, that Democrats need to be wary of moving too far this way?
I don't know much about her, but yes, I do think they need to be wary of it.
The far left is voting for the candidate with a (D) beside his/her name and the far right the candidate with an (R). It almost doesnt matter who it is.
Any reasonably closely contested election is going to come down to Independents and people who are Moderately on one side or the other. I would say I am Moderately Liberal, I used to be considered Extremely Liberal, I've changed...but I think the definition of, "Liberal," has changed in my life even more than I have.
Anyway, if it is one extremist v. another extremist, or candidates painting a picture that they're extreme, then an Independent is probably going to just default to whichever candidate he/she believes is most sane.
I think this election was a little different in that Trump seems more off the rails than Clinton, in my opinion, but that could be my slight Liberal bias talking. The big variable in this one was that Trump appealed to the right people specifically in the Rust Belt and Clinton didn't do enough to accomplish that. I don't think the Democrats will make that mistake again, so Trump got a freebie in terms of a subset of voters who should have been better contested and weren't.
Quote:The other thing that is interesting is the positioning of the Democrats--like Hilllary Clinton--on immigration. President Trump's policies, along with the complete failure of the Congress (both when led by Democrats and Republicans) to put together any meaningful immigration reform over the past few years, seem to have turned them into different people on the immigration issue. Now Hillary wants to bus people in to reunite families, which sounds very nice, but would sadly only encourage more attempts at illegal entry. She has been against illegal entry in the past...even in favor of a 700 mile fence.
You want to lock up as much of the minority vote as possible, so it makes sense to move left on this issue. Actually, the Libertarians are possibly even more Left-of-Center than the Democrats on this one, despite generally being viewed as more closely associated to Republicans. Our general perspective is any border infrastructure is wasteful Government spending and any attempts to remove people who are already here could not only throw certain Micro-Economies into short-term turmoil, but also that such is a HUGE waste of taxpayer money. Beyond that, we welcome pretty much any non-criminal into the country provided they continue to not be a criminal.
https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/
Anyway, I think it makes sense for the Democrats. Can't hurt you in shoring up the minority vote, you're the sympathetic party...and I also happen to agree with the position.
Quote:I think that the Democrats are going too far left and it may not help them in the coming election. Americans want sane immigration policy even if they don't want families broken up. Americans who work may like the idea of free college for everyone, but they also know that we can't balance the budget now...and wonder how much it will cost them in extra taxes--which is also an age issue...if your kids are out of college, are you going to be in favor of paying more taxes for others to go for free?
Could it be that President Trump is not helping the Republicans in the 2018 elections with his errors and missteps but that Democrats may help them more than he hurts them with their swing to the left?
I agree with that in general terms. The PC crap and big push for $15/hour minimum wage are huge flaws, in my opinion.
Libertarians aren't in favor of free college, I'm in favor of guaranteed free state-run college for those who meet certain academic criteria coming out of high school. Where you find the budget room for that, in my opinion, is you cut the hell out of military spending, which Libertarians want to do on principle alone, anyway.
I think that Trump is the bigger liability in the sense that some Republicans might not even want to vote for him anymore by the time we get there. That's really what you're looking at. I think both sides do an equally good job on turning off moderates and Independents, but when you start risking losing members of your own party...you could be in trouble.
Or, maybe the next few years go really well and some 98% of registered Republicans are a lock for Trump, who knows?
ADDED: Then again, that could be wrong. I'd say Jeb Bush was the most moderate candidate in the whole thing on both major parties last time, and he didn't do so well. Of course, you generally want to be _____ of center for primaries and then move back to center for the General Election. Plus, Trump having the White Supremacist vote in the bag didn't help Bush at all. He's married to a Mexican, after all.
Quote: beachbumbabs
I don't know who that is. It's possible that Mitt Romney and John Kasich, or someone from that side, could team up in either order, or even bring on a popular but moderate Democrat with one of them, and run a successful mixed ticket for 2020.
47% ended Romney forever, in terms of Presidential bids, in my opinion. Trump never dismissed the poor; (as long as they're white) he said they'll rein in the EPA and are going to create a crap ton of infrastructure jobs, HUGE difference. Romney basically said, "F those people," couldn't have been more direct.
Quote:I don't see Bernie/Warren/Harris/far left able to win unless Trump finally finds that shockingly elusive thing that shakes his cult of personality enough that his bloc dissolves. I think it takes an effective Republican in the race, because I think his hard-core base is only about 30% of those who claim to support him right now, and the rest would move to a better candidate if they were Republican. They, along with moderates and Democrats turned off by the far-left pipe dreams, would constitute a voting majority.
I think his, "Hardcore base," is more like 25% of the entire country, so we disagree on that one. I just look at the poll numbers for separating families at the border, 25% average, there you go: Trump's base.
In other words, a Republican primary challenger in 2020 has a serious uphill battle. So uphill, in fact, that I don't think it's happening. Unless you meant someone like a Kasich to run as an Independent perhaps with a popular moderate Democrat VP candidate. I don't know who would fill that role.
Quote: Mission146Then again, that could be wrong. I'd say Jeb Bush was the most moderate candidate in the whole thing on both major parties last time, and he didn't do so well. Of course, you generally want to be _____ of center for primaries and then move back to center for the General Election. Plus, Trump having the White Supremacist vote in the bag didn't help Bush at all. He's married to a Mexican, after all.
Jeb Bush had a lot going against him--he was looked upon as a "dynasty" candidate (Bush/Clinton were in office from 1989-2009), he was more moderate tan "the base" usually likes in the primaries, and he just plain was not an effective candidate. His Mexican wife was not an issue--the guy dropped out after just three events. He had tons of money but no charisma. He just didn't seem like he wanted to be there. While Trump targeted him early, he made himself an easy target.
Quote: RonCHe had tons of money but no charisma. He just didn't seem like he wanted to be there. While Trump targeted him early, he made himself an easy target.
My favorite Jeb Bush moment is when he asked his audience to clap
https://youtu.be/DdCYMvaUcrA
Poor Jeb.
Quote: RonCThat being said, the Democratic Socialist movement seems to be gaining a little traction. They are using a candidate--Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez--who studied international affairs but has a hard time with questions about that area. She is very photogenic and can spout the Occupy/Socialist agenda very well. Free everything for everyone!!
I have a question. Not for RonC specifically, but righties in general.
Is right-wing media obsessed with this woman or something?
Righties constantly bring her up. Her primary upset was a big story for like a day or two in the MSM, and then they moved on. Yet righties keep constantly bringing her up every chance they get. I’m curious if the right wing media is trying to make her the next big boogeyman or something since Hillary isn’t running again? Otherwise I can’t understand why y’all are so obsessed with her...
Quote: RonCJeb Bush had a lot going against him--he was looked upon as a "dynasty" candidate (Bush/Clinton were in office from 1989-2009), he was more moderate tan "the base" usually likes in the primaries, and he just plain was not an effective candidate. His Mexican wife was not an issue--the guy dropped out after just three events. He had tons of money but no charisma. He just didn't seem like he wanted to be there. While Trump targeted him early, he made himself an easy target.
Quote:"If my wife were from Mexico, I think I would have a soft spot for people from Mexico," Trump told CNN in July.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/253969-trump-wont-apologize-to-columba-bush
I do agree that Bush had a ton going against him, but the fact is that Trump brought his wife being from Mexico up. The other thing is that it was always a part of Trump's primary plan to get the racists of the party on board. Why not do more to disavow himself from them more outwardly?
Even if Bush had made it a little further, I'm almost positive it would have come up again.
Quote: ams288I’m curious if the right wing media is trying to make her the next big boogeyman or something since Hillary isn’t running again?
Right-wingers NEED a boogeyman. It's was Hillary and Obama for years, and they've been clinging to Hillary since Nov. 2016 even though that's when her political career effectively ended. They're scrambling to find someone new, and they might have her in this new lady.
Left-wingers obsess over ideas (gun control, racism, etc.) but right-wingers obsess over actual people. At least, that's how it seems to be in my opinion.
Quote: TigerWu
Left-wingers obsess over ideas (gun control, racism, etc.) but right-wingers obsess over actual people. At least, that's how it seems to be in my opinion.
In fairness, the left-wingers seem pretty well obsessed with Trump. I don't think it's JUST because of contrary ideas.
