DanteEstonia

12 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

If I recall from government my senior year, about 100 years ago, one thing that the EC gives us, is a majority, which is also constitutionally mandated. Clinton won in 92 with like 42%-45% of the popular vote, with Perot siphoning votes away. I believe Reagan barely had a majority with slightly over 50% in 1980, with Anderson in the race. I'm sure there are other instances, but those two were both in my lifetime and I can recall them easily. I have heard on the radio, could be Warren not sure, someone championing the abolition of the EC envision 3, or 5, or 20 parties involved in the process. If we can extrapolate that out, it stands to reason we could have that many people running for president. So this create an unintended consequence? Look at the current D field for president, one can only imagine if we had multiple parties, one can only assume at least a handful of the 437 D running for president might consider another party. Look at quasi legit candidates, Bernie, Biden?, etc., if they took a third, fourth, or 20th party, they would legitimately take enough votes from other candidates to have a winner without a majority in popular vote, which ends up creating more chaos, anyone remember 2000?

Personally I'm down with the EC. I think it's brilliantly designed to keep small geographic areas from dominating the political process. If we abandon the EC, nationally the only states that would matter to anyone are CA, TX, NY, IL, FL, and PA. Everything else will become irrelevant. As I understand it this is one of the reasons CA is considering a split into multiple states. CA being largely red, with the exceptions of most of the coast. Conservatives feel like regardless of how they vote, their voices are not heard, because SF, LA, and SD so dominate everything. 

As with so many things, it seems today people only see today, they don't look at the big picture. There was some chatter about abolishing the EC after 2000, but the Internet wasn't quite the thing it is today. I really believe this movement is a knee jerk reaction to 1-2 events people came out on the wrong side of. And given the current political climate, I'd say amending the constitution has about a snowball's chance in hell of happening. 

You are using the term “majority” wrong.

I remember telling my academic advisor that I wanted to get a teaching license during undergrad, but she didn’t help. This might incentivize colleges to act in their students best interests.

3 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Because the USA it is one of the largest countries in the world by land size, and it needed some way to be subdivided in increments. 

The states system came about due to the fact that the U.S. did not want a strong centralized government. By having a lose confederation to ensure there would be no more tyrants like the King of England controlling them. 

You are putting the cart before the horse. Mr. Beal really did you a disservice as a Social Studies teacher.

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Dangers of Growing Support for Court-Packing: http://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/20/dangers-of-growing-support-for-court-pac

 

It’s not packing the Court if there’s no Constitutionally defined judge limit.

3 hours ago, Muda69 said:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned, this is the sum of good government.” - Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address 

Slave owner, who kept slaves courtesy of government power.

Just now, Muda69 said:

Because you remove a large reason why we have geographical/social entities know as 'States'.    As the opinion piece states:  

 

Why do we have states, Muda?

Where did they get the prices for these degrees?

19 hours ago, Muda69 said:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/theres-a-partisan-fiction-at-the-heart-of-the-case-against-the-electoral-college/

Agreed.  If we get rid of the Electoral College we might as well drop the "United States" from the name United States of America.  

How so?

1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

So you are contending there would be significantly less starving people under socialism?

 

Probably, if done right. For the USA being the land of plenty, we sure have a lot of people in poverty.

20 hours ago, Muda69 said:

So food want, aka starvation,  is better than food waste.  Got it.

 

There are plenty of starving people under capitalism in this country.

3 hours ago, Muda69 said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_waste

I was thinking about this from a purely mathematical standpoint, not a database standpoint.

2 hours ago, Irishman said:

Maybe the college board needs to go; keep in mind the reach of the CB includes AP courses.

Not necessarily disputing the results. I am in favor of competency testing, however, as many professions require competency tests for licensure.

Just now, Irishman said:

Never said we did need to discard the concept; I just mentioned those two exams specifically. They have been compromised.

Fair enough. Maybe use the ASVAB instead?

Just now, Irishman said:

two words...David Coleman

I would add if scores on those tests can be rigged so easily, it invalidates the tests themselves.

I get that you have some animosity against Common Core, but that doesn’t mean we need to discard the concept of the admissions exam.

1 minute ago, Irishman said:

Including the SAT and ACT.

Why?

23 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Time to Put the College Admissions System on a Rocket and Shoot It Into the Sun: http://reason.com/blog/2019/03/13/college-bribery-scandal-defund-loughlin

 

This is the first like I’ve given you in a long time.

2 hours ago, mbennett40 said:

Would assume he needs more because of teams that play out of state teams.

If we focus on just the Summit Conference, where all 10 teams play each other exclusively, does he need less than 5 schedules to deduce the schedules of every other team?

Can John Harrell extrapolate all IHSAA football schedules once he has received half of them? Or, is it possible with less? Or, does he need more?

Oh God.

6 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Ocasio-Cortez Gets Roasted For Promoting False Attacks On CPAC: https://www.dailywire.com/news/44273/ocasio-cortez-gets-grilled-promoting-false-attacks-ryan-saavedra

 

You realize that the Daily Wire is the political equivalent of the Weekly World News?

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

The government asserts a coercive monopoly over many of the services in this country. For instance, the United States Government prohibits any other party from delivering mail. So, if libertarians make use of the U.S. postal service (which is financed by everyone), it isn't dishonest of them, because they have no choice. (E.g., See what happens when libertarians try to opt out and create their own services: American Letter Mail Company. The government shuts them down.)

That said, will the new levels of socialism imposed by the Green New Deal allow me to own my own wind and/or solar farm so I no longer have to use government owned utilities, aka "go off the grid"? How about my own small nuclear reactor?

 

 

Are you nothing more than a talking straw man?

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

The truth about socialism: It doesn't care about the middle class. It's about keeping the ruling class' power: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/the-truth-about-socialism-it-doesnt-care-about-the-middle-class-its-about-keeping-the-ruling-class-power

 

 

Ironic that this country pioneered government owned utilities.

33 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

The Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez backlash begins: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/04/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democratic-party-ideology/index.html

Will this ideological fight within the Democratic party hurt its chances in the 2020 Presidential election?

 

No; she’s not running for President.

7 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

You sure speak up when anything other than a compliment is shared regarding AOC.

Perhaps you simply can't keep from commenting.....but what else is new?  

They voted for her BEFORE she helped push 25,000 jobs out the door.  I'm guessing you've seen the billboard in the city and read various opinions.  Wouldn't you suppose that 100% of her district isn't happy with the Amazon cluster.  

Regarding her Green Deal,  a former Greenpeace leader just called her a "pompous little twit and a garden variety hypocrite".  He further stated her plan would bring mass death.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/4/patrick-moore-greenpeace-co-founder-shreds-ocasio-/

 

Greenpeace has also done loads of stupid stuff in the past, what’s your point?