[Pops]

Pops,
I have concentrated my attention on emerging problem (cultural collapse), not on solutions offered by different sources.
Problem is obviously there and solutions... these are only domain of talk and no action.
Acid tests for possible solutions may come after first plague outbreak in SF or LA.

My point was simply that not all "facts" are created equal, one person's' Welfare Queen reaping the rewards of her poor choices is another's struggling mom needing support.

I always go back to the Jetson's. In the 60-70s Americans enjoyed an historic measure of shared prosperity, the benefits of increasing productivity and technology were widespread and the outlook was that the future would be a time of increasing leisure and creative pursuits. and then...



What happened in the 80's you ask? Ronald Reagan and Trickle down economics. The story was that by taxing the already wealthy less, the working classes would get richer. Obviously that didn't work— or rather it worked all too well, just not as advertised.

Notice that this year, finally, the Democrats have realized that while Obama is still liked personally, his extension of the clinton "Third Way" policies that support that upward flow of cash and bail out of the banks lost them an election. In another example of his effort to reach the compromise newfie so craves, obama proposed the Heritage foundation health care plan rather than some type of universal care and not only failed to get one R vote, saw 10 years of attempts to throw people off insurance

It is simple, we are a rich country but we are an even greedier one.

[Pops]

Since you don’t address my points I take it your line of defense is to simply run away.

Which point is that, that I'm what's wrong with America?

[Newfie]

Pops,

Well, to some extent, yes. The MSM would see the USA slide into a deep and bitter partisan divide, just so that they could keep up ratings. There is a constant clamor which serves to raise our tensions, to polarize us, to make us hate and distrust one another. It is not a R or D thing so much as it is a entertainment ratings thing.

By picking sides, and you clearly are a Trump and Republican hater, you reinforce the rhetoric of hate that you otherwise decry. You have become that which you hate.

The question here is just how much do Americans truly buy into this partisan BS. That I don’t know because all the news sources are polluted with their own venom. I’m hoping the average American has more sense than to be swayed so.

We shall see. All the pollsters had Hillary winning, they were very wrong.

But then the political parties both need to put forward reasonable candidates for the office. I’m not seeing much hope in that direction.

[Pops]

Your historical ramblings about the Electorial College are interesting but, as the system is different today, then we should discuss it as it applies today when we have universal sufferage. Elsewise you are just engaging in more white guilt.

Actually you brought up the great compromise and the false notion it brought about majority rule.

So TODAY the EC provides for Electorial votes proportionate to the representation in the senate and the house. This is to allow for the more populace states to have a greater voice while also allowing the smaller states to not be totally overshadowed. To revert to simply popular vote would be to undermine the Great Compromise which without which the constitution would not be. To repeal the EC would be a tremendous undermining of states rights. You may not care but others do.

The electoral college TODAY absolutely does NOT delegate electors the same as the congress. The number of electors per state does equal the number of representatives and senators, but as I mentioned earlier all but a few states mandate their electors cast all ballots for the statewide winner.
The outcome is some votes are worth more that others.

You may like the idea that some votes count more than others as things stand because it favors the Rs but fundamentally it goes against the spirit of one person one vote, which has been upheld by the SCOTUS over and over.

But I just wrote all that earlier and even cited the cases and it didn't seem to change your opinion.

Setting that aside, I believe there is an even greater reason to retain the EC. By having the EC as it stands it limits the number of jurisdictions that can be called into question during any election.

First, if not for the electoral college there would not have been a florida crisis.

Second, if not for the winner take all allotment of electors there would not have been a florida.
In the popular vote Gore won by half a millions, In FL by 547.
But the failure is that Bush won the presidency by 1 vote — in the SCOTUS
The party line SCOTUS vote took down the faith in our last remaining non-partisan branch a big notch.



Third, I'm pretty sure that most jurisdictions already mandate recounts when results are within a few tenths

finally, I'm pretty sure that candidates have the right to challenge counts anywhere they want. But I also think that if they aren't within the margin mentioned above they have to pay the cost of the recount. I could be wrong.

---
States rights are protected by the 10th amendment and representation in the senate.

--
As mentioned before one person, one vote is a fundamental right upheld by the court over and over, and recently. The "great compromise" was compromising that right. And that final vestigial artifact of slavery still hampers that right today.

The POTUS is the one national office and shouldn't be subject to a tyranny of the minority as has happened 2 of the last 5 elections.

---
Last point

The biggest downside of the electoral college and the greatest benefit of direct election (or even the plan mentioned before to require state electors to vote the national result) is that candidates would be required of necessity to campaign everywhere to everyone.

Today, candidates make a cursory swing through the biggest partisan states CA, TX, ignore the smallest partisan states entirely, then concentrate all their effort on a few swing states.

It is the exact effect that gerrymandering has on the house. It promotes partisanship.

The EC by it's vestigial math violates the basic one person one vote premise. But then it effectively robs some voters entirely because the D candidate for example writes off all the Ds—and Rs— in TX or OK for example to campaign in the swing states, while at the same time ignoring the blue states!
A direct election in any shape would force the candidate to appeal to the entire country.

Add in a fed statute prohibiting legislative gerrymandering and you strike two big blows to partisanship.

It would disadvantage the Rs though so I'm not holding my breath.

[Cog]

I repeat my challenge. What policies or laws has Trump enacted or signed into law which are racist in nature?

I see Pops posted above while I was typing. The Founders specifically wanted to avoid a pure democracy which is why the designed a republic. A pure democracy is mob rule which is why Dems love the idea. Vote my rights away by majority vote? No American should want such a thing.

The House gives the majority a say in matters. The Senate respects state rights by giving each state two regardless of population. The EC gives respect to both the majority and to state rights. The EC is a recognition of both the majority of voters and also that each state should have a voice in picking the president.

[Pops]

Pops,

Well, to some extent, yes.

You don't get to tell me that my opinion doesn't count or I'm the problem just because I don't fall in line with your politics, not yet. I have just as much right to my opinion as you. That I don't cop some bs "above the fray" attitude then complain about the useless eaters doesn't make me the bad guy. Own up to your opinion and back it up with reason or stay off my back.

The MSM would see the USA slide into a deep and bitter partisan divide, just so that they could keep up ratings.

You're wrong. "Mainstream Media" is just more code, it means news that doesn't jibe with your opinion. Exactly as above, you label what doesn't fit your opinion as divisive. Most mainstream journalists are trying to report the cards as they lay.

There is a rapidly increasing world of profit (and other) motivated opinion media and fake news not to mention anonymous posters out there, no doubt, but it is up to the reader for due diligence. Or they can just turn of the news and spout whatever they feel, and label everything else as partisan.

By picking sides, and you clearly are a Trump and Republican hater, you reinforce the rhetoric of hate that you otherwise decry. You have become that which you hate.

By pretending you don't have a side, though you obviously do, you only fool yourself into feeling high brow and evenhanded, no one else. Your attempt to place yourself above me, or any who disagree, is not only a kind of fallacious argument and pretty weak sauce, it's also irritating.

The question here is just how much do Americans truly buy into this partisan BS.

No the question here is why is the US allows favelas next to skyscrapers and bankruptcies from a visit to the emergency room. I believe you mentioned:

Cultural decay? Nope, the USA is broke out with culture, 50 different shades of culture, all whining “I’m disadvantaged, feed me.

Lots of love, bipartisanship and kumbaya there, brother
.

[Cog]

Most normal people would just admit they lost an election and get over it. But I see that sentiment is not shared by Pops.

[EnergyUnlimited]

I only wonder when voices calling to split US into few smaller entities are loud enough to take into consideration.
Discussion above regarding virtues (or lack of virtues) of Electoral College is a good example of that.
So for example Pops will call EC a tyrany of minority but those living in not so populated states, usually in central US, will consider abandonment of EC as a hostile takeover of their land by urban mobs of degenerados living thousands of miles away.
So maybe an *united american nation* is only a sort of myth, an artificial formation, which in absence of EC can only be held together by imperial force and not by common values and merging interests of citizenery with different backgrounds?
If so, then there might be tectonic changes looming on horizon...

[onlooker]

that Bush won the presidency by 1 vote — in the SCOTUS
The party line SCOTUS vote took down the faith in our last remaining non-partisan branch a big notch.

We would hope this would, as we would hope innumerable continuous instances of our Govt favoring the Corporate interest and big money over the interests of the masses would as well. But ignorance and partisanship runs deep in this country.

[Ibon]

What happened in the 80's you ask? Ronald Reagan and Trickle down economics. The story was that by taxing the already wealthy less, the working classes would get richer. Obviously that didn't work— or rather it worked all too well, just not as advertised.

Notice that this year, finally, the Democrats have realized that while Obama is still liked personally, his extension of the clinton "Third Way" policies that support that upward flow of cash and bail out of the banks lost them an election. In another example of his effort to reach the compromise newfie so craves, obama proposed the Heritage foundation health care plan rather than some type of universal care and not only failed to get one R vote, saw 10 years of attempts to throw people off insurance

It is simple, we are a rich country but we are an even greedier one.

It is challenging me to understand how anyone can read this and believe that this is partisan.

[Newfie]

Ibon,

Presuming you are pointing to me I do not find that a partisan statement. The only part I disagree with is this:

.
In another example of his effort to reach the compromise newfie so craves

Im not seeking compromises. I am trying to encourage common sense talk amongst common people. You can’t have that while going around calling one another Libitards and Repugs. While you may disagree with folks on this issue or that you generally need to extend to them some level of respect.

[Newfie]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... al_College

The United States Electoral College is a body of electors established by the United States Constitution, constituted every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president of the United States. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, and an absolute majority of 270 electoral votes is required to win an election. Pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, the legislature of each state determines the manner by which its electors are chosen. Each state's number of electors is equal to the combined total of the state's membership in the Senate and House of Representatives; currently there are 100 senators and 435 representatives.[1][2][3] Additionally, the Twenty-third Amendment provides that the District of Columbia (D.C.) is entitled to a number of electors no greater than that of the least populous state (i.e. 3).[4]

[onlooker]

You're wrong. "Mainstream Media" is just more code, it means news that doesn't jibe with your opinion. Exactly as above, you label what doesn't fit your opinion as divisive. Most mainstream journalists are trying to report the cards as they lay

This is not what I have seen upon watching the MSM. I see the cult of group identity and intolerance as guest pundits and party hacks/minions oft hurl accusations and insults at one another and "others". If the MSM wanted to , they could prohibit this incendiary talk but on the contrary, its pervasiveness shows its appeal to listeners and in turn gives stations what they want being high ratings.

[Newfie]

You don't get to tell me that my opinion doesn't count or I'm the problem just because I don't fall in line with your politics, not yet.

Sorry Pops, I was just pointing out that by your own criteria, and as you self reported your behavior, and by being so partisan, you are part of the problem.

I never said you opinion doesn’t count. But when you engage is such stringent partisan dialog then you dilute the power of your opinion. It’s just another Fox News soundbite.

I would be interested in your view of my politics.

[evilgenius]

I've said this before, but I think the best way forward would be to amend the Constitution and increase the number of members of the House of Representatives. When America was smaller having 435 members of the House was a reasonable number. When the population was smaller, it was possible to express your opinion before your representative. Today, however, individual influence is nearly impossible without money making up the difference between one person and another. As an individual it's very hard to nag your representative. It's even hard for groups. It's not hard for money. Money doesn't have to find a consensus to operate. It's inherent to the argument that money has a purpose before it comes and doesn't have to either find its voice or go back and meet with itself if it is challenged.

I'd like to see a House with something like 2,000 members. Something large enough that special interests would be required to divide their money up too thinly to obtain influence above that of the people. They'd have to concentrate their spending on the states where the leadership was from, as they do now, but it would have less effect. Leadership might even be weaker, and there might be room for third parties. Because we have allowed the number of representatives to represent too many people per representative, we have actually allowed money more influence. Of course, we'd have to build a new capitol building, a much bigger one.

[EnergyUnlimited]

As a long term member of this forum (13 years) and yet a distant observer (I live in Poland) I have noticed that partisan divisions and left/right divisions between Americans have grown up incredibly.
Now they are often taking a form of outright distrust or even hate and in many case intelligent public debate is no longer possible. Even debate on this forum is turning into some sort of low level hostilities, despite of peoples knowing each other for long time.
This is not a good indication for the future.
However lets come back to original issues, eg how to address and stop cultural collapse of United States.
Good starting point is a simlpe issue - how to get rid of millions of rats, tons of human feces and used syringes out of many californian cities. This should not be an intractable issue, but if it is, country will collapse or split.

Regardless how one would look on it, solutions proposed by the *right* seem right to me.
Why?
1. Introduction of laws making it legal to defecate on the city street seem insane (left did it).
2. Introduction of laws protecting illegal aliens from deportation, regardless of them working, or simply building favelas next to skyscrappers and keeping themselves busy with drug using/dealing, shitting on the street and all sort of other crime meantime is also insane. Left also did it.
3. Inviting more of them to California and offering them state protection is insane too. All what will result is even more favelas in californian cities. But left is still doing so.
All these policies are pursued by ruling Democrats there, so there must be something horribly wrong with their reasoning, unless they simply see hordes of state dependant degenerados as their voting base and they do whatever necessary to get as many destitutes as possible and convert others into destitutes as well.
But if so, then it is not only insane, but also a treason.
It seem that *left* does not understand that welfare for all will at the end turn into ruin of *all*, including their beloved transsexuals and other similar. Recently I have learned that about 9000 businesses have moved away from California to other states in last year alone and few silicon valley companies are now considering the same.
So rich are moving out and poor together with outright degenerados are moving in.
It will not end up well and a point of no return may well already be crossed, when any meaningful remedy is no longer feasible.
What then?
State of emergency upon arrival of plague and filling up FEMA camps?

[evilgenius]

What you're not seeing is how the illegals exist because there is a place for them within the economy. It's just that the system which employs them doesn't see any need to ensure they are living properly, or are taken care of. The same applies to everyone else in the US, all of its citizens. The best way to get my point about this across to you is probably to take something from the bible. The situation under capitalism in the United States is the equivalent of when Pharaoh told the Israelites that they had to make bricks without him providing them straw any longer. And their quota was going to stay the same!

I am in no way equating the Democrats to Moses when I say this. They are very far from occupying that type of moral high ground. You rightly surmise that they oppose that position as much as those on the right do. What they are is like voices in Pharaoh's head. They are his nagging thoughts, telling him he did the wrong thing. But Pharaoh's fear and greed are much loader to him than those nagging thoughts.

[Pops]

You don't get to tell me that my opinion doesn't count or I'm the problem just because I don't fall in line with your politics, not yet.

Sorry Pops, I was just pointing out that by your own criteria, and as you self reported your behavior, and by being so partisan, you are part of the problem.

I never said you opinion doesn’t count. But when you engage is such stringent partisan dialog then you dilute the power of your opinion. It’s just another Fox News soundbite.

I would be interested in your view of my politics.

First, it isn't an apology when you just rephrase the ad hom, so drop the "sorry."

Partisan is defined as : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

I have causes I care about, sometime they align with Ds, sometimes not. In this thread I mentioned some reasons I believe we are in this shape, likely one was the failure of the Ds to address my concerns. I always try to make a reasoned argument, cite sources, authorities and data rather than just blind opinion.

Newf, you appear to me a typical old white conservative. But rather than argue the position, your argument is I'm partisan, as if that invalidates my argument, it doesn't.
You pretend to media-free enlightenment, complain about how ugly and partisan it all is, then in the next post degrade the whining, mooching, "50 shades" culture

and follow up telling me I sound like a Fox soundbite...

LOL, pretty funny really
.

[Pops]

I only wonder when voices calling to split US into few smaller entities are loud enough to take into consideration.
Discussion above regarding virtues (or lack of virtues) of Electoral College is a good example of that.
So for example Pops will call EC a tyrany of minority but those living in not so populated states, usually in central US, will consider abandonment of EC as a hostile takeover of their land by urban mobs of degenerados living thousands of miles away.
So maybe an *united american nation* is only a sort of myth, an artificial formation, which in absence of EC can only be held together by imperial force and not by common values and merging interests of citizenery with different backgrounds?
If so, then there might be tectonic changes looming on horizon...

Close to half of farms now are over 2,000 acres and a growing share is rented from owners hundreds of miles away. Link

I agree a big factor in our politics beside the resurgent of the capital class is geographic sorting and hollowing out of rural areas— the falling population in rural states is exacerbating the EC irritation.

Small town America that once served surrounding farms as market outlet, shipping point, service center, community hub is largely gone—the farmers live and work a town job and shop there and sometimes even live in town and commute to the farm when needed. Where once we were dispersed now were concentrated.

People who want work, or want an education, or want the excitement or just want a little more of the modern world move to the cities and 'burbs. Those who like the country, or don't want to leave family, etc are left to try and figure out how to get by with less and less opportunity. I have lots of general skills and tried to get by out in the sticks doing this and that but even with my lifeline to city work it was a tough go.

So I don't know what the solution is, but I'm pretty sure fragmentation isn't going to happen. Ag, like everything else, is consolidating under capital ownership in cities, owners in Chicago aren't going to secede. There is less and less economic base as Walmart, Amazon and Tractor Supply ship more and more straight to the loafing shed from the cities.

Feels like rural America is dying.

[onlooker]

Recommend posters go to the Rural America Fades thread to find out more about this rural America is dying
rural-america-fades-t73357-40.html