America - The Official Thread

[Rallywagon]

Much like the poster above (at least as of starting this composition), I very much doubt I've been singled out, but as a contributor to the discussion it most definitely applies to me.

I couldn't agree more; it's sad. So much tit-for-tat and spewing of the prevalent narratives. Hypocrisy is inherent in the species because of an innate desire to have one's arguments be validated, and yet there's no cessation of the compulsion to indicate its implementation (*whistles and looks around innocently*).

Well, on the bright side. At least when our trifling nature leads us to ruin the planet and the life left on it will continue on and just a few millennia forget we ever even existed. Free to evolve and create and destroy at its own leisurely pace.

 

[PocketZeven]

It is indeed a fact. The fact that it happened can be laid squarely on HRC's doorstep. So what does it matter how important it was in her loss? If she hadn't done something illegal then tried to cover it up, it would not have been an issue. So she has nobody to blame but herself for the loss of votes.

I am not denying that, but Trump has done worse in my opinion and gets away with it.

It was directed at the conversation in general, not at anyone. I am sure I can click on any one of the near 600 pages of posts here and find examples galore of my point. For that matter though, I see it happen on some many levels across so many topics. And no doubt it has happened across all of history. It just amazes me how far people and groups are willing to go or allow things to go just because its their sides "policy." A point in case. Pollution. It doesnt take a rocket scientist, or a scientist of any sort, to understand that polluting the waters that hydrate our cities is a bad idea. And yet, we can clearly see the right's politicians pushing to reduce the very policies that protect aquifers, watershed and the alike. Further, their constituents, the very ones that stand to be poisoned by the reduction and remove of said policies, get behind it full board, because, well, thats what their party is doing. Another prime example is the Clean air act. Just look at pictures of NYC and LA before and after the enactment of the act, and you can clearly (pun intended) see the difference and thus the merits of the policies.
That is not to say there arent examples on the other side. I just happen to care more about the environment and making sure its still habitable for my children and grandchildren and so on, than I am for any of the imaginary constructs like the economy that we have made for ourselves.

The majority of the active members in this thread are quite conservative and most of my posts have been an effort to defend my statements and opinions, because in a lot of situations I have been said to be wrong. Personally I enjoy learning about the opposite views and have seen some views change over time. I have stated it before multiple times that it doesnt seem that there is a middle ground in american politics. You are either right/wrong, left/right, rep/dem etc. Politics is all about making compromises for the greater good. Thats why we I prefer a to have more choices to vote for. This forces parties to compromise and work together. In stead of arguing right/wrong about policy, it will be more about problems/solutions.

In still perplexed that in an agreement were virtually ALL countries agreed to reduce the global average temperture, the USA opted to step away from it. And the reason why is even more mind boggling. But I have confidence that the USA will some to its sences eventually.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I am not denying that, but Trump has done worse in my opinion and gets away with it.



The majority of the active members in this thread are quite conservative and most of my posts have been an effort to defend my statements and opinions, because in a lot of situations I have been said to be wrong. Personally I enjoy learning about the opposite views and have seen some views change over time. I have stated it before multiple times that it doesnt seem that there is a middle ground in american politics. You are either right/wrong, left/right, rep/dem etc. Politics is all about making compromises for the greater good. Thats why we I prefer a to have more choices to vote for. This forces parties to compromise and work together. In stead of arguing right/wrong about policy, it will be more about problems/solutions.

In still perplexed that in an agreement were virtually ALL countries agreed to reduce the global average temperture, the USA opted to step away from it. And the reason why is even more mind boggling. But I have confidence that the USA will some to its sences eventually.

What does being a conservative mean to you? Please no dictionary definitions unless it's something you believe word for word. Given your definition, whom do you think is a conservative?

 

[PocketZeven]

What does being a conservative mean to you? Please no dictionary definitions unless it's something you believe word for word.

In the context of my statement I was referring to people with beliefs in the policies of the republican party.

 

[Johnnypenso]

In the context of my statement I was referring to people with beliefs in the policies of the republican party.

So what you really mean is Republican because Republican is a party affiliation and conservatism is a philosophy that goes beyond political parties.

 

[PocketZeven]

So what you really mean is Republican because Republican is a party affiliation and conservatism is a philosophy that goes beyond political parties.

What I meant is I used the word "conservative" to refer to people who affiliate with the policies of the Republican party in the context of my post. I know the difference between ideology and political parties. I am sure you understood what I meant. Are you trying to get me on the defensive on purpose?

In other context's "conservative" can have a total different meaning. In stead of highlighting my (maybe inaccurate) use of certain words (I am not a native spreaker) perhaps you could give your opinion on the contents of the post. Do you think a 2 party system is better then a multiparty system? What is your opinion on the paris agreement and the USA's decision to pull out?

 

[TexRex]

So what you really mean is Republican because Republican is a party affiliation and conservatism is a philosophy that goes beyond political parties.

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

The Republican Party, also referred to as the GOP (abbreviation for Grand Old Party), is one of the world's oldest extant political parties. The party values reflect economic conservatism, classical conservatism (modern day American conservatism) and corporate liberty rights.

-

No one on either side wants to listen to the context of what the other side is saying, they just want to tell them how they are wrong. And when that cant be achieved, then they will tell them how they said it was wrong.

 

[Johnnypenso]

What I meant is I used the word "conservative" to refer to people who affiliate with the policies of the Republican party in the context of my post. I know the difference between ideology and political parties. I am sure you understood what I meant. Are you trying to get me on the defensive on purpose?

I guessed that you didn't really mean "conservative" which is why I asked the question. Long story short, Republicans aren't true conservatives in every sense of the word and conflating the two is a mistake. If you mean Republicans just say Republicans, it's much easier and makes more sense.

In other context's "conservative" can have a total different meaning. In stead of highlighting my (maybe inaccurate) use of certain words (I am not a native spreaker) perhaps you could give your opinion on the contents of the post. Do you think a 2 party system is better then a multiparty system? What is your opinion on the paris agreement and the USA's decision to pull out?

The two party system has it's good and bad as does the multi-party system. Neither is worse or better and in certain contexts each can be better or worse. The Paris Agreement is a whole other can of worms. You should probably move that to the Global Warming thread.

 

[Biggles]

I guessed that you didn't really mean "conservative" which is why I asked the question. Long story short, Republicans aren't true conservatives in every sense of the word and conflating the two is a mistake. If you mean Republicans just say Republicans, it's much easier and makes more sense.

The two party system has it's good and bad as does the multi-party system. Neither is worse or better and in certain contexts each can be better or worse.

Republicans ARE "true conservatives" - but conservatism takes many forms & can mean many different things. It's well worth reading through the Wikipedia entry in total:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

It starts: Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilisation. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, human imperfection, organic society, hierarchy & authority, and property rights. Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as monarchy, religion, parliamentary, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity. The more extreme elements—reactionaries—oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".

I am not a conservative because I don't think that "the way things were" was better. Things were demonstrably worse in most ways in the past. In my experience, in practice, conservatism, often primarily manifests itself in a general defense of social and economic inequality. "From this perspective, conservatism is less an attempt to uphold traditional institutions and more, a meditation on — and theoretical rendition of — the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back".

I think the modern western "liberal democracies" that emerged after 1945, based on the idea of greater social & economic equality, were a reaction to the trauma of the two World Wars, the Great Depression, & the rise of international communism. It was understood, even in the United States, which was relatively unscathed by the two World Wars, that greater equality of opportunity & a social safety net funded by progressive taxation were key factors in preventing the recurrence of violent revolution or global war.

In the sweep of human history, liberal democracies can be seen as a recent grand experiment, which, on the whole, has been remarkably successful. Living standards in general have risen, while at the same time the status of women, racial & sexual minorities has improved significantly (in the face of determined opposition from many conservatives).

I hope that the rise of Trumpism in the US & the rise of similar nationalist/conservative movements in other countries will prove to be a temporary blip in historical terms, because I don't believe traveling down that road will have good consequences for the world my children are going to be living in.

Incidentally, while the US political system was carefully & logically crafted, it seems to have become depressingly dysfunctional. In contrast, the Canadian system, with its quirky, illogical, British origins seems to work surprisingly well.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Republicans ARE "true conservatives" - but conservatism takes many forms & can mean many different things. It's well worth reading through the Wikipedia entry in total:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

It starts: Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilisation. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, human imperfection, organic society, hierarchy & authority, and property rights. Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as monarchy, religion, parliamentary, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity. The more extreme elements—reactionaries—oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".

I am not a conservative because I don't think that "the way things were" was better. Things were demonstrably worse in most ways in the past. In my experience, in practice, conservatism, often primarily manifests itself a general defense of social and economic inequality. "From this perspective, conservatism is less an attempt to uphold traditional institutions and more, a meditation on — and theoretical rendition of — the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back".

I think the modern western "liberal democracies" that emerged after 1945, based on the idea of greater social & economic equality, were a reaction to the trauma of the two World Wars, the Great Depression, & the rise of international communism. It was understood, even in the United States, which was relatively unscathed by the two World Wars, that greater equality of opportunity & a social safety net funded by progressive taxation were key factors in preventing the recurrence of violent revolution or global war.

In the sweep of human history, liberal democracies can be seen as a recent grand experiment, which, on the whole, has been remarkably successful. Living standards in general have risen, while at the same time the status of women, racial & sexual minorities has improved significantly (in the face of determined opposition from many conservatives).

I hope that the rise of Trumpism in the US & the rise of similar nationalist/conservative movements in other countries will prove to be a temporary blip in historical terms, because I don't believe traveling down that road will have good consequences for the world my children are going to be living in.

Incidentally, while the US political system was carefully & logically crafted, it seems to have become depressingly dysfunctional. In contrast, the Canadian system, with its quirky, illogical, British origins seems to work surprisingly well.

Yes some Republicans subscribe to those values but that is not the entirety of conservatism. Conservatives also believe in smaller governments and tighter budget control something Republicans have paid little heed to in recent decades.

 

[huskeR32]

Conservatives also believe in smaller governments and tighter budget control something Republicans have paid little heed to in recent decades.

Regardless of whether or not GOP politicians actually practice this, it still serves as a primary part of their platform, and is a reason many conservatives give for voting for Republican candidates.

The GOP at least pays lip service to pretty much every issue a conservative claims to care about. And I suspect that if you examine which of those issues the voters let party get away with not acting on, you'll find some insight into which issues truly matter to most conservatives.

 

[Dotini]

Regardless of whether or not GOP politicians actually practice this, it still serves as a primary part of their platform, and is a reason many conservatives give for voting for Republican candidates.

The GOP at least pays lip service to pretty much every issue a conservative claims to care about. And I suspect that if you examine which of those issues the voters let party get away with not acting on, you'll find some insight into which issues truly matter to most conservatives.

The issues that matter most to me are peace and prosperity, which to me include not going to war unless attacked, and maintaining a sound economy not based on perpetually greater debt (which involves the threat of devaluation). Both US parties fail in these respects, which is why I've voted Libertarian since the campaigns of Perot. Although I'm disgusted by Trump's many flaws, I've noticed more and more people are giving him credit for centrist policies and tactics. In essence, he is a pragmatist, lacking any consistent philosophy. At the end of the day, I'm going to suggest that most true libertarians are at heart conservative, if only in the sense that we aim to conserve what's best about our civilization - peace and prosperity - and not give much of a rip about the rest..

 

[PocketZeven]

I guessed that you didn't really mean "conservative" which is why I asked the question. Long story short, Republicans aren't true conservatives in every sense of the word and conflating the two is a mistake. If you mean Republicans just say Republicans, it's much easier and makes more sense.

The two party system has it's good and bad as does the multi-party system. Neither is worse or better and in certain contexts each can be better or worse. The Paris Agreement is a whole other can of worms. You should probably move that to the Global Warming thread.

I was trying to avoid a discussion about the proper definition or use of a certain word. I am not an american so if I cause confusion because of improper use of a certain word or sentence, just ask me and i will explain my chain of thought. Feel free to correct me, but please dont judge or start a lengthy discussion about it.

I only see more negatives then positives with a 2 party system. Doesnt Canada have a multiparty system? I think the discussion about the withdrawal of the USA from the paris agreement is more appropiate for this thread. The withdrawal is politically motivated and the science of global warming I dont see the need for discussion. The science is sound and proven. However if you dont believe in the facts and science of global warming then I agree the discussion belongs in the global warming thread.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Y'all gotta accept the fact Dems voters are feeling the NEW age Reps.

Did you mean Reagan Democrats? I.e. Democrats that were alive during the Reagan administration.

They did not trust democracy. Do you have faith in democracy?

Technically speaking, we all saw how democracy worked in Ancient Athens. Trust me, it evolved into mob rule faster than anything. Our founders did establish this country as a republic.

a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

government by the people

especially: rule of the majority

Since we as ordinary citizens do not directly influence legislation (as does Ancient Athens), we are not a democracy and rather a republic by its very definition.

Well you're ignoring 3 important things. Most of the polls were wrong leading up to the election and you're ignoring everything else that occurred before the email scandal. Given the type of candidate Donald Trump was, he shouldn't have been within 20 points of Hillary at any point. The fact that he was so close before the email scandal shows how weak Hillary was as a viable candidate for President and, as I already said, the email scandal was simply the last in a long line of issues that got her to that place to begin with. The third thing is, there's no cause/effect here. A lot of things are happening at once towards the end of an election campaign and there's no direct evidence I can see that validates this scandal as the sole reason for the sudden drop in the polls.

I'm sure it was a factor, but it was simply another factor in a long line of factors in a very long campaign.

Did anyone forget Hillary's "basket full of deplorables" comment when referring to the majority of Middle America, in which the majority of the states involved has voted Republican in recent memory, and including the 2016 Election?

Republicans ARE "true conservatives" - but conservatism takes many forms & can mean many different things. It's well worth reading through the Wikipedia entry in total:

While I will give you that the majority of Republicans embody conservatism today, you are forgetting two things. One is that smaller government leads to more individual freedom, and second is that the Republican party, when it first started, was very much liberal to the Whigs that it branched off of. So much so that there were actual whippings of Republican members of Congress on the Congressional floor by Whigs.

 

[TexRex]

Did anyone forget Hillary's "basket full of deplorables" comment when referring to the majority of Middle America, in which the majority of the states involved has voted Republican in recent memory, and including the 2016 Election?

You clearly didn't. But as anyone could expect, you've pared it down to the bare minimum and best means to further your chosen narrative. Have a sticker.

"I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."

"But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

 

[Johnnypenso]

Regardless of whether or not GOP politicians actually practice this, it still serves as a primary part of their platform, and is a reason many conservatives give for voting for Republican candidates.

The GOP at least pays lip service to pretty much every issue a conservative claims to care about. And I suspect that if you examine which of those issues the voters let party get away with not acting on, you'll find some insight into which issues truly matter to most conservatives.

Whether they practice it or not is what determines whether they are, in fact, conservatives.

I was trying to avoid a discussion about the proper definition or use of a certain word. I am not an american so if I cause confusion because of improper use of a certain word or sentence, just ask me and i will explain my chain of thought. Feel free to correct me, but please dont judge or start a lengthy discussion about it.

That's what I did.

I only see more negatives then positives with a 2 party system. Doesnt Canada have a multiparty system?

Yes

I think the discussion about the withdrawal of the USA from the paris agreement is more appropiate for this thread. The withdrawal is politically motivated and the science of global warming I dont see the need for discussion. The science is sound and proven. However if you dont believe in the facts and science of global warming then I agree the discussion belongs in the global warming thread.

I think it's off topic in this thread. Your opinion may vary.

 

[PocketZeven]

Did you mean Reagan Democrats? I.e. Democrats that were alive during the Reagan administration.


Technically speaking, we all saw how democracy worked in Ancient Athens. Trust me, it evolved into mob rule faster than anything. Our founders did establish this country as a republic.





Since we as ordinary citizens do not directly influence legislation (as does Ancient Athens), we are not a democracy and rather a republic by its very definition.



Did anyone forget Hillary's "basket full of deplorables" comment when referring to the majority of Middle America, in which the majority of the states involved has voted Republican in recent memory, and including the 2016 Election?



While I will give you that the majority of Republicans embody conservatism today, you are forgetting two things. One is that smaller government leads to more individual freedom, and second is that the Republican party, when it first started, was very much liberal to the Whigs that it branched off of. So much so that there were actual whippings of Republican members of Congress on the Congressional floor by Whigs.

I personallyt did not see how democracy worked in athens. I am was only born in the 1980's, I want to trust you, but you mus be very very old!
But kidding aside, I was making the comparison with the modern age. There were even less ways of communication during the times of the ancient greeks and also less people were eligable to vote. No foreigners, slaves and women (an estimate of no more then 30% of adults could vote ).

But are you for or opposed to the electoral college? In a republic the voting power is with the public (hence republic) not a body like the electoral college though.

 

[Dotini]

I think the discussion about the withdrawal of the USA from the paris agreement is more appropiate for this thread. The withdrawal is politically motivated and the science of global warming I dont see the need for discussion. The science is sound and proven. However if you dont believe in the facts and science of global warming then I agree the discussion belongs in the global warming thread.

Our science of solar and cosmic cycles is very incomplete. So the science of global warming is sound only so far as it goes, which is very short of complete. We don't properly understand the mechanism causing the cycles of Ice Ages, which dominate the last million years of our climate. So the global warming subject/climate change issue has become highly politicized, and an altar upon which much emotion and money are heedlessly sacrificed.

 

[PocketZeven]

Our science of solar and cosmic cycles is very incomplete. So the science of global warming is sound only so far as it goes, which is very short of complete. We don't properly understand the mechanism causing the cycles of Ice Ages, which dominate the last million years of our climate. So the global warming subject/climate change issue has become highly politicized, and an altar upon which much emotion and money are heedlessly sacrificed.

Not the reaction I was going for. I was trying to understand the reasoning for the US to withdraw. An unprecedented 196 countries agreed that something had to be done to save the planet. The usa withdraws, because it is "unfair"to the USA? I dont understand the reasoning in this. Didnt all countries agree? So how does that put the USA in an economic disadvantage?

 

[Northstar]

Not the reaction I was going for. I was trying to understand the reasoning for the US to withdraw.

I'm not sure why it was even needed in the first place. Do we really need the government to tell us that we need to take better care of our environment? More so, do we really think they'll pull their lips off each other's backsides long enough to actually come up with something that works in a timely manner?

 

[Imari]

View attachment 771077

You clearly didn't. But as anyone could expect, you've pared it down to the bare minimum and best means to further your chosen narrative. Have a sticker.

I'm not sure what she's saying changes that much with context. She labelled a huge group of voters as un-American, racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc.

Even if that were to be true, and I think the reality is a little more complex than that as a lot of those people have at least legitimate reasons for thinking as they do, that's a candidate for President essentially writing off a big chunk of population instead of saying "I don't share these people's beliefs but I shall continue to work with them to achieve what we can both agree is for the best of our country, that we all live in and care about deeply".

That's not cool.

Do we really need the government to tell us that we need to take better care of our environment?

Yes.

Not for the individuals, I think for the most part individuals are on board in their personal lives. But companies are not. Particularly in the modern shareholding era, companies are driven to make money at the expense of all else. Very few will go far out of their way to protect the environment unless it's actually to their benefit or is absolutely required by legislation. Certainly not enough, it wouldn't surprise me if the vast majority of environmental pollution could ultimately be traced back to choices that companies have made.

As such, I think the easiest way to get companies to fall into line with what the common people would like to see regarding the environment is to create an economic state in which they are rewarded for behaving correctly.

More so, do we really think they'll pull their lips off each other's backsides long enough to actually come up with something that works in a timely manner?

Probably not, but it's worth a shot. It gets hard to breathe when you have your nose stuck in someone's sweaty man-crack all day.

 

[Northstar]

Yes.

Not for the individuals, I think for the most part individuals are on board in their personal lives. But companies are not. Particularly in the modern shareholding era, companies are driven to make money at the expense of all else. Very few will go far out of their way to protect the environment unless it's actually to their benefit or is absolutely required by legislation. Certainly not enough, it wouldn't surprise me if the vast majority of environmental pollution could ultimately be traced back to choices that companies have made.

So we as consumers need to exercise our power to make it their benefit! Companies will only do the bare minimum to meet government regulations, but if it's something consumers make an important aspect of their purchases they will go above and beyond whatever regulations there are (nothing sounds better than "best in class").

I think people have gotten too used to the government telling companies how they should be ran that they've forgotten the ultimate power is right in their wallet.

Probably not, but it's worth a shot. It gets hard to breathe when you have your nose stuck in someone's sweaty man-crack all day.

Hopefully this is hearsay.

 

[PocketZeven]

But can anybody explain why it was correct for the usa to withdraw? Almost all countries are going to face the same restrictions and supposed "unfairness" as the USA within the Climate agreement. What he really means is that he wants to take advantage of the countries who will stay in the agreement to get a competitive edge, but fails to see the innovation and opportunities it will bring.

So we as consumers need to exercise our power to make it their benefit! Companies will only do the bare minimum to meet government regulations, but if it's something consumers make an important aspect of their purchases they will go above and beyond whatever regulations there are (nothing sounds better than "best in class").

I think people have gotten too used to the government telling companies how they should be ran that they've forgotten the ultimate power is right in their wallet.



Hopefully this is hearsay.

It would work if the employees had a say in the companies policies. But companies are not run that way. Shareholders/owners are greedy and they ignore the public as long there is still revenue and profit. Public protests of company wrongdoings need the government to step in to have any effect at all. History already has shown that without a democracy the rich will end up running the country.

 

[Dotini]

Not the reaction I was going for. I was trying to understand the reasoning for the US to withdraw. An unprecedented 196 countries agreed that something had to be done to save the planet. The usa withdraws, because it is "unfair"to the USA? I dont understand the reasoning in this. Didnt all countries agree? So how does that put the USA in an economic disadvantage?

I don't pretend to understand and explain all the politics and economic mandates entailed in the Paris Agreement, so I won't try. But I will give a few thoughts:
- When people start wailing about "saving the planet", my BS meter squawks loudly.
- The Agreement is about spending a lot of money, long term. The world has very little money to spare, so they all expect the US to carry the load. This smells and feels like a boondoggle.
- We Americans don't give a rip about the rest of the world when it comes to them dictating our spending. We are sovereign. Right or wrong, we are sovereign. If you feel the need to save the world, do it on your own dime.

 

[Northstar]

It would work if the employees had a say in the companies policies. But companies are not run that way. Shareholders/owners are greedy and they ignore the public as long there is still revenue and profit.

And what do you think would happen if suddenly everyone looking to buy a new car said they were only going to buy electric?

Again, if people really want change, they need to speak with their wallet.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't pretend to understand and explain all the politics and economic mandates entailed in the Paris Agreement, so I won't try. But I will give a few thoughts:
- When people start wailing about "saving the planet", my BS meter squawks loudly.
- The Agreement is about spending a lot of money, long term. The world has very little money to spare, so they all expect the US to carry the load. This smells and feels like a boondoggle.
- We Americans don't give a rip about the rest of the world when it comes to them dictating our spending. We are sovereign. Right or wrong, we are sovereign. If you feel the need to save the world, do it on your own dime.

I suppose you agree with the withdrawal without even knowing what it enholds?

And what do you think would happen if suddenly everyone looking to buy a new car said they were only going to buy electric?

Again, if people really want change, they need to speak with their wallet.

Sadly it doesnt work that way in practice. EV and PHEV still need incentives to make it worthwhile for the general public. Economically it does not make sense to buy an EV or PHEV at all. I dont have the trust in people as you. When it comes to finances most people are very selfish. I personally prefer to elect an educated influential person who will represent my ideals. Even though I am a business owner I have absolutely no faith in a total free market. You will most likely bring back the monarchies of old and exploitation similar to slavery.

 

[Northstar]

When it comes to finances most people are very selfish.

That wouldn't be because the government hands it out like candy on Halloween, would it?

Again, you can blame the government and big business as much as you want, but we are the ones who give them that power.

 

[Sanji Himura]

But are you for or opposed to the electoral college?

I am for the Electoral College. Here's why. Illegal immigrants who do vote, in particular in California, where their percentage is actually higher than the nation, CAN influence an election if they are in the right places. Trump was only partially right when he did say that about 13 million illegals voted in the 2016 Presidential election. But how far was he off? Here is the Department of Homeland Security to weigh in on the matter:

- There are approximately 5 million illegal immigrants that reside in the US in a range that is anywhere from 4.6 to 5.4 million.
- Assuming the median number (the aforementioned 5 million), nearly 2/5ths reside in California, with the next largest illegal population being Texas with 700,000 illegals.

The MAJOR problem with the numbers is that they are from 1996, and even at that, it is at very best an estimate. Since 1996, several things happened:

- There were not one, but TWO amnesties. One under President George W. Bush and one under Barack Obama. The latter of which Trump is still cleaning up.
- California passed a bill in 2015 that would allow non-citizens more active participation in government.

Do you seriously think that non-citizens would NOT vote in our elections? You're pretty silly if you think that it doesn't actually influence the race. That, combined with the amnesties, has boosted illegal immigration to an all-time high.

This is why we NEED the electoral college, it is to keep the states that have low populations in play in the national election.

In a republic the voting power is with the public (hence republic) not a body like the electoral college though.

Not true. Most just assume that democracy is what we have because the citizens actually vote. What the public is actually voting on is two sets of electors for their state.

 

[PocketZeven]

I am for the Electoral College. Here's why. Illegal immigrants who do vote, in particular in California, where their percentage is actually higher than the nation, CAN influence an election if they are in the right places. Trump was only partially right when he did say that about 13 million illegals voted in the 2016 Presidential election. But how far was he off? Here is the Department of Homeland Security to weigh in on the matter:

- There are approximately 5 million illegal immigrants that reside in the US in a range that is anywhere from 4.6 to 5.4 million.
- Assuming the median number (the aforementioned 5 million), nearly 2/5ths reside in California, with the next largest illegal population being Texas with 700,000 illegals.

The MAJOR problem with the numbers is that they are from 1996, and even at that, it is at very best an estimate. Since 1996, several things happened:

- There were not one, but TWO amnesties. One under President George W. Bush and one under Barack Obama. The latter of which Trump is still cleaning up.
- California passed a bill in 2015 that would allow non-citizens more active participation in government.

Do you seriously think that non-citizens would NOT vote in our elections? You're pretty silly if you think that it doesn't actually influence the race. That, combined with the amnesties, has boosted illegal immigration to an all-time high.

This is why we NEED the electoral college, it is to keep the states that have low populations in play in the national election.

Not true. Most just assume that democracy is what we have because the citizens actually vote. What the public is actually voting on is two sets of electors for their state.

That isnt a good reason to be for an electoral college. Wasnt the voting fraud already been debunked.? Even if that is true the solution isnt the electoral college, but improving the voting process. It is undemocratic in the sence that not all votes have the same power.

 

[TexRex]

She labelled a huge group of voters as un-American, racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc.

Except...she didn't. She specifically didn't. She didn't, in the same sentence in which the cited bit is contained. She didn't, before the cited bit. You have to want her to have said what she didn't say in order to not see, to not acknowledge, what she did say.