America - The Official Thread

[Eunos_Cosmo]

US to play no role in Turkish NE Syria operation

I'm all for getting the US disentangled from the middle east, but abandoning the Kurds....after they've been fighting for us for years now....wow. This will come back to us.

 

[Liquid]

The electoral college crops up from time to time. On the subject of such:

One of the major drawbacks of the United States electoral college is there is a disproportionate amount of campaigning in swing states like Ohio and Florida. Swing states carry so much more weight than other states, particularly those which are "a given". That is to say, despite being worth 55 EC votes, it just isn't worth it for a Republican to spend all of their campaign efforts in California. Likewise, despite collectively being worth 21 EC votes, it just isn't worth it for a Democrat to spend all of their campaign efforts in Montana-Idaho-Wyoming-Nebraska and both Dakotas.

Below is from the 2004 Presidential election that encompasses both the Bush and Kerry campaigns during the final five weeks of campaigning. Each hand represents a personal visit from either a Presidential (Bush/Kerry) or Vice Presidential (Cheney/Edwards) candidate. Each single dollar represents one million dollars spent on advertising by both campaigns.

As you can see, the major focus was on these swing states; Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Iowa in particular. With the exception of Florida, nowhere in the south received any personal attention in the final five weeks and likewise for anywhere in the Rockies.

 

[Dotini]

The electoral college crops up from time to time. On the subject of such:

One of the major drawbacks of the United States electoral college is there is a disproportionate amount of campaigning in swing states like Ohio and Florida. Swing states carry so much more weight than other states, particularly those which are "a given". That is to say, despite being worth 55 EC votes, it just isn't worth it for a Republican to spend all of their campaign efforts in California. Likewise, despite collectively being worth 21 EC votes, it just isn't worth it for a Democrat to spend all of their campaign efforts in Montana-Idaho-Wyoming-Nebraska and both Dakotas.

Below is from the 2004 Presidential election that encompasses both the Bush and Kerry campaigns during the final five weeks of campaigning. Each hand represents a personal visit from either a Presidential (Bush/Kerry) or Vice Presidential (Cheney/Edwards) candidate. Each single dollar represents one million dollars spent on advertising by both campaigns.

As you can see, the major focus was on these swing states; Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Iowa in particular. With the exception of Florida, nowhere in the south received any personal attention in the final five weeks and likewise for anywhere in the Rockies.

Colorado is a Rocky Mountains state, and West Virginia is below the Mason-Dixon line.

 

[Liquid]

Colorado is a a Rocky Mountains state

True.

But I couldn't think of a term that encompasses that specific Republican bloc of MT, ID, NE, ND, SD and WY. And it doesn't necessarily disprove anything else I had demonstrated.

 

[Biggles]

One of the major drawbacks of the United States electoral college is there is a disproportionate amount of campaigning in swing states like Ohio and Florida. Swing states carry so much more weight than other states, particularly those which are "a given".

That's a good point. Having a universal vote for President would make EVERY vote, no matter what state it's cast in, and that would reduce the focus on "swing states" & give equal weight to every voter.

 

[Liquid]

That's a good point. Having a universal vote for President would make EVERY vote, no matter what state it's cast in, and that would reduce the focus on "swing states" & give equal weight to every voter.

Detractors of a single, universal popular vote say that that would take away a large part of the federal aspect of the United States and steers more towards a single, centralised government.

The only compromise I can think of is that each state has a single popular vote but it is the candidate with the most states carried who wins. It continues the federal theme that is so important to US citizens because it still comes down to the states' collective decisions determining the President. It doesn't eliminate the idea of swing states, there would still be vigorous campaigning to win Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida, but a Democrat would have to work hard in the Rocky Republican bloc and a Republican would have to work hard in New England to carry as many states as possible.

That's not a perfect solution and I certainly don't claim it to be but it would make candidates work harder in more states that they would, particularly ones which would otherwise be ignored during election campaigns.

Going back through previous elections, the most recent election where the winning candidate did not carry a majority or plurality of states was 1976 where Gerald Ford, with 27 states, lost to Jimmy Carter, with 23 states plus DC. And even if it wouldn't have affected previous elections so much, it would have made the candidates at least campaign differently to the tired methods we've seen every four years.

 

[Dotini]

Detractors of a single, universal popular vote say that that would take away a large part of the federal aspect of the United States and steers more towards a single, centralised government.

The only compromise I can think of is that each state has a single popular vote but it is the candidate with the most states carried who wins. It continues the federal theme that is so important to US citizens because it still comes down to the states' collective decisions determining the President.

In the EC system, the governors of the states become involved with EC rules and delegates, and so directly wield state power in the federal election system. Another check and balance. Your plan, while inventive and admirable, would eliminate the governors from the process, so they may oppose this reform. The only compromise is on the part of the states, so why would they vote for it? A supermajority of the states are required to amend the constitution, so there is that added hurdle to climb.

Going back through previous elections, the most recent election where the winning candidate did not carry a majority or plurality of states was 1976 where Gerald Ford, with 27 states, lost to Jimmy Carter, with 23 states plus DC.

A great part of the nation was traumatized by the lowlife criminal behavior of Nixon, so wanted sweeping change with the certainty of an honest, decent, ethical man of high principles and intelligence. Enter Jimmy Carter. As it happened, he was a disaster, a choirboy, hopelessly unfit to cope in the rough and lethal real world of global politics. A lot of people already sensed that before the election, but many more afterward. He served no 2nd term.

 

[SestoScudo]

US to play no role in Turkish NE Syria operation

I'm all for getting the US disentangled from the middle east, but abandoning the Kurds....after they've been fighting for us for years now....wow. This will come back to us.

Kurds always fight for the highest bidder.

They have always been the puppets of various empires that have come and gone in the region.

They are not the so called freedom fighters which people percieve to be.

 

[Dotini]

Kurds always fight for the highest bidder.

They have always been the puppets of various empires that come and gone in the region.

They are not the so called freedom fighters which people percieve to be.

Surely they cannot stand and fight. Will they run and hide in Iraq and Iran? Or will Assad welcome them back into his regime? Maybe we should welcome them into the US as we did our indigenous supporters in Vietnam.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Surely they cannot stand and fight. Will they run and hide in Iraq and Iran? Or will Assad welcome them back into his regime? Maybe we should welcome them into the US as we did our indigenous supporters in Vietnam.

Kurds face oppression pretty much everywhere they look. They are a stateless people. I gather they are predominantly Sunni and have, for nearly a century, faced problems in Iran. I don't think Assad cares too much for them either.

 

[Biggles]

Detractors of a single, universal popular vote say that that would take away a large part of the federal aspect of the United States and steers more towards a single, centralised government.

I understand that, but I think the answer is the degree of autonomy of each state - "states' rights" - which is of course what was envisaged at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. The federal powers exercised by the President & the federal administration should be voted for equally by all US citizens.

It's obviously a problematic situation no matter what. Ultimately, the "progressive" states are becoming wealthier & more attractive to live in, especially now that the US is essentially a post-industrial society. I hear the argument constantly advanced on Fox News is that California, or NYC, for example, are falling apart because it's so crowded & expensive that nobody wants to live there ... an inherently absurd argument. If the red states want to ban abortion, restrict LGBTQ rights, lower taxation etc. let them do that. They will fall further behind in their ability to attract the young, educated & ambitious. But that sucks for people already living there ... & undermines the idea of a country with unified legal & social standards.

 

[SestoScudo]

Surely they cannot stand and fight. Will they run and hide in Iraq and Iran? Or will Assad welcome them back into his regime? Maybe we should welcome them into the US as we did our indigenous supporters in Vietnam.

Kurds have never been reliable in world war 1 they mainly fought alongside the Ottoman Empire until the Allies like Britain and France swayed the Kurds to fight for them what happened in return the Kurds turned against the Turks began killing and sabotaging the war effort.

Norhing more than hired guns.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Kurds have never been reliable in world war 1 they mainly fought alongside the Ottoman Empire until the Allies like Britain and France swayed the Kurds to fight for them what happened in return the Kurds turned against the Turks began killing and sabotaging the war effort.

Norhing more than hired guns.

The Kurds fight for survival. Way to simplify a complex history and group of 40 million people into nothing more than mercenaries.

 

[SestoScudo]

The Kurds fight for survival. Way to simplify a complex history and group of 40 million people into nothing more than mercenaries.

Survival for what??? They were promised a country by the British nothing more than got conned by the British.

This what happens when you promise a country to everybody in the Middle East after ww1 you get the region into a mess.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Survival for what??? They were promised a country by the British nothing more than got conned by the British.

This what happens when you promise a country to everybody in the Middle East after ww1 you get the region into a mess.

What are you suggesting? That they just give up and let Turkey destroy them? I'm just curious. You seem to willfully support the Kurds not existing. Why?

 

[SestoScudo]

What are you suggesting? That they just give up and let Turkey destroy them? I'm just curious. You seem to willfully support the Kurds not existing. Why?

I dont support separatism if you love the kurds so much please be the guest of Turkey and give them a piece of the USA.

A lot of Turks, Arabs and Iranians refuse to give up land to some childish fantasy.

 

[PocketZeven]

The electoral college crops up from time to time. On the subject of such:

One of the major drawbacks of the United States electoral college is there is a disproportionate amount of campaigning in swing states like Ohio and Florida. Swing states carry so much more weight than other states, particularly those which are "a given". That is to say, despite being worth 55 EC votes, it just isn't worth it for a Republican to spend all of their campaign efforts in California. Likewise, despite collectively being worth 21 EC votes, it just isn't worth it for a Democrat to spend all of their campaign efforts in Montana-Idaho-Wyoming-Nebraska and both Dakotas.

Below is from the 2004 Presidential election that encompasses both the Bush and Kerry campaigns during the final five weeks of campaigning. Each hand represents a personal visit from either a Presidential (Bush/Kerry) or Vice Presidential (Cheney/Edwards) candidate. Each single dollar represents one million dollars spent on advertising by both campaigns.

As you can see, the major focus was on these swing states; Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Iowa in particular. With the exception of Florida, nowhere in the south received any personal attention in the final five weeks and likewise for anywhere in the Rockies.

There is a clear solution for this. I still dont understand the arguments for the electoral college.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I dont support separatism if you love the kurds so much please be the guest of Turkey and give them a piece of the USA.

A lot of Turks, Arabs and Iranians refuse to give up land to some childish fantasy.

Mr Erdogan, I know you are facing a lot of political pressure and all...

 

[Dennisch]

I dont support separatism if you love the kurds so much please be the guest of Turkey and give them a piece of the USA.

A lot of Turks, Arabs and Iranians refuse to give up land to some childish fantasy.

The Erdoğan is strong in this one.

 

[SestoScudo]

Mr Erdogan, I know you are facing a lot of political pressure and all...

Erdogan lol majority of Turks refuse to give up land. Erdogan is actually one of the most pro kurdish leaders in Turkish history lol why do you think he is scorned by nationalists a like. Only today his taking a nationalist stand due to him being allied with nationalists.

Let me guess the Turks took that land maybe somebody should read up on some history as the Seljuk Turks tookover Anatolia from the Byzantine Empire and various Armenian and Arab kingdoms.

Where is this Kurdish state that the Turks tookover or is it one of those myths peddled by the Kurds and their supporters?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Erdogan lol majority of Turks refuse to give up land.

Let me guess the Turks took that land maybe somebody should read up on some history as the Seljuk Turks tookover Anatolia from the Byzantine Empire and various Armenian and Arab kingdoms.

Where is this Kurdish state that the Turks tookover or is it one of those myths peddled by the Kurds and their supporters?

It's a difficult problem. Your solution seems to be "I know! Get rid of the Kurds!"

 

[SestoScudo]

It's a difficult problem. Your solution seems to be "I know! Get rid of the Kurds!"

Oh yea that Kurdish genocide myth.

If there is a genocide how come there is 14 to 20 million kurds in Turkey??

Turkey's problem has always been separatism which they refuse to give in. Worst times in Turkey are actually behind because 80s and 90s were much worse in the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. Various government restrictions along with banning their language and classifying them as Mountain Turks as all but ended.

You still have terrorist groups like the pkk trying to bait the Kurds to take up arms for their kurdistan dream.

 

[PocketZeven]

Oh yea that Kurdish genocide myth.

If there is a genocide how come there is 14 to 20 million kurds in Turkey??

Turkey's problem has always been separatism which they refuse to give in. Worst times in Turkey are actually behind because 80s and 90s were much worse in the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. Various government restrictions along with banning their language and classifying them as Mountain Turks as all but ended.

You still have terrorist groups like the pkk trying to bait the Kurds to take up arms for their kurdistan dream.

 

[Dennisch]

And yes, it's real.

 

[Dotini]

There is a clear solution for this. I still dont understand the arguments for the electoral college.

You don't even need to. The issue was settled over two centuries ago and set in the stone (really ink) of the Constitution. To "solve", change or even address the issue, would take what is currently essentially ruled out by the current balance between R' and D's in the Senate and among the states.

 

[PocketZeven]

And yes, it's real.

edit:

You don't even need to. The issue was settled over two centuries ago and set in the stone (really ink) of the Constitution. To "solve", change or even address the issue, would take what is currently essentially ruled out by the current balance between R' and D's in the Senate and among the states.

A constitution isnt a "bible". It is legislation that evolves over time. Hence there are "amendments".
There are 0 valid arguments to keep it.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Come on Republicans. Come onnnnn. This is your guy? The guy claiming unmatched wisdom on Twitter? That guy?!

 

[Dotini]

It is looking increasingly unlikely, though still possible, that he can be indicted and tried in state and local court while still in office. That means the gripping TV reality show spectacle of impeachment is the only option. There should be no waiting for the voters. This is going to be so much fun I can hardly wait!

 

[Danoff]

You don't even need to. The issue was settled over two centuries ago and set in the stone (really ink) of the Constitution. To "solve", change or even address the issue, would take what is currently essentially ruled out by the current balance between R' and D's in the Senate and among the states.

I feel like I've posted this before. But no it doesn't.

I note that you stopped short of saying constitutional convention this time, but that's the strong implication here. If you're arguing (without saying it) that the compact is ruled out, do explain.

 

[Dotini]

I feel like I've posted this before. But no it doesn't.

I note that you stopped short of saying constitutional convention this time, but that's the strong implication here. If you're arguing (without saying it) that the compact is ruled out, do explain.

No, the interstate compact is not ruled out, but

As of July 2019, it has been adopted by fifteen states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 196 electoral votes, which is 36.4% of the Electoral College and 72.6% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.

And the constitutionality of the compact may have to be tested in Congress or Supreme Court, but we're not there yet. It'll be years if ever.

I'm in favor of trying this, or an amendment, or a convention. You never know what might happen until you try it.