The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Biggles]

Perhaps neither way is intrinsically or absolutely right or wrong. But the way the way it is, is the way prescribed in the Constitution. By marshaling a convincing argument and obtaining the necessary majority votes, the Constitution can always be changed. That is the beauty of our system.

Not really. You have an amending process that effectively gives small or low population states the ability to block any attempt to move towards a more democratic distribution of power. There's nothing really rational about it - it's based on accidents of history. It gives the residents of Delaware, for example, a completely disproportionate degree on influence over the lives of Californians or Texans. There is no way on earth that American citizens, tasked with coming up with an equitable political system today, would arrive at the present system. By the same token, there's no "convincing argument" that's going to persuade smaller states to surrender their entrenched privileges. There's nothing particularly "beautiful" about that.

 

[Famine]

He posted a Nazi rally and compared it to a Trump rally.

Yep. But the people in the crowd at the Nazi rally aren't Nazis, they're ordinary German people - thus the ordinary people in the crowd at the Trump rally aren't being compared to Nazis but to ordinary German people.

The only way you can think "He's comparing Trump supporters to Nazis" is if you think the regular German people of the 1930s were Nazis - which would show breathtaking ignorance of history.

 

[Dotini]

Not really. You have an amending process that effectively gives small or low population states the ability to block any attempt to move towards a more democratic distribution of power. There's nothing really rational about it - it's based on accidents of history. It gives the residents of Delaware, for example, a completely disproportionate degree on influence over the lives of Californians or Texans. There is no way on earth that American citizens, tasked with coming up with an equitable political system today, would arrive at the present system. By the same token, there's no "convincing argument" that's going to persuade smaller states to surrender their entrenched privileges. There's nothing particularly "beautiful" about that.

@Scaff @Imari Perhaps a better way would be to ignore or circumvent the existing law? Or can you describe a way out of the problem which does not violate the law?

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Nope, the majority of illegals enter by plane, the wall not high enough to stop that.

I am guessing by your displayed avatar flag you are British and reside in England so you may not understand or comprehend but in this Country the Southwest border adjacent to Mexico the majority of illegals are poor and enter by foot or wheeled transportation not planes. Even the gang members and drug mules use this as a main source of entry into this country.

No it will not.

Walk across an open field to reach a desired point and then try to cross that same open field with the slight difference that now it has a 20-25 ft tall wall you have to navigate over to reach your desired point and tell me which scenario reaching your destination was easier and took less effort and time or planning to accomplish your goal.
Then again say that such a wall will not slow and hinder the majority of illegal want-to-be's and give our border patrol agents more time to apprehend them as they attempt to illegally cross the border than them just skipping over a totally open border with no barriers at all.
Comments like you have made here show absolutely no application of applying any simple common sense at all to your thought or answer.

 

[Scaff]

I am guessing by your displayed avatar flag you are British and reside in England so you may not understand or comprehend but in this Country the Southwest border adjacent to Mexico the majority of illegals are poor and enter by foot or wheeled transportation not planes. Even the gang members and drug mules use this as a main source of entry into this country.

So you only get illegal immigration into the US from your southern border?

Actually don't bother to answer that, as I know that you don't, and not only that but illegal immigration from Mexico has been dropping year or year without the wall.

Walk across an open field to reach a desired point and then try to cross that same open field with the slight difference that now it has a 20-25 ft tall wall you have to navigate over to reach your desired point and tell me which scenario reaching your destination was easier and took less effort and time or planning to accomplish your goal.
Then again say that such a wall will not slow and hinder the majority of illegal want-to-be's and give our border patrol agents more time to apprehend them as they attempt to illegally cross the border than them just skipping over a totally open border with no barriers at all.

It's not a field, it a large area of land with a substantial about of inhospitable terrain and natural barriers already in place, adding in another, rather straightforward to overcome, barrier into the mix is not going to deter a single person.

Comments like you have made here show absolutely no application of applying any simple common sense at all to your thought or answer.

Not only is my approach based soundly on common sense, but also factually supported, and my location has no bearing on that at all.

 

[mustafur]

Scaff isn't wrong, the vast majority of illegals enter the US legally then overstay their visas, very little a wall can do to that.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/6836...tion-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-us

 

[Dotini]

There is or their isn't a law that says ICE agents can board a bus within 100 miles of the border and take off anyone who hasn't got the right papers.

 

[Famine]

There is or their isn't a law that says ICE agents can board a bus within 100 miles of the border and take off anyone who hasn't got the right papers.

There's definitely no point to that post.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

So you only get illegal immigration into the US from your southern border?

Well considering that this discussion is concerning the topic of whether a wall built on our southern border will help our border patrol agents limit the flow of illegals into our country and there is no wall being built on any other of our countries borders then this discussion is apparently focused on the southern border point of entry so your comment is relevant to this countries other or different geographical border illegal entry problem of this country how?

Not only is my approach based soundly on common sense,

Joke of the day right there bud!

my location has no bearing on that at all.

It does if you do not understand the issues that are actually occurring and the actual problems that need to be solved. You try to act like an authority on U.S immigration issues that you really do not understand.
That would be like me trying to act like an authority on the train wreck your country calls Brexit when I have no idea of how it may affect some individual British citizens.
My opinion your country did not make the smartest choice by ever giving up your nations control to outside sources on some decisions that could affect your nations policies in a negative way and may not have your countries best interest at heart to begin with, but yet I am supposed to consider your opinion as gospel or even relevant when it comes to my own nation making decisions that are in its best interest? Riiiight!!!!!

Scaff isn't wrong, the vast majority of illegals enter the US legally then overstay their visas, very little a wall can do to that.

But the conversation on the wall is limited to only the multiple thousands of illegals that enter this country by that border by foot and wheeled transportation. No one has said that is the only method or mode of illegal entry into this country.

If you expand the conversation though back to ICE and sanctuary cities and legal immigration laws and enforcement and deportations then you are dealing with removing and deporting illegal aliens regardless of how or where they entered the country and whether they are here for overstayed visa's or sneaking across the border.

Our immigration laws and a person being in this country illegally does not change whether such illegal is in Indiana 500 miles from the closest border of our country or in Texas within spitting range of the border, if they are here illegally they should be deported period.

 

[Scaff]

Well considering that this discussion is concerning the topic of whether a wall built on our southern border will help our border patrol agents limit the flow of illegals into our country and there is no wall being built on any other of our countries borders then this discussion is apparently focused on the southern border point of entry so your comment is relevant to this countries other or different geographical border illegal entry problem of this country how?

It's rather important given that the money spent could be used far more effectively to manage immigration and borders that a wall, which again has been covered repeatedly.

Joke of the day right there bud!

Odd then that you are not able to demonstrate this.

It does if you do not understand the issues that are actually occurring and the actual problems that need to be solved. You try to act like an authority on U.S immigration issues that you really do not understand.
That would be like me trying to act like an authority on the train wreck your country calls Brexit when I have no idea of how it may affect some individual British citizens.
My opinion your country did not make the smartest choice by ever giving up your nations control to outside sources on some decisions that could affect your nations policies in a negative way and may not have your countries best interest at heart to begin with, but yet I am supposed to consider your opinion as gospel or even relevant when it comes to my own nation making decisions that are in its best interest? Riiiight!!!!!

But the conversation on the wall is limited to only the multiple thousands of illegals that enter this country by that border by foot and wheeled transportation. No one has said that is the only method or mode of illegal entry into this country.

If you expand the conversation though back to ICE and sanctuary cities and legal immigration laws and enforcement and deportations then you are dealing with removing and deporting illegal aliens regardless of how or where they entered the country and whether they are here for overstayed visa's or sneaking across the border.

I have family in the US, in Texas and Alabama specifically, as such It not a topic I am unaware of or have had many discussions about. You really, really shouldn't make assumptions.

Our immigration laws and a person being in this country illegally does not change whether such illegal is in Indiana 500 miles from the closest border of our country or in Texas within spitting range of the border, if they are here illegally they should be deported period.

And a wall achieves neither of these things, particularly as it doesn't cover the entire length of the border and can be defeated in minutes (if not quicker).

 

[Famine]

It does if you do not understand the issues that are actually occurring and the actual problems that need to be solved.

Your own location flag says you're in "central" Virginia. That's also pretty far removed from the border with Mexico - 1,350 miles at its shortest (and that's in the sea), "so you may not understand or comprehend" the issues affecting people who actually live on the border.

Guess you should ignore yourself as not having any idea about the issues on the border too and only listen to those members from Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona. Not least because you compared it to an open field, when most of it is a river, a lot of it is desert and mountain, and most of the bits where it's land already has a border fence even when it's mountain...

 

[Rallywagon]

I mean, if locality to the border is the weight and measure of this debate, then you can take a seat VFourMax1. I was stationed at fort bliss, El Paso tax for nearly 4 years. I was part of the service and recovery squad, I have spent a lot of time around the mexico border. A lot more time than you to be sure. Border patrol cannot cover the entirity of the cali/Mexico border, much less the Texas/Mexico border which is far, far larger.
We also had this really cool, really cheap device we used for cutting steel called an oxylance. All you need is a small bottle of oxygen, a couple of rods, the holder and a battery. It will cut a door shaped hole in any of these barriers, including those designed with concrete in the middle, in short order. Someone can show up at night, cut a quick hole, and people passing through in less than 5 minutes. A wall is about the most useless (and probably most expensive) tool we can utilize to protect our border.
As for how most illegals get here. Once again, you are very wrong. So, unless you have more experience than myself, or more knowledge on the situation than DHS I suggest you take your own advise and step yourself out of this conversation.

 

[Biggles]

@Scaff @Imari Perhaps a better way would be to ignore or circumvent the existing law? Or can you describe a way out of the problem which does not violate the law?

Well, the first step might be not to pretend that the present arrangement is a thing of "beauty", but acknowledge that it's extremely irrational & inequitable. The irritating thing about Americans is the way their sense of identity is tied up with believing their country - & its constitution - is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Anyone with an iota of intellectual discernment can see that the electoral system in the United States has serious problems. The concept makes sense in principle, but the execution is deeply flawed.

 

[Dotini]

Well, the first step might be not to pretend that the present arrangement is a thing of "beauty", but acknowledge that it's extremely irrational & inequitable. The irritating thing about Americans is the way their sense of identity is tied up with believing their country - & its constitution - is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Anyone with an iota of intellectual discernment can see that the electoral system in the United States has serious problems. The concept makes sense in principle, but the execution is deeply flawed.

I grant you have serious concerns about our system of government, and would like to change it. But how? Would you dissolve the Constitution?

 

[Danoff]

I grant you have serious concerns about our system of government, and would like to change it. But how? Would you dissolve the Constitution?

I feel like we've discussed this before.

 

[Dotini]

I feel like we've discussed this before.

Right away in your wiki we see this:
"Certain legal questions, however, may affect implementation of the compact."

Really, these legal questions should be addressed before embarking on such a course.

 

[Rallywagon]

Right away in your wiki we see this:
"Certain legal questions, however, may affect implementation of the compact."

Really, these legal questions should be addressed before embarking on such a course.

Uhhh, duh. Anything that amends the constitution is going to have legal questions that needing sorting through.

 

[huskeR32]

Perhaps neither way is intrinsically or absolutely right or wrong. But the way the way it is, is the way prescribed in the Constitution. By marshaling a convincing argument and obtaining the necessary majority votes, the Constitution can always be changed. That is the beauty of our system.

Must you post this every time somebody mentions the Electoral College? We're all aware that it would take a Constitutional Amendment to change.

My post was asking @VFOURMAX1 to address some rather glaring flaws in his one-sided position (which he has unsurprisingly dodged yet again).

 

[Danoff]

Right away in your wiki we see this:
"Certain legal questions, however, may affect implementation of the compact."

Really, these legal questions should be addressed before embarking on such a course.

Those legal questions don't seem like much of a hurdle. I would expect the interstate popular vote compact to be challenged after implementation, and to be upheld at the supreme court. Now, you never know what the supremes will do, but I'd expect, given the way electors are treated today, that the compact would be completely legal.

Keep in mind that different states use electors differently. And the idea of a faithless elector is legit.

Uhhh, duh. Anything that amends the constitution is going to have legal questions that needing sorting through.

This doesn't require a constitutional change.

 

[PocketZeven]

Perhaps neither way is intrinsically or absolutely right or wrong. But the way the way it is, is the way prescribed in the Constitution. By marshaling a convincing argument and obtaining the necessary majority votes, the Constitution can always be changed. That is the beauty of our system.

At the same time, the flaw is that because the way its defined in the constitution it rarely ever gets changed. It baffled me that the equal rights amendment never got rattified.

 

[Rallywagon]

Those legal questions don't seem like much of a hurdle. I would expect the interstate popular vote compact to be challenged after implementation, and to be upheld at the supreme court. Now, you never know what the supremes will do, but I'd expect, given the way electors are treated today, that the compact would be completely legal.

Keep in mind that different states use electors differently. And the idea of a faithless elector is legit.



This doesn't require a constitutional change.

If the idea is to move away from the electoral college it does.

 

[Danoff]

If the idea is to move away from the electoral college it does.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Read up on the national popular vote interstate compact. It uses the electoral college to implement a popular vote. Virginia just signed on like a few weeks ago.

Edit:

In fact, if I'm reading that chart right, they actually have 209 of the 270 needed EVs.

Edit:

Maybe it's only partly through VA.

 

[Rallywagon]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Read up on the national popular vote interstate compact. It uses the electoral college to implement a popular vote. Virginia just signed on like a few weeks ago.

Edit:

In fact, if I'm reading that chart right, they actually have 209 of the 270 needed EVs.

Wasnt this whole talk started on the premise of getting rid of the electoral college?

 

[Danoff]

Wasnt this whole talk started on the premise of getting rid of the electoral college?

It effectively does. It uses the EC to get rid of the EC without changing the constitution.

 

[PocketZeven]

It effectively does. It uses the EC to get rid of the EC without changing the constitution.

It seems like wishfull thinking.

 

[Danoff]

It seems like wishfull thinking.

How so? I just researched it in Virginia a little bit, and it looks like the democrats have control to ultimately pass it there. Which would mean that there are already signatories for 209 of the 270 needed electoral votes. All that is needed is another 61 electoral votes from states where the legislation is pending (and it is pending in way more states than that), to get enough to put the compact into effect and result in a popular vote for the presidency.

 

[Biggles]

I grant you have serious concerns about our system of government, and would like to change it. But how? Would you dissolve the Constitution?

As I wrote: a good place to start would be to stop pretending that it's perfect. Admittedly, many other countries (eg the UK & Canada) have electoral systems that are irrational & inequitable. Fixing those problems has also proved elusive. The US system is particularly intractable because the mechanism by which to fix it is in the hands of entities that have a deeply vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

I have never read anything about how the process by which new states came into being & what the attitude to those states was in the established states with large populations. Obviously, it was a major source of conflict in the events that led to the Civil War, but after the war, as more states were created in the west, what was the attitude in the eastern states that saw their political influence increasingly diluted?

 

[VFOURMAX1]

My post was asking @VFOURMAX1 to address some rather glaring flaws in his one-sided position (which he has unsurprisingly dodged yet again)

Why is the inverse any better?

How is it wrong for the more heavily-populated areas to "make rules for" the rest of the country, but okay for the lightly-populated areas to do so instead?

Seriously, besides neatly aligning with your personal bias, what is any better about it?

No one is dodging anything, the truth is no matter how I answer your question your opinion will not change so really why bother and waste my time.
But for the sake of entertainment the current system does what it is capable of to give a voice to all members of society and the differences that their regions have on those lifestyles because of those differences.
A life long urbanite that lives in New York city has no clue as to what a rancher faces in Wyoming or what a farmer in rural Mississippi faces as far as issues or needs out their government just like those same people have no idea what a New York city or L.A. city dweller faces and what they consider the main needs from its government.
Population numbers alone in small highly populated geographical areas should not decide who leads this nation while not considering the voices of those in more open areas of the country.

A wall is about the most useless (and probably most expensive) tool we can utilize to protect our border.
As for how most illegals get here. Once again, you are very wrong. So, unless you have more experience than myself, or more knowledge on the situation than DHS

Well again it seems that the border patrol agents who are the leading pointy end of the spear concerning the southern border disagree and think that the wall will be a useful tool for controlling sections of that border.
I do not think anyone here on this board really has the knowledge or experience of controlling the situation to override the opinions of those that this is how they make their lively hood and have studied this issue for decades.

 

[PocketZeven]

How so? I just researched it in Virginia a little bit, and it looks like the democrats have control to ultimately pass it there. Which would mean that there are already signatories for 209 of the 270 needed electoral votes. All that is needed is another 61 electoral votes from states where the legislation is pending (and it is pending in way more states than that), to get enough to put the compact into effect and result in a popular vote for the presidency.

I am pessimistic and suspect republicans will do anything in their power to prevent this from happening.

 

[Dotini]

As I wrote: a good place to start would be to stop pretending that it's perfect. Admittedly, many other countries (eg the UK & Canada) have electoral systems that are irrational & inequitable. Fixing those problems has also proved elusive. The US system is particularly intractable because the mechanism by which to fix it is in the hands of entities that have a deeply vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

I have never read anything about how the process by which new states came into being & what the attitude to those states was in the established states with large populations. Obviously, it was a major source of conflict in the events that led to the Civil War, but after the war, as more states were created in the west, what was the attitude in the eastern states that saw their political influence increasingly diluted?

Obviously there was an almighty war between the states as a result of constitutional differences. I worry that states which perceive themselves as disenfranchised of their constitutional rights pursuant to activation of the NPV compact between some states could lead to a constitutional crisis. This might start as a lawsuit leading to the Supreme Court while, pending adjudication, any election results would be challenged, disputed or defied. Hopefully not by violence.