The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Do they really think that, somehow, they are smarter then the legislators who served before them? Or are they such shallow people who are perfectly comfortable when a change favors their cause for the moment?

I think it's technology and such that has made this possible RJB. 200 years ago the EC was necessary becuase nationwide popular votes would have taken forever.

I don't have a problem with this...I think the popular vote winner should win the election...I've never liked the EC.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

And then he spoke a line - quite loudly - that may come back to haunt him: "Corporations are people, too."

If he really believes that, doesn't that make him a serial killer?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Hi, Map. The Popular Vote (PV) vs Electoral Vote (EV) debate has been going on for decades. Both sides, I guess, have made cogent arguments. I am sticking with EV's.
Census data from 2010 shows that the populations of just 3 states (CA, TX and NY) make up about 25%.
Add in 6 more states (FL, IL, PA, OH, MI & GA) and get to 50% of our population. 9 states = 50% of the population.
It takes 11 more states to get to 75% and 30-34 to get to 100%.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

That's why I look at it as city vs. country, instead of state vs. state. The truth is that the vast majority of Americans live in urban areas, but rural areas and states have proportionally just as much power as everyone else due to the EV system. That would end under the national popular vote.

Which might not be such a bad thing, this city dweller sez; perhaps we could stop supporting rural areas constantly with our tax dollars.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

That kind of post, Cyclo, is exactly what I am talking about re the EV vs PV.
I found 2000 census data showing that, of a total of 285Mn population, 226Mn are classified as urban and 59Mn as rural. It troubles me that politicians could focus on a geographically narrow footprint of the country. It troubles me that there might be a single politician who could run and win on a single hot-button issue without the rest of the country having any chance to affect the outcome.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Doesn't the EV distribution across all the states look the same though? Don't the total EVs for CA, NY, and TX equal 25% of the total EV vote? I'd look it up but I'm mobile right now.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

perhaps we could stop supporting rural areas constantly with our tax dollars.

Just remember, its the rural areas that grow your food, raise the beef you eat, and provide the wool for your suits.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

Just remember, its the rural areas that grow your food, raise the beef you eat, and provide the wool for your suits.

They also get substantial incentives not to grow your food, not to raise the beef you eat and not provide the wool for your suits.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
perhaps we could stop supporting rural areas constantly with our tax dollars.

Just remember, its the rural areas that grow your food, raise the beef you eat, and provide the wool for your suits.

You're correct, and it's a huge dis-service to these areas that the true cost of doing this type of business is not realized by consumers; in large part because of these subsidies.

I'd rather pay the true price for all those things, then support a system which subsidizes some who don't need it one bit while ignoring others, all based on political favors and influence and pork.

What more, it's entirely true that the more rural an area is, the more likely to be conservative it is. Irregardless of whether we are subsidizing those areas financially (which we do), it places a disproportionate amount of cultural influence with that group, when it comes to lawmaking.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Did anyone else watch the debate tonight?

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Why would I waste my time listening to a bunch of lying politicians do what they do naturally. LIE!!!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I watched some of it. I still like Huntsman and would probably vote for him over Obama. I also liked some of Ron Paul' answers but I'd vote for Obama over Paul.

1 Reply

@JPB,

Do you agree with Huntsman statement about the EPA reign of terror?

Quote:

Last night, in the Republican presidential campaign debate, retired ambassador Jon Huntsman repeated referred to what he called “the EPA’s reign of terror”.

A quick review of what the phrase “reign of terror” usually refers to: In the Reign of Terror, in 18th century France, people were rounded up in large numbers, accused of being enemies of the state, and then, without trial, taken to public squares to have their heads chopped off in front of crowds containing children.

What has the Environmental Protection Agency done that’s comparable to that?

If there really is an EPA reign of terror, then there ought to be huge numbers of people across the United States with stories of terror to tell.

Readers: If you believe in what Jon Huntsman described last night, educate me about this EPA reign of terror. Tell me about the terror you have yourself suffered at the hands of the EPA.

source

1 Reply

@revelette,

No, I wouldn't use that phrase but I agree that Joe Q Public doesn't grasp the cost of regulation. I work in a regulated industry and know firsthand what working with regulators is like. It's easy to call for more regulations but then we end up with bureaucratic morasses that are nearly impossible to wade through. Do we need the EPA? Of course we do. I can't assess whether dealing with them has been a "terror" because that's not the agency Ive dealt with, but I can understand the premise of the statement.

1 Reply

@JPB,

Quote:

Do we need the EPA? Of course we do

.

I agree.

2 Replies

@revelette,

http://news.yahoo.com/missed-while-not-watching-iowa-gop-debate-083602735.html

0 Replies

@revelette,

One thing to keep in mind is that regulation isn't a black and white affair. The government agencies are charged with the task of protecting us from undo harm at the hands of those who would otherwise run amok. Some agencies take the opinion that everyone is intent on running amok and they are the guys in white fighting against evil. Other agencies take a more balanced approach pursuing policies that accept that we're all in this together and we need to do the best we can within the limitations of what can reasonably be accomplished. I have no experience with the EPA to have a feel for the approach they take.

I mentioned the cost of regulation in my previous post. In some cases, the regulatory hoops that are created are so cumbersome (i.e., costly) that they eliminate all but the largest players from participating. We complain about Big Pharma, Big Oil, and Big Banks but they truly are the only entities that have the resources to meet the regulatory demands that we put on them.

We also tend to assume that the agencies themselves are organized, efficient, and on the right path when any close inspection of government bureaucracies should shoot that assumption down immediately.

1 Reply

@JPB,

Quote:

Some agencies take the opinion that everyone is intent on running amok and they are the guys in white fighting against evil. Other agencies take a more balanced approach pursuing policies that accept that we're all in this together and we need to do the best we can within the limitations of what can reasonably be accomplished.

I think this depends in large part on how much bribery is going on. The more there is, the more likely you are to have the second group.

I WANT my regulators to see themselves as white knights, because American businesses have proven - time and time again - that they simply cannot and should not be trusted to do the right thing without being aggressively forced to do so. Corporations here regularly lie, cheat, steal, defraud the government, mislead their partners and clients, pollute rampantly, and try and bribe their way out of everything they possibly can. We NEED aggressive regulators.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Actually, in my experience, it depends more on the political outlook of the individual in charge of the agency. Some of the folks I used to deal with left their agency when a new head came in and changed the focus from "we're all in this together to do what's best for Americans" to "they're all a bunch of scumbags and it's our job to prove it." They'd been working alongside us for decades and knew we weren't scumbags any more than they were.

1 Reply

@JPB,

Surely you are far from the only company who is being regulated by this group, and you recognize that many of your fellow companies are indeed scumbags.

Quote:

They'd been working alongside us for decades and knew we weren't scumbags any more than they were.

A carefully ambiguous statement, this one.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know