Political Let's talk about the Biden family problem.

[mbryson]

I still have to laugh at the candidates and the media crowd NOT focusing on corruption. Seems like the thing they would SHOULD want to do.

Fixed it for you

There's a bunch of crooked assholes in the media and in government. NO ONE KNOWS what's really going on. All that we really know is that we smell a rat. All of us do. We all know something is wrong and the "we the people" keep arguing about who's to blame rather than fixing the issue. "We the People" have power.

Solution: VOTE ALL THE ASSHOLES OUT OF OFFICE and quit WATCHING the drivel on TV....

 

[Cody]

Solution: VOTE ALL THE ASSHOLES OUT OF OFFICE and quit WATCHING the drivel on TV....

Solution Part 1: Remove and/or hard cap the private money from lobbyists/private interest groups in politics.
Solution Part 2: Remove the electoral college and allow the popular vote to stand.
Solution Part 3: VOTE ALL THE ASSHOLES OUT OF OFFICE using a representative and empowered (embiggened if you're a Simpson's fan) popular vote and quit WATCHING the drivel on any very biased news source.
Solution Part 4: Allow a more fairly representative government of the people to work on dismantling the systemic problems that are plaguing our current system. Gerrymandering, private interests control (i.e. business, religious (cough, cough, Utah), non profit's with too much power etc). Attempt to limit or set controls over pharmaceutical and insurance companies that make it so there is simply no good answer for providing affordable and fair access to health care to all citizens. I don't love the idea of governmental control over industry, but I think in a country as big as ours, and as complex as ours, there are industries that probably need some limits put in place for the betterment of our society as a whole.

Everyone is welcome to buy into whatever candidate or party they think represents them. I just find it hard to believe that the majority of American's legitimately identify with either side or candidate. I think the majority of people are a mix of value's that fall somewhere within a standard deviation of center, and our current system does not do a good job of representing those people. IMO.

 

[mbryson]

I'm not sure where I stand on going with the popular vote. The electoral college gives states with smaller populations an actual say rather than getting railroaded by CA and NY. Maybe it should be modified or something but I actually like the electoral college concept. At least that's how I remember the electoral college being explained to us in high school. It seemed to add weight to our being a "Constitutional Republic" rather than an actual "democracy" giving a little more opportunity to the individual that doesn't necessarily want to bow the the "popular" vote. I'm always open for discussion to changing my position

I do agree with most of your other points with the lobbyist being an exception. Sell me on having those leeches at all. (I assume even if they weren't allowed, they might be there anyway and putting them in place just legitimized and regulated them?)

I'd LOVE to find an unbiased news source. In the '80s and early '90s we mostly trusted news. I wonder if the Gulf War ratings and subsequent capitalism that came from the commercial $ derailed CNN or if I was just naïve enough to believe what I saw at the time.

Gerrymandering would be interesting to reset. I'm SURE that needs fixing and not just here in good old UT.

 

[Kevin B.]

Solution Part 2: Remove the electoral college and allow the popular vote to stand.

100% against that. We are currently a union of States and we don't need coastal urban voters imposing big city solutions on smaller inland populations through Executive Orders from their preferred President. Control over most issues should be at the State or local level, and while we have an overpowered Fed then the electoral college is the only thing keeping smaller populations interests in play.

Return control to the States. Put the Presidency back in balance with the other two branches of government and get money out of politics. Fix our electoral and campaign system so that we can have more than two viable political parties. If those things happened, I'd be less opposed to removing the electoral college and going to a straight vote. But right now the Executive Branch and Federal bureaus have too much power for that to be viable IMO.

 

[Corban_White]

Definitely in favor of keeping the electoral college. What we really need to do is get the power back to the states. Get rid of all the federal programs and agencies not specifically authorized by the constitution. DEA, FDA, Department of Education, EPA, Social Security, and on and on. When the govt doesn't have control of so much of our lives everyone has more personal responsibility and accountability. We won't get so fired up about the elections because they don't have the possibility to affect our lives so much.

Also, I think all elected offices should have a term limit of one. Then you elect a person, not a platform.

 

[RockChucker]

As I remember from high school government class, the electoral college is something that was set up because originally all (more of?) the power was with the states. Like was mentioned, this made it so a small state in the midwest didn't get railroaded by CA or NY. I'm all for shrinking the Fed and getting power back to the states and agree with Cody on everything but the electoral college part. Though I have seen some things on ranked voting recently, and it is intriguing to me.

 

[xjtony]

Drop the electoral college and the entire country is subject to the policies California and New York, or other words we would have all been on lockdown since march.

We have a process in place to allow states to have a direct say in constitutional amendments, such as amendments to force term limits or curb federal spending. Its called a constitutional convention or convention of states. Formed when 34 state legislatures sign on, it allows the people to amend the constitution using their states government. Amendments require 38 states to be ratified. Last I looked there were currently 15 states (including Utah) signed on to convene. Honestly I don't believe that most Americans have even heard of this process, and consequently will never pressure their state legislature to convene. Most politicians would consider a convention of states to be a fairly radical approach to government, but when we are talking about court packing, contested elections, attempted kidnapping of officials, entire cities basically succeeding, and taking up arms to either defend the constitution or destroy it, I think that a convention seems like a pretty reasonable at this point. The federal politicians will not act on things like term limits because it does one simple thing: turns them back into public servants and not the wealthy ruling class that they are.

 

[Cody]

100% against that. We are currently a union of States and we don't need coastal urban voters imposing big city solutions on smaller inland populations through Executive Orders from their preferred President. Control over most issues should be at the State or local level, and while we have an overpowered Fed then the electoral college is the only thing keeping smaller populations interests in play.

I see where you're coming from, and agree that some state/local power should be restored. But, whether you agree with it or not, I have a hard time philosophically separating myself form the idea that a popular vote should always represent the greater population. We're not voting by acreage, we're voting by voice and like or or not, we're only going to get more population density. I don't like the power a motivated population base in Florida, California, Texas, or NY could have in a national election, but I also don't think my vote is more or less valuable than an individual that just happens to live in those places. We may not have a lot in common being this far from each other, but we have one important thing in common. We're all equally citizens of the United States.

Return control to the States. Put the Presidency back in balance with the other two branches of government and get money out of politics. Fix our electoral and campaign system so that we can have more than two viable political parties. If those things happened, I'd be less opposed to removing the electoral college and going to a straight vote. But right now the Executive Branch and Federal bureaus have too much power for that to be viable IMO.

I think the money out of politics is the reset that needs to occur before any real change can happen. And, like you said, with some restored state power to control issues more locally, the electoral isn't protecting you.

...the lobbyist being an exception. Sell me on having those leeches at all. (I assume even if they weren't allowed, they might be there anyway and putting them in place just legitimized and regulated them/

I think that if lobbyists were just there to represent interests, they are fine. Not backed by millions of dollars or kickbacks. Just "hey xyz
company or group or people think this way and are impacted by this decision this way and want to be sure they are heard and understood" I know personally, I don't have time or the knowledge to get up to the hill to speak my mind, but if me and 100 like minded businesses want to pay Seymour Beers to go convey our message, I don't see that as a problem. If Seymour Beer offered a fat little 10 million kickback and greased the wheels to get some privileged degenerate brat into college, that's a problem.

 

[nnnnnate]

If the popular vote favored the conservatives would you guys be okay dropping the electorate? When it comes down to it you want things to be fair right?

Like when Scalia died in February 2016 and Obama did what presidents do and he nominated a someone to fill that seat. But wait, its an election year, we can't allow a liberal president to add an other liberal justice to the SC. Let the people decide. Wait for the election. Its different this year though. Because we have the senate and the president, right? Everything we said about letting the people decide we didn't actually mean.

 

[mbryson]

If the popular vote favored the conservatives would you guys be okay dropping the electorate? When it comes down to it you want things to be fair right?

Like when Scalia died in February 2016 and Obama did what presidents do and he nominated a someone to fill that seat. But wait, its an election year, we can't allow a liberal president to add an other liberal justice to the SC. Let the people decide. Wait for the election. Its different this year though. Because we have the senate and the president, right? Everything we said about letting the people decide we didn't actually mean.

Honestly, I would be. I remember debating my history teacher about this same thing. I was against the electoral college. He had a pretty convincing argument for keeping it.

As far as judges on the Supreme Court, that's a whole different can of worms. Should justices be "legislating from the bench" or "enforcing the constitution" and putting the onus of making actual laws back to the legislative branch? In my opinion, the judges should be 100% Constitutional based. The legislative branch is there to make the laws representative of their constituents, not their own interests/benefit. (Isn't it amazing how almost ALL legislators go into office with "x" net worth and are suddenly worth ($,$$$$,$$$$.$$) net worth and their salaries are $200k. Must be some amazing financial planning going on in the legislative branch?)

 

[mbryson]

When Does the Electoral College Vote?

Electors meet on Dec. 14 this year to fulfill their role the presidential election, an anomaly in the American voting system. The WSJ offers an Electoral College primer.

www.wsj.com

 

[Kevin B.]

If the popular vote favored the conservatives would you guys be okay dropping the electorate? When it comes down to it you want things to be fair right?

Like when Scalia died in February 2016 and Obama did what presidents do and he nominated a someone to fill that seat. But wait, its an election year, we can't allow a liberal president to add an other liberal justice to the SC. Let the people decide. Wait for the election. Its different this year though. Because we have the senate and the president, right? Everything we said about letting the people decide we didn't actually mean.

Please don't throw up strawmen. I absolutely would not be in favor of dropping the electoral college no matter which party had the popular vote majority. It's there for exactly the reason that the progressives don't want it there right now, to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

The Senate has the power to approve or deny the President's nomination of Supreme Court Justices. McConnell was wrong to not allow Senate hearings on Garland, but let's not pretend that that was going to go any other way. Garland was not middle-of-the-road enough to pass a Senate controlled by conservatives, and Obama knew it before he nominated him. That was a political stunt from start to finish. It's stupid that the SC has been politicized, it's stupid that the Republicans didn't allow hearings and then confirm or deny Garland the way that they're supposed to, it's stupid that liberals are bitching about it now that Trump gets three SC noms and it's insane that some of them think that packing the court is the solution.

DC is full of little kids on both sides playing poorly with others and throwing temper tantrums when they don't get their way. So tired of two party politics.

 

[Spork]

If the popular vote favored the conservatives would you guys be okay dropping the electorate? When it comes down to it you want things to be fair right?

Like when Scalia died in February 2016 and Obama did what presidents do and he nominated a someone to fill that seat. But wait, its an election year, we can't allow a liberal president to add an other liberal justice to the SC. Let the people decide. Wait for the election. Its different this year though. Because we have the senate and the president, right? Everything we said about letting the people decide we didn't actually mean.

Obama nominated Merrick Garland. Trump nominated Amy Barrett. If Obama had the votes in the senate he would have got his through. Election year doesn't mean jack if the President has the votes they can push it through. If they don't have the votes we can make up all kind of stuff but they still don't have the votes they aren't going to get it through.

 

[Herzog]

Scalia... Podestas. Wetworks... Good hell... that reminded me of something:

RE: Thanks - WikiLeaks

From: elmendorf@teamsubjectmatter.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com I am all in Sounds like it will be a bad nite we all need to buckle up and double down From John Podesta mailto john.podesta gmail.com Sent Tuesday February 09 2016 4 36 PM To Steve Elmendorf elmendorf teamsubjectmatter.com...

wikileaks.org

Where did Scalia die and when? Date stamps?

 

[nnnnnate]

it's stupid that liberals are bitching about it now

I'll keep that quote on speed dial then. Cause ain't nothing better for the right wing media than a liberal socialist in office. Right? I have a feeling that there will be plenty of bitching to go around from the other side.

If Obama had the votes in the senate he would have got his through.

Whether he had the votes or not Mitch said he wasn't going to allow ANY nominee to go to the floor. How can you say he wouldn't have made it though when he wasn't given the chance. Do you think that maybe there *could* have been the votes there and he just wasn't going to risk it so the vote never happened?

If we're going to talk about all the issues with Bidens family maybe its also fair to talk about Donald Jr being coked out at the RNC. Should we talk about that? Perhaps Biden should have asked Chester about that in the debate?

 

[nnnnnate]

Wikileaks? Really? Putin thanks you for reading his propaganda.

 

[Spork]

Whether he had the votes or not Mitch said he wasn't going to allow ANY nominee to go to the floor. How can you say he wouldn't have made it though when he wasn't given the chance. Do you think that maybe there *could* have been the votes there and he just wasn't going to risk it so the vote never happened?

I think Obama dropped the ball on Garland. I believe he lacked the desire and will to push it through. I think he avoided the fight because Hillary was ahead in all the poles and it could just wait until she was in and then she can continue the push or pick someone of her own. He was nominated in March 2016, 8 months before the election and he didn't do anything after Mitch told him no. He already had two successful appointees, (Kagen and Sotomayor) and quite frankly I believe was just punching the clock until retirement. I think Garland was far more moderate than his previous appointees and actually had a chance if Obama would have pushed.

 

[Kevin B.]

I'll keep that quote on speed dial then.

For me? Don't bother, I bitch all the time about everything.

If we're going to talk about all the issues with Bidens family maybe its also fair to talk about Donald Jr being coked out at the RNC. Should we talk about that? Perhaps Biden should have asked Chester about that in the debate?

Fair's fair. Drag them all out in the sun.

 

[Cody]

If the popular vote favored the conservatives would you guys be okay dropping the electorate? When it comes down to it you want things to be fair right?

Why wouldn't I be? I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Maybe you weren't talking to me.

But obviously I would be 100% ok dropping the electorate regardless of which party would win, since I tried to convey that I think every citizen in every state should have the right to have their vote counted equally amongst their peers. I believe in the power of large numbers. Population data. The larger the data set, the more I trust the data. I honestly believe that in many states, Utah being one of them, tens of thousands of potential voters don't cast a ballot because they feel disenfranchised by the electoral system.I certainly don't think it would be enough to swing this state any time in my lifetime, but if every non-battle ground state that is a lost cause to one party or another, were to increase their turnout by even 5-10% by removing the disenfranchised feeling the electoral system creates in the political minority, then I believe in the outcome of the elections even more--regardless of whether I agree with it. I also believe that begins to open the door for a true independent too.

I'm neither republican nor democrat. I try to make up my own mind based on the values that I think are right. On some things, I definitely lean conservative (environmental rights, state power, a healthy smattering of fiscal policy, gun rights etc) and on some things I lean more liberal (most social causes, medical research etc). The more representative of the people the election can become, the more I would support it and I think the electoral college suppresses voter turnout. I don't for a single second believe that the loudest voices on either side represent the majority of people either. I think the opposite, and I hope we can find a system that allows more people to feel like their involvement in the system directly benefits America more than it forces them to align with extremism on either side of the two party system. It shouldn't create an us vs. them system. It's all us.

 

[Herzog]

Wikileaks? Really? Putin thanks you for reading his propaganda.

hahahaha wow... you seriously have no clue.