BIden stumbles up stairs versus Biden goes to thank pilots

[thyme4change]

Aug 7, 2024 14:58:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

Aug 7, 2024 12:27:42 GMT -5 bean29 said:

I like the idea of a maximum age to run for office.  Personally Both Trump and Biden were too old to run.  Their parties put them up, and we all had to choose between the two.  Most democratic voters I talk to don't seem to have as much of an issue with the party choosing Kamala Harris without a primary election.  I was concerned about Biden slowing down, doubted his ability to complete a four year term, but I was still going to vote for him.  I always liked Kamala, I have no issues/doubts about her ability to lead the United States of America.  I can't stand Trump.  I am amazed he has so many people fooled about his character. 

I think there should be something done with the supreme court.  I have seen some proposals.  Staying on the Supreme Court until you die, meh, I think we could have a better plan.  and we need to have teeth in the Ethics/Recusal Rules and stop letting them accept bribes from Rich People with an agenda.

I do not like a maximum age at this time because things are always changing like what is happening and current life expectancy. 

To be elected one needs name recognition and a party machine behind them to get the votes and very importantly get the voters to turn out so a win can be achieved. 

Most of the significant life expectancy increases are due to reduction in infant / child mortality. If you could make it to adulthood 200 years ago or today, the chances you make it past 80 are pretty close to the same.

That said - the only way we can put a max age on the presidency is a constitutional amendment - and that ain’t happening. The young people just have to exert power.

If Harris wins, I hope our voting will skew younger over the next several cycles.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 7, 2024 13:25:29 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Aug 7, 2024 12:57:44 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

There was a primary process for both parties. The voters for either or both parties could have used their votes to have a different nominee. You had Dean Phillips (Democrats) and Niki Haley (GOP) as options in New Hampshire as a start.

It was a sham primary for Democrats.

i am not a big fan of primaries.  
our five best presidents had no primaries.
we didn't have primaries for 125 years and did just fine.
and they give the FALSE impression that the people are
choosing the candidates.  they aren't.  it is just another layer of the same Republican electoral college crap

i would rather have direct elections for primaries in June and presidents in November, just like every other office.

#allprimariesareshamprimaries

[billisonboard]

Aug 7, 2024 17:16:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 7, 2024 13:25:29 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

It was a sham primary for Democrats.

i am not a big fan of primaries.  
our five best presidents had no primaries.
we didn't have primaries for 125 years and did just fine.
and they give the FALSE impression that the people are
choosing the candidates.  they aren't.  it is just another layer of the same Republican electoral college crap

i would rather have direct elections for primaries in June and presidents in November, just like every other office.

#allprimariesareshamprimaries

Prior to primaries, party elites selected the candidates (and did just fine?).

A single primary would play to the advantage of the best financed and highest name recognition candidate.

[thyme4change]

Ranked choice voting - all candidates, no parties, no primaries. Image this race if it was Haley, Trump, Biden, Harris and 3 others. We would be in a totally different situation. It would be exciting - and would push more candidates towards the center - where the majority of Americans are.

[billisonboard]

Aug 7, 2024 23:15:27 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Ranked choice voting - all candidates, no parties, no primaries. Image this race if it was Haley, Trump, Biden, Harris and 3 others. We would be in a totally different situation. It would be exciting - and would push more candidates towards the center - where the majority of Americans are.

7 people? We had 28 candidates for governor in yesterday's Washington State primary. I don't see less than 100 for president.

[Opti]

Aug 7, 2024 23:15:27 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Ranked choice voting - all candidates, no parties, no primaries. Image this race if it was Haley, Trump, Biden, Harris and 3 others. We would be in a totally different situation. It would be exciting - and would push more candidates towards the center - where the majority of Americans are.

I don't think it would. Many things come down to name recognition. I think you'd be shocked at how many people do not know any of the candidates except Trump and Biden right now. And there are many people who might identify Kamala by her first name not last, or perhaps by a Trump slur. 

If there are no primaries than how pray tell do the two main candidates get pushed to the middle? A one-shot vote for President frankly seems dangerous and ill-advised.

[djAdvocate]

it would also remove what i call the "third party filter", which would help keep the two major parties in check.

i think it is an excellent idea.

[Opti]

Aug 7, 2024 23:25:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 7, 2024 23:15:27 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Ranked choice voting - all candidates, no parties, no primaries. Image this race if it was Haley, Trump, Biden, Harris and 3 others. We would be in a totally different situation. It would be exciting - and would push more candidates towards the center - where the majority of Americans are.

7 people? We had 28 candidates for governor in yesterday's Washington State primary. I don't see less than 100 for president.

Right? It was all the state primaries and the media coverage that has whittled down the field that you can even say, these seven are the most popular of the candidates on the various state ballots.

This is the first year that NJ's position at the end of primary season made any sense at all to me. 
I looked at this link to see how many Presidential elections I have voted in, since moving to NJ - 9
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elections_in_the_United_States

[Opti]

I need to chill and go to bed since today was almost a total loss except for getting groceries.

There is also ballot design and rules on when things get locked down. This year's primary ballot was super confusing if you were a registered Dem. And it easily could have been just this particular county, IDK, but a candidate for higher office successfully won a court case in NJ which required the change in ballot legally. The GOP layout was what I remembered, and my registered party's side was so confusing to me, that it took me more than 15 minutes to figure out what the heck is going on. I am not the average voter either. I keep the sample ballot in a certain place once I receive it.

The redesign was so it was not obvious visually and I think even by some other measure that you could tell who the official DEM party candidate was.

[scgal]

Aug 7, 2024 17:16:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 7, 2024 13:25:29 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

It was a sham primary for Democrats.

i am not a big fan of primaries.  
our five best presidents had no primaries.
we didn't have primaries for 125 years and did just fine.
and they give the FALSE impression that the people are
choosing the candidates.  they aren't.  it is just another layer of the same Republican electoral college crap

i would rather have direct elections for primaries in June and presidents in November, just like every other office.

#allprimariesareshamprimaries

The electoral college is needed. The presidential election is not a popularity contest. The president must represent the interest of all states not just the few states with the most in them. They could make it simpler though.

[tallguy]

The electoral college is an anachronistic bastardization of American ideals.  It does more to corrupt democracy than it does to establish it. 

[pulmonarymd]

Aug 8, 2024 7:02:00 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 7, 2024 17:16:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am not a big fan of primaries.  
our five best presidents had no primaries.
we didn't have primaries for 125 years and did just fine.
and they give the FALSE impression that the people are
choosing the candidates.  they aren't.  it is just another layer of the same Republican electoral college crap

i would rather have direct elections for primaries in June and presidents in November, just like every other office.

#allprimariesareshamprimaries

The electoral college is needed. The presidential election is not a popularity contest. The president must represent the interest of all states not just the few states with the most in them. They could make it simpler though.

Tell Trump that. He doesn't care about any state that didn't vote for him. When COVID ravaged NYC, he didn't do shit. He(and Jared) wanted to control all the medical assets so he could dole them out at his whim

The fact that a vote in Wyoming is worth significantly more than a vote in California is criminal and antidemocratic. The Senate has more than enough anachronistic rules to ensure that small states get disproportionate influence.

[Opti]

Aug 8, 2024 7:10:01 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The electoral college is an anachronistic bastardization of American ideals.  It does more to corrupt democracy than it does to establish it. 

Now it is used to win elections or cause your opponent to lose. If it does anything close to its original purpose now, it is generally accidental IMO.

[scgal]

Aug 8, 2024 7:33:07 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Aug 8, 2024 7:02:00 GMT -5 scgal said:

The electoral college is needed. The presidential election is not a popularity contest. The president must represent the interest of all states not just the few states with the most in them. They could make it simpler though.

Tell Trump that. He doesn't care about any state that didn't vote for him. When COVID ravaged NYC, he didn't do shit. He(and Jared) wanted to control all the medical assets so he could dole them out at his whim

The fact that a vote in Wyoming is worth significantly more than a vote in California is criminal and antidemocratic. The Senate has more than enough anachronistic rules to ensure that small states get disproportionate influence.

Well I guess I wouldn't like it either if most of my party is in a few states and most of the rest of the states want the opposite party. Come on 270

[pulmonarymd]

Aug 8, 2024 8:54:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 8, 2024 7:33:07 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Tell Trump that. He doesn't care about any state that didn't vote for him. When COVID ravaged NYC, he didn't do shit. He(and Jared) wanted to control all the medical assets so he could dole them out at his whim

The fact that a vote in Wyoming is worth significantly more than a vote in California is criminal and antidemocratic. The Senate has more than enough anachronistic rules to ensure that small states get disproportionate influence.

Well I guess I wouldn't like it either if most of my party is in a few states and most of the rest of the states want the opposite party. Come on 270

And your party keeps losing the popular vote. But sure, favor rules that make you win instead of having policies that people support. When was the last time a Republican won the popular vote in a presidential election?

[tallguy]

Aug 8, 2024 8:54:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 8, 2024 7:33:07 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Tell Trump that. He doesn't care about any state that didn't vote for him. When COVID ravaged NYC, he didn't do shit. He(and Jared) wanted to control all the medical assets so he could dole them out at his whim

The fact that a vote in Wyoming is worth significantly more than a vote in California is criminal and antidemocratic. The Senate has more than enough anachronistic rules to ensure that small states get disproportionate influence.

Well I guess I wouldn't like it either if most of my party is in a few states and most of the rest of the states want the opposite party. Come on 270

Considering that states run by liberals are healthier, wealthier, better-educated, and are net payers of taxes to the federal government while states run by conservatives are sicker, poorer, dumber, and net takers, why should red states get to vote at all?  If we were following the Republican idea of some people being "worthy" while others are not, who is actually worthy of citizenship and the right to vote?     

[billisonboard]

Aug 8, 2024 8:54:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 8, 2024 7:33:07 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Tell Trump that. He doesn't care about any state that didn't vote for him. When COVID ravaged NYC, he didn't do shit. He(and Jared) wanted to control all the medical assets so he could dole them out at his whim

The fact that a vote in Wyoming is worth significantly more than a vote in California is criminal and antidemocratic. The Senate has more than enough anachronistic rules to ensure that small states get disproportionate influence.

Well I guess I wouldn't like it either if most of my party is in a few states and most of the rest of the states want the opposite party. Come on 270

I think this response does a good job of masking the problem with the Electoral College by not using a certain word, i.e. people. It is people who vote and are represented by the President. A "state" is a governmental entity with no ability to "want."

[scgal]

Aug 8, 2024 8:59:22 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Aug 8, 2024 8:54:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

Well I guess I wouldn't like it either if most of my party is in a few states and most of the rest of the states want the opposite party. Come on 270

And your party keeps losing the popular vote. But sure, favor rules that make you win instead of having policies that people support. When was the last time a Republican won the popular vote in a presidential election?

I think it was Bush and your point is? You want to change the rules so your party can win.

[scgal]

Aug 8, 2024 9:19:50 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 8, 2024 8:54:46 GMT -5 scgal said:

Well I guess I wouldn't like it either if most of my party is in a few states and most of the rest of the states want the opposite party. Come on 270

Considering that states run by liberals are healthier, wealthier, better-educated, and are net payers of taxes to the federal government while states run by conservatives are sicker, poorer, dumber, and net takers, why should red states get to vote at all?  If we were following the Republican idea of some people being "worthy" while others are not, who is actually worthy of citizenship and the right to vote?     

Yet more Democrate states owe more money than republican states. So those dumber red states know how to balance a checkbook better than blue states. Yea let those idiots run country. Higher taxes and freebies all freeloaders. 

[tallguy]

Aug 8, 2024 12:10:29 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 8, 2024 9:19:50 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Considering that states run by liberals are healthier, wealthier, better-educated, and are net payers of taxes to the federal government while states run by conservatives are sicker, poorer, dumber, and net takers, why should red states get to vote at all?  If we were following the Republican idea of some people being "worthy" while others are not, who is actually worthy of citizenship and the right to vote?     

Yet more Democrate states owe more money than republican states. So those dumber red states know how to balance a checkbook better than blue states. Yea let those idiots run country. Higher taxes and freebies all freeloaders. 

Easy to do when you all take blue state money....  Hypocrites.  

[pulmonarymd]

Aug 8, 2024 12:04:09 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 8, 2024 8:59:22 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

And your party keeps losing the popular vote. But sure, favor rules that make you win instead of having policies that people support. When was the last time a Republican won the popular vote in a presidential election?

I think it was Bush and your point is? You want to change the rules so your party can win.

My point is that the electoral college is undemocratic. Republicans cannot win elections without it. You want to keep it because you know you cannot win without. You dislike the principle of 1 person=1 vote. As I pointed out, a voter in Wyoming has more power than a voter in California. But you are OK with it because you win.

If we did away with the electoral college, we would get better candidates, and they would need to pay more attention to voters everywhere. Right now, a Republican in NY, and a Democrat in SC have no influence because we know how the electoral votes are going to go. Losing candidates have no need to campaign there. But with popular voting, a small change in percentages in those states could mean the difference between winning and losing, and their votes matter. But that is too difficult a concept for you to grasp.

[tallguy]

Aug 8, 2024 12:22:18 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Aug 8, 2024 12:04:09 GMT -5 scgal said:

I think it was Bush and your point is? You want to change the rules so your party can win.

My point is that the electoral college is undemocratic. Republicans cannot win elections without it. You want to keep it because you know you cannot win without. You dislike the principle of 1 person=1 vote. As I pointed out, a voter in Wyoming has more power than a voter in California. But you are OK with it because you win.

If we did away with the electoral college, we would get better candidates, and they would need to pay more attention to voters everywhere. Right now, a Republican in NY, and a Democrat in SC have no influence because we know how the electoral votes are going to go. Losing candidates have no need to campaign there. But with popular voting, a small change in percentages in those states could mean the difference between winning and losing, and their votes matter. But that is too difficult a concept for you to grasp.

I did the calculations a few years ago.  As I recall, a vote in Wyoming is "worth" about 3.5 times a vote in California.  Also, the population of California was around 39 million, and they received 55 electoral votes.  The combined population of the 23 smallest states including D.C. was about 39 million.  Those states received around 93-95 electoral votes, if I remember correctly.  The Electoral College is, as has been noted, extremely undemocratic.  It is in fact the tyranny of the minority.  It may have been useful back when one was forced to travel between states by either horseback or ship and communication took days or weeks, but it has long since passed its usefulness.  It should be abolished, but small-state Republicans will never do it because they would never win another election in our lifetimes. 

[thyme4change]

States with lower population are overrepresented in national politics. It was a feature in the Senate and the electoral college and a loophole in the house. People in high-population states are underrepresented at every turn.

[thyme4change]

Aug 7, 2024 23:25:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 7, 2024 23:15:27 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Ranked choice voting - all candidates, no parties, no primaries. Image this race if it was Haley, Trump, Biden, Harris and 3 others. We would be in a totally different situation. It would be exciting - and would push more candidates towards the center - where the majority of Americans are.

7 people? We had 28 candidates for governor in yesterday's Washington State primary. I don't see less than 100 for president.

There are rules for third party making it on the ballot. I am sure there are ways to increase the burden to keep it below 10. Maybe you need to gather signatures from 6% of registered voters. Maybe there is a primary that whittles it down. I’m sure there is a solution.

[billisonboard]

Aug 7, 2024 23:15:27 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Ranked choice voting - all candidates, no parties, no primaries. Image this race if it was Haley, Trump, Biden, Harris and 3 others. We would be in a totally different situation. It would be exciting - and would push more candidates towards the center - where the majority of Americans are.

Aug 8, 2024 13:17:37 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Aug 7, 2024 23:25:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

7 people? We had 28 candidates for governor in yesterday's Washington State primary. I don't see less than 100 for president.

There are rules for third party making it on the ballot. I am sure there are ways to increase the burden to keep it below 10. Maybe you need to gather signatures from 6% of registered voters. Maybe there is a primary that whittles it down. I’m sure there is a solution.

So no parties and no primaries after you use parties and primaries to cut down the field?

6% of voters nationwide with no requirement for signatures from all states? 6% of voters from each and every state? 6% of registered voters or 6% of voters from last presidential election? Any idea what type of organization and how much money it would take to get the signatures? How much time and taxpayer's money to verify that many signatures?

I am not impressed with how our limited choices are determined and have pondered greatly on how to improve it. Like your proposal, I tend to see flaws in anything I can come up with. Unlike you, I am not sure there is a solution. 

[scgal]

Aug 8, 2024 12:22:18 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Aug 8, 2024 12:04:09 GMT -5 scgal said:

I think it was Bush and your point is? You want to change the rules so your party can win.

My point is that the electoral college is undemocratic. Republicans cannot win elections without it. You want to keep it because you know you cannot win without. You dislike the principle of 1 person=1 vote. As I pointed out, a voter in Wyoming has more power than a voter in California. But you are OK with it because you win.

If we did away with the electoral college, we would get better candidates, and they would need to pay more attention to voters everywhere. Right now, a Republican in NY, and a Democrat in SC have no influence because we know how the electoral votes are going to go. Losing candidates have no need to campaign there. But with popular voting, a small change in percentages in those states could mean the difference between winning and losing, and their votes matter. But that is too difficult a concept for you to grasp.

Like I said it could be simplified. Without the electoral college the smaller states would be severely underrepresented. I don't care how many millions are in California they shouldn't have anymore say than Kansas. 

[billisonboard]

Aug 8, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 8, 2024 12:22:18 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

My point is that the electoral college is undemocratic. Republicans cannot win elections without it. You want to keep it because you know you cannot win without. You dislike the principle of 1 person=1 vote. As I pointed out, a voter in Wyoming has more power than a voter in California. But you are OK with it because you win.

If we did away with the electoral college, we would get better candidates, and they would need to pay more attention to voters everywhere. Right now, a Republican in NY, and a Democrat in SC have no influence because we know how the electoral votes are going to go. Losing candidates have no need to campaign there. But with popular voting, a small change in percentages in those states could mean the difference between winning and losing, and their votes matter. But that is too difficult a concept for you to grasp.

Like I said it could be simplified. Without the electoral college the smaller states would be severely underrepresented. I don't care how many millions are in California they shouldn't have anymore say than Kansas. 

You keep talking about a governmental entity having a say. They don't "say" anything. It is individuals who have a say. Each individual should have the same say.

[pulmonarymd]

Aug 8, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 8, 2024 12:22:18 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

My point is that the electoral college is undemocratic. Republicans cannot win elections without it. You want to keep it because you know you cannot win without. You dislike the principle of 1 person=1 vote. As I pointed out, a voter in Wyoming has more power than a voter in California. But you are OK with it because you win.

If we did away with the electoral college, we would get better candidates, and they would need to pay more attention to voters everywhere. Right now, a Republican in NY, and a Democrat in SC have no influence because we know how the electoral votes are going to go. Losing candidates have no need to campaign there. But with popular voting, a small change in percentages in those states could mean the difference between winning and losing, and their votes matter. But that is too difficult a concept for you to grasp.

Like I said it could be simplified. Without the electoral college the smaller states would be severely underrepresented. I don't care how many millions are in California they shouldn't have anymore say than Kansas. 

The Constitution starts "We the people". States are not people. And there are millions of republicans in California who have no say in the election because California will vote Democrat. So they should suffer for living in California. Again, why should a vote in Wyoming have more impact on the Presidential election than a vote in California. You still refuse to answer that. It should be 1 person=1 vote. Not 1 person=.65 votes in California, and 1 person= 1 vote in Wyoming. You want the electoral college because a Republican, in their current lunacy, will never win another election without it.

Someone above pointed out how a bunch of states, with a smaller population than California had almost 40 more EV. Yet you think that is fair

[tallguy]

Aug 8, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 8, 2024 12:22:18 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

My point is that the electoral college is undemocratic. Republicans cannot win elections without it. You want to keep it because you know you cannot win without. You dislike the principle of 1 person=1 vote. As I pointed out, a voter in Wyoming has more power than a voter in California. But you are OK with it because you win.

If we did away with the electoral college, we would get better candidates, and they would need to pay more attention to voters everywhere. Right now, a Republican in NY, and a Democrat in SC have no influence because we know how the electoral votes are going to go. Losing candidates have no need to campaign there. But with popular voting, a small change in percentages in those states could mean the difference between winning and losing, and their votes matter. But that is too difficult a concept for you to grasp.

Like I said it could be simplified. Without the electoral college the smaller states would be severely underrepresented. I don't care how many millions are in California they shouldn't have anymore say than Kansas. 

Have you ever once on any subject held a logically defensible position?

[dondubble]

Aug 8, 2024 14:49:00 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 8, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5 scgal said:

Like I said it could be simplified. Without the electoral college the smaller states would be severely underrepresented. I don't care how many millions are in California they shouldn't have anymore say than Kansas. 

Have you ever once on any subject held a logically defensible position?

How could she. She’s a Repo-Con!