The Right Side of the News

How McCarthyesque of you!Your fiscal concerns are both smokescreen and excuse for the hatred and contempt you hold for your fellow man. There are people hurting in this country and around the world, and instead of asking what we can do for them that is within our resources you summarily turn your back on them.Since you brought up Barr's honesty in a recent post, let's talk about your own, specifically about your little fib about your financial situation that I noted in (Message 5185), which you ignored. You stated that you're one of the people who need help and that you dream of ways of making more money (Message 4721), and you've contrarily stated that you you're doing fine (Message 5174). Which is it? And the larger point: How can anyone trust anything you say?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add parentheses.

Good grief it's dangerous trying to talk to you. I don't know how you manage to twist everything I say but you have an amazing knack for it.Because I hate Communism therefore I have no concerns for my suffering fellow human beings? Huh? Yes I'm fairly McCarthyesque I suppose. Communism is definitely UnAmerican as the committee name said, contrary to everything that built America into the prosperous free nation we became, which has had the ability to be of help to people all over the world. In my opinion it's only when America is America that we are able to help people who are suffering, and if we degenerate into a third world swamp like Venezuela due to Communist/socialist influence we won't be any good to ourselves let alone anyone else. But that isn't the subject here, you managed to equate topics that I'm not equating.I apparently missed something about a "fib" of mine? I'll go look it up after I post this. I'll see if I can figure out what sort of mangled mess you made of something I said then, but for the moment I'll just say I get help from the government because I need it, I appreciate what I get and am able to live off it as long as I stick to a fairly limited lifestyle, which isn't a big problem for me. I believe I also mentioned that I've been told I could get more but I'm not greedy. BUT I also do daydream about making money and getting off it altogether. Where's the contradiction you seem to see in that?I will now go and try to decipher whatever mangled mess you made of something I said somewhere.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, here is that post where you accuse me of "fibbing." You write so many posts and at such length I just overlook a lot of it. Sometimes I'll pick up on a sentence or two if the whole thing is too much to handle. Anyway, one point before I get to the "fib:" I was making the simple point that I thought we all knew, that America is known for our prosperity including a poorest class that is better off than the poor in most other nations, and our freedoms. A lot of it had to do with some people making great wealth which benefited the entire nation. Which isn't to deny problems associated with that but that's another subject I don't want to get into here.I can't even begin to try to address what you made of what I said. I was not "complaining" by the way, simply stating the facts of my financial situation. I didn't mean to suggest it's not enough. It's very little but it's enough, I do OK. Yes it's entitlement programs I'm on. Yes. I didn't intend to mislead in any way. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The United States is not bankrupt. A country is only bankrupt when it is unable to pay its debts. US Treasury Bonds are rated AAA (the highest rating), and the US is having no trouble making payments on them. They are backed by the full power and authority of the US government and its ability to tax. The percent of the US budget dedicated to debt service is around 10.1% right now.It would be much more accurate to say that we owe a great deal of money to our bondholders. The national debt is now $23.3 trillion, but it is not a record relative to GDP. This graph shows the national debt form 1940 to 2016 and is adjusted for inflation: Under the Trump administration the annual deficit has increased rapidly, unusual in a healthy economy: The annual deficit decreased in 6 out of 8 of the Obama years. It has increased each year of the Trump presidency.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Google search returned a UK image for a US search, fixed it.

I've seen many argue that getting rid of the electoral college would make California and New York too powerful.This is ignorant. Currently Republican voters in CA, NY and others are ignored because of the Electoral College/Winner Take All scheme. But a change to a Popular vote would give them a vote that gets counted. Similarly a vote by a Democrat in Wyoming would get counted. Changing to a Popular vote gives each and every voter 1 vote.

The whole point of the Electoral College is to level the playing field. Of course some votes don't count but that's the whole point, to give more weight to other voters who would otherwise be ignored, and those are in the areas of least population. This is one of the ways it is clear that the Founders were not in favor of a democracy, which they considered to be mob rule. They didn't want each vote to count, they wanted bodies of voters to count that would otherwise be disenfranchised.Groups do tend to vote as blocs, and big cities are always going to overshadow the voters in "flyover country" without the protection of the Electoral College. The Founders knew that city people and rural people are not going to agree on many candidates and issues and tried to make the system fairer to the rural areas which would otherwise be overwhelmed all the time by the big cities. No system is going to be perfect but this one is a lot fairer than the popular vote tyranny.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah, what the electoral college does is give a lot of power to that very thin slice of voters who may go either way in the very few swing states.All voters in California, even the Democrats, can be ignored since the California vote is already determined.All voters in Mississippi, even the Republicans, can be ignored since that state's vote is pretty much determined.Most voters in, say, Wisconsin can be ignored since who matters are the 1% or 2% of Wisconsin voters who can swing either way and bring their state's entire electoral votes with them.

I will be the first one to say we need checks and balances to prevent the majority from enacting policies based on momentary whims and fears.But surely the way to do this isn't to give a minority control of the government? What protects the majority when its a minority which is behaving like a mob?

I think there may be a problem with the whole idea of a "majority" and a "minority" since I think the Founders were more interested in giving everybody in the country an equal voice and this is one way they tried to do that. They strongly wanted to preserve states' rights, and didn't want the big states to overwhelm the small states.I don't think the "minority" CAN behave as a mob, I don't see how they have "control of the government" in any situation. If the principle of the electoral college is working all that happens is that their votes count more than some think they should. That's the way the system is supposed to work thought, so that their votes CAN count to thtat extent. Assigning values based on population is supposed to accomplish equality of influence.And besides, what happens when a candidate or an issue is really popular, all the regions of the country come together in agreement, and conversely, they all reject in agreement with each other the alternative issue or candidate. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't think the "minority" CAN behave as a mob, I don't see how they have "control of the government" in any situation.

---

Sure they can. If they rig the system through gerrymandering and voter suppression - and get an advantage through the Electoral College the Republicans can get the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, all with a minority of voters (and a smaller proportion of the electorate). And that’s what they want.

I'm sure there is another point of view about all that but I'm not in position to argue it. I suspect the accusation of voter suppression is false anyway, and gerrymandering can be done in any state, by Democrats as well as Republicans. So all I'd say in response is that the Electoral College is not the problem you are talking about, you are bringing up many other kinds of problems that have nothing to do with this subject as such. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'm sure there is another point of view about all that but I'm not in position to argue it. All I'd say in response is that the Electoral College is not the problem you are talking about

---

The Electoral College decides the Presidency, and a minority vote did win it. If that is added to control of Congress by a minority there is a very serious problem. At the least the issues I raise are important context.And there are obvious problems with the Electoral College.
, such as the winner-takes-all States. Not to mention the interesting fact that one of the reasons it was chosen was because of slavery - where the South had a large population without voting rights. If things had been otherwise the Founders might have decided differently.I think there is at least a case for insisting that each State’s Electors are divided proportionately instead of winner-takes-all, which would make every State worth some effort.

PaulK writes: The tyranny of the right wing minority is where we are today.

You could be right that some changes are needed to the Electoral College short of abandoning it.

If we have "a tyranny of the right wing minority" how did the Democrats win the House last time?