Tougher Political Questions

[CNS]

That's a good one. AI monitoring all our conversations vs. state interest protect us and others. Definite balance to strike. Most people are probably okay with it  as long as it's limited to terror prevention and not other law enforcement

It is also a weird one because many of the "small-government" people seem to want more intrusion and security from their government agencies, while many "big-government" people want a reduction.  It (and defense in general) seem to break many traditional party views.

I don't think this is accurate, irl

Really?  Granted that big/small government IRL is more like biggest/bigger government, but even though Barry O is a war hawk, it seems that republicans in general are more for expanded NSA/CIA/Police intelligence capabilities than democrats.  If I'm incorrect, please enlighten me...

It's quite clearly been a bipartisan effort.  I'll not tolerate false pretenses in this thread.

It is most certainly a bipartisan thing.  Everyone rails against it until they get into office and realize how hard some jobs would be without it.  Also, I really do think that your average senator/congressperson/etc understands basically 0% of what is happening and how.  This is what I was saying earlier ITT about legislation needing to catch up to the tech capabilities to address intrusion.   It's not going to happen for quite some time, and when it does, it will be written by the lobby of the tech security consultants and do pretty much nothing.

[catastrophe]

The electoral college. Should every person's vote count equally or is there too much of a risk that candidates will only favor the top 20 metroplexes and not give a crap about the rest of the country or state's rights generally?

There are millions of people who vote who should not be permitted to vote. We have far too many people with no stake in this country, other than to drain the limited resources of those with a stake, who are permitted to participate in its governance. It's disgusting and perverse.

Your response implies that you do not understand what the electoral college is.

[CHONGS]

The electoral college. Should every person's vote count equally or is there too much of a risk that candidates will only favor the top 20 metroplexes and not give a crap about the rest of the country or state's rights generally?

There are millions of people who vote who should not be permitted to vote. We have far too many people with no stake in this country, other than to drain the limited resources of those with a stake, who are permitted to participate in its governance. It's disgusting and perverse.

Your response implies that you do not understand what the electoral college is.

He understands.  He just fundamentally disagrees with you on voting rights in general (well before an electoral college is involved).

[Dr Rick Daris]

I think the recent mishaps with the Duke lacrosse team and the UVA fraternity raise some interesting questions concerning protection of victims v. the accused.

yeah. that recent mishap with the duke lacrosse team that happened in 2006.

[ChiComCat]

I think the recent mishaps with the Duke lacrosse team and the UVA fraternity raise some interesting questions concerning protection of victims v. the accused.

yeah. that recent mishap with the duke lacrosse team that happened in 2006.

A great protection for the accused would be having them presumed innocent until proven guilty in the American justice system.

[star seed 7]

I think the recent mishaps with the Duke lacrosse team and the UVA fraternity raise some interesting questions concerning protection of victims v. the accused.

I agree    if the accusers identity is protected, so should the accused.

[star seed 7]

The electoral college. Should every person's vote count equally or is there too much of a risk that candidates will only favor the top 20 metroplexes and not give a crap about the rest of the country or state's rights generally?

They only focus on like 6 states right now anyway. The electoral college is immoral

[Dr Rick Daris]

I think the recent mishaps with the Duke lacrosse team and the UVA fraternity raise some interesting questions concerning protection of victims v. the accused.

yeah. that recent mishap with the duke lacrosse team that happened in 2006.

the recent mishap of watergate causes me some concern as well. then you combine that with the recent salem witch trials and battle of gettysburg and what's obvious is that we need to be concerned about protection of victims v. the accused.

[cfbandyman]

Electoral college is a relic of a bygone era. I also disagree that the metropolises would dominate those elections. It's not like every citizen in a city is a flaming democrat, sure it's higher, but imagine living in a state like Cali where there are tons of people who are republicans who can never win the state because of their democratic policies, of course kansas, where the situation is reversed. It leads to plenty of people just not deciding to vote because their vote literally doesn't matter. There have only been a few handful of faithless electors over all elections over time, so the whole idea of having them putting the brakes on a "crazy" candidate with it just isn't going to happen. It's just another way to keep the power out of the hands of the people, something I'm shocked really anyone who believes in smaller government wants to keep it in place.

[catastrophe]

Personally I am in favor of allowing the popular vote determine the presidency. I think there are mainly two concerns. First is that it further erodes the concept of federalism by eliminating a barrier between citizens and the federal government. Second, it could do a lot of damage to the two party system (which is great IMO, but you can expect resistance for that reason).

[star seed 7]

Yeah, the two party system is fabulous 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The electoral college also allows states to retain control over voting, which, iirc, is guaranteed in the Constitution. The issue a bit of a red herring as there have been very few elections where the party who didn't get the popular vote won the general election. People that believe in federalism ssupport the electoral college because it keeps the more populated states from running over the less populated states, just like the senate.

[star seed 7]

Like I said, immoral

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

That's a good one. AI monitoring all our conversations vs. state interest protect us and others. Definite balance to strike. Most people are probably okay with it  as long as it's limited to terror prevention and not other law enforcement

It is also a weird one because many of the "small-government" people seem to want more intrusion and security from their government agencies, while many "big-government" people want a reduction.  It (and defense in general) seem to break many traditional party views.

I don't think this is accurate, irl

Really?  Granted that big/small government IRL is more like biggest/bigger government, but even though Barry O is a war hawk, it seems that republicans in general are more for expanded NSA/CIA/Police intelligence capabilities than democrats.  If I'm incorrect, please enlighten me...

It's quite clearly been a bipartisan effort.  I'll not tolerate false pretenses in this thread.

It is most certainly a bipartisan thing.  Everyone rails against it until they get into office and realize how hard some jobs would be without it.  Also, I really do think that your average senator/congressperson/etc understands basically 0% of what is happening and how.  This is what I was saying earlier ITT about legislation needing to catch up to the tech capabilities to address intrusion.   It's not going to happen for quite some time, and when it does, it will be written by the lobby of the tech security consultants and do pretty much nothing.

I think it's probably a wash, and the current state of the National media probably supports keeping more than anything.

[ednksu]

I think the recent mishaps with the Duke lacrosse team and the UVA fraternity raise some interesting questions concerning protection of victims v. the accused.

yeah. that recent mishap with the duke lacrosse team that happened in 2006.

A great protection for the accused would be having them presumed innocent until proven guilty in the American justice system.

But yet we still have an issue with law enforcement in some places saying rape kits aren't necessary because most rape accusations are false.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/03/rape_kit_system_unnecessary_si.html

[renocat]

I like the electoral college.  Buffer against stupid and communism.  I favor splitting electors like Nebraska does though.

[bucket]

The electoral college. Should every person's vote count equally or is there too much of a risk that candidates will only favor the top 20 metroplexes and not give a crap about the rest of the country or state's rights generally?

There are millions of people who vote who should not be permitted to vote. We have far too many people with no stake in this country, other than to drain the limited resources of those with a stake, who are permitted to participate in its governance. It's disgusting and perverse.

How dare you speak out against the constitution! 

[catastrophe]

Yeah, the two party system is fabulous 

I was suggesting the collapse of the system would be great, btw.

[catastrophe]

The electoral college also allows states to retain control over voting, which, iirc, is guaranteed in the Constitution. The issue a bit of a red herring as there have been very few elections where the party who didn't get the popular vote won the general election. People that believe in federalism ssupport the electoral college because it keeps the more populated states from running over the less populated states, just like the senate.

The fact that the popular vote is typically in line with the electoral college is probably a little misleading in itself. People who are in the minority for red or blue states have very little incentive to vote in the general election at all, knowing that their presidential vote won't count. This is currently amplified for anyone who supports third party/ independent candidates, who might not even vote for their first choice in order to avoid "throwing their vote away."

I'm generally in favor of anything that improves participation in the political process.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

People that give a shot aren't not voting because of the electoral college. Good grief

[Ptolemy]

Children, the United States of America is not a democracy. This country is a representative republic.  The design of this country, and what makes it the greatest in the world is, each state has an equal voice in the governance of the country. If presidents were chosen by popular vote, the states without massive, centralized government-driven populations would have no say in their governance. This is why we have an electoral college. States matter.  The fact that states matter is why the United States leads the world.

This is also why the founders established that US Senators be voted on by the various state legislatures and not by the people directly.  Liberals under Woodrow Wilson screwed that up.  An Article Five convention will hopefully get us back to that.

[renocat]

Jeh Johnson is seriously considering the federal government taking over the running of elections (Drudge Report).  Hacking is the justification.  Right now.each state controls voting in their state.  Should this be done?

[bones129]

Jeh Johnson is seriously considering the federal government taking over the running of elections (Drudge Report).  Hacking is the justification.  Right now.each state controls voting in their state.  Should this be done?

What are your thoughts, reno?

[renocat]

Bones, I am torn between having our elections polluted by outside counties through hacking, and losing more of our liberty.  Since 9-11 our civil liberties have been steadily eroded while the federal government amasses more power.  I wish I knew how to do a link to the drudge report article.  It was frightening how it.would be for Homeland Security to grab the control of elections from states.  Even if Hillary wins, I want it to be because of her winning.votes, and the election not being skewed by local or foreign attackers.  I have no confidence it being protected by Kobach, a graduate of the 3 Stooges School of Banana Republic Management.