Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum

MEMBER & GUEST INTERACTION SECTION => THE COFFEE HOUSE ((( SOCIAL - ROOM ))) => Topic started by: iddee on December 09, 2017, 07:00:34 pm

Title: A few questions
Post by: iddee on December 09, 2017, 07:00:34 pm
I don't know if I have posted this before, but if I did, I'm still looking for answers.

? on ObamaCare Repeal
Since only 8 million people have ObamaCare, how will 24 million people die if it is repealed? Will 16 million people be randomly shot?

? on Donald Trump.
If Donald Trump deleted all of his emails, wiped his server with Bleachbit and destroyed all of his phones with a hammer, would the Mainstream Media suddenly lose all interest in the story and declare him innocent?

? on equal pay.
If women do the same job for less money, why do companies hire men to do the same job for more money?

? on Sanctuary Cities.
If you rob a bank in a Sanctuary City, is it illegal or is it just an Undocumented Withdrawal?

? on ISIS.
Each ISIS attack now is a reaction to Trump policies, but all ISIS attacks during Obama's term were due to Climate Change and a plea for jobs.

? on the London 'Lone Wolf' terror attack.
After the London 'Lone Wolf' terrorist attack government officials have arrested at least eight other 'Lone Wolves' who had conspired with the original 'Lone Wolf' in planning the 'Lone Wolf' attack. Even though all involved are Muslims, you can be assured, the 'Lone Wolf; attack has nothing at all to do with Islam, just like the other 1000 plus 'Lone Wolf' attacks by Muslims, are completely unassociated with Islam.

? on Entitlements.
We should stop calling them all 'Entitlements'.
Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, ad nauseum are not entitlements. They are taxpayer-funded handouts, and shouldn't be called entitlements at all.
Social Security and Veterans Benefits are Entitlements because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.

? on the Muslim Refugees.
If Muslims want to run away from a Muslim country, does that mean they're Islamophobic?

? on The Women's March.
If Liberals don't believe in biological gender then why did they march for women's rights?

? on the Russians hacking the election.
How did the Russians get Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC to steal the Primary from Bernie Sanders? How did Russia get Donna Brazile to leak debate questions to Hillary Clinton in advance of the debates?

? on Democrats and the Electoral College.
Why is it that Democrats think Super delegates are fine, but they have a problem with the Electoral College?

? on the FBI and elections.
If you don't want the FBI involved in elections, don't nominate someone who's being investigated by the FBI.

? on Hillary's speeches.
If Hillary's speeches cost $250,000 an hour, how come no one shows up to her free ones?

? on Russia manipulating our election.
The DNC is mad at Russia because they 'think' they are trying to manipulate our election by exposing that the DNC is manipulating our election?

? on Trump's 'Locker Room Banter'.
Why is it that Liberals and the Media are upset about the words Trump used 11 years ago but they are all right with Adult men using the Ladies Room with your Wives and Daughters?


Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: cidersabuzzin on December 10, 2017, 02:30:38 pm
I don't know if I have posted this before, but if I did, I'm still looking for answers.

? on ObamaCare Repeal
Since only 8 million people have ObamaCare, how will 24 million people die if it is repealed? Will 16 million people be randomly shot?

? on Donald Trump.
If Donald Trump deleted all of his emails, wiped his server with Bleachbit and destroyed all of his phones with a hammer, would the Mainstream Media suddenly lose all interest in the story and declare him innocent?

? on equal pay.
If women do the same job for less money, why do companies hire men to do the same job for more money?

? on Sanctuary Cities.
If you rob a bank in a Sanctuary City, is it illegal or is it just an Undocumented Withdrawal?

? on ISIS.
Each ISIS attack now is a reaction to Trump policies, but all ISIS attacks during Obama's term were due to Climate Change and a plea for jobs.

? on the London 'Lone Wolf' terror attack.
After the London 'Lone Wolf' terrorist attack government officials have arrested at least eight other 'Lone Wolves' who had conspired with the original 'Lone Wolf' in planning the 'Lone Wolf' attack. Even though all involved are Muslims, you can be assured, the 'Lone Wolf; attack has nothing at all to do with Islam, just like the other 1000 plus 'Lone Wolf' attacks by Muslims, are completely unassociated with Islam.

? on Entitlements.
We should stop calling them all 'Entitlements'.
Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, ad nauseum are not entitlements. They are taxpayer-funded handouts, and shouldn't be called entitlements at all.
Social Security and Veterans Benefits are Entitlements because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.

? on the Muslim Refugees.
If Muslims want to run away from a Muslim country, does that mean they're Islamophobic?

? on The Women's March.
If Liberals don't believe in biological gender then why did they march for women's rights?

? on the Russians hacking the election.
How did the Russians get Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC to steal the Primary from Bernie Sanders? How did Russia get Donna Brazile to leak debate questions to Hillary Clinton in advance of the debates?

? on Democrats and the Electoral College.
Why is it that Democrats think Super delegates are fine, but they have a problem with the Electoral College?

? on the FBI and elections.
If you don't want the FBI involved in elections, don't nominate someone who's being investigated by the FBI.

? on Hillary's speeches.
If Hillary's speeches cost $250,000 an hour, how come no one shows up to her free ones?

? on Russia manipulating our election.
The DNC is mad at Russia because they 'think' they are trying to manipulate our election by exposing that the DNC is manipulating our election?

? on Trump's 'Locker Room Banter'.
Why is it that Liberals and the Media are upset about the words Trump used 11 years ago but they are all right with Adult men using the Ladies Room with your Wives and Daughters?

iddee
You been getting emails again? Maybe you need to be hitting the spam button more! :grin:.........or cut and paste to You tube, I hear they pay for it!...... Double the pay! :cheesy:
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: iddee on December 10, 2017, 02:40:16 pm
Beemaster doubles my pay every year.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x Double 0  is still 0   :tongue:   :cheesy:
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Psparr on December 10, 2017, 05:46:53 pm
It?s funny how they don?t have an argument against it, so it?s just criticism.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: sawdstmakr on December 11, 2017, 05:29:47 am
Psarr,
That is SOP.
Jim
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: cidersabuzzin on December 11, 2017, 01:27:22 pm
It?s funny how they don?t have an argument against it, so it?s just criticism.
.........but of course! :happy:
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: cidersabuzzin on December 11, 2017, 01:38:25 pm
Psarr,
That is SOP.
Jim
[/quote
You mean iddee's default position? Or should I say his SOP, both the same really. :wink:
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: iddee on December 11, 2017, 01:50:30 pm
Hey, cider, say what you will, but I notice you didn't post any answers to the questions. Is it because you have none?
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: little john on December 11, 2017, 03:14:18 pm
Hey, cider, say what you will, but I notice you didn't post any answers to THE questions. Is it because you have none?

When Shakespeare wrote: "To be or not to be, that is the question", he was taking a liberty with language. 

He really ought to have asked, "To be or not to be, that is MY question".  For, if the questioner owns the question, then it should become clear that no-one else is obliged to answer it.  That question belongs to the person who asks it - it is their burden to carry - no-one else is obliged to assist in the carrying of that burden.

So - next time someone asks you what does the Meaning of Life entail - bear in mind that it's their question; their burden; their problem - not yours.  Unless you choose to make it yours, of course.
LJ
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: iddee on December 11, 2017, 03:21:28 pm
That is why I said THE questions. They are not MY questions. They concern all Americans and maybe all the world. There is nothing personal about them.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: cidersabuzzin on December 11, 2017, 03:39:42 pm
Hey, cider, say what you will, but I notice you didn't post any answers to THE questions. Is it because you have none?

When Shakespeare wrote: "To be or not to be, that is the question", he was taking a liberty with language. 

He really ought to have asked, "To be or not to be, that is MY question".  For, if the questioner owns the question, then it should become clear that no-one else is obliged to answer it.  That question belongs to the person who asks it - it is their burden to carry - no-one else is obliged to assist in the carrying of that burden.

So - next time someone asks you what does the Meaning of Life entail - bear in mind that it's their question; their burden; their problem - not yours.  Unless you choose to make it yours, of course.
LJ
Thanks LJ,but as you know iddee will try to find wriggle-room even in a solid block of concrete. :wink:
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Michael Bush on December 11, 2017, 03:57:42 pm
>? on ObamaCare Repeal
>Since only 8 million people have ObamaCare, how will 24 million people die if it is repealed? Will 16 million people be randomly shot?

Apparently the rest will die from worry about health care coverage.

>? on Donald Trump.
>If Donald Trump deleted all of his emails, wiped his server with Bleachbit and destroyed all of his phones with a hammer, would the Mainstream Media suddenly lose all interest in the story and declare him innocent?

If Donald Trump solved world hunger, created world peace, and gave all his money to the poor, it would be an insidious fascist plot to take over the world.

>? on equal pay.
>If women do the same job for less money, why do companies hire men to do the same job for more money?

Obviously it simply isn't true...

>? on Sanctuary Cities.
>If you rob a bank in a Sanctuary City, is it illegal or is it just an Undocumented Withdrawal?

Maybe...

>? on ISIS.
>Each ISIS attack now is a reaction to Trump policies, but all ISIS attacks during Obama's term were due to Climate Change and a plea for jobs.

Or its a reaction to the dress Ivanka wore someplace for something...

>? on the London 'Lone Wolf' terror attack.
>After the London 'Lone Wolf' terrorist attack government officials have arrested at least eight other 'Lone Wolves' who had conspired with the original 'Lone Wolf' in planning the 'Lone Wolf' attack. Even though all involved are Muslims, you can be assured, the 'Lone Wolf; attack has nothing at all to do with Islam, just like the other 1000 plus 'Lone Wolf' attacks by Muslims, are completely unassociated with Islam.

If it had anything to do with Islam the powers that be would tell us, right?

>? on Entitlements.
>We should stop calling them all 'Entitlements'.
Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, ad nauseum are not entitlements. They are taxpayer-funded handouts, and shouldn't be called entitlements at all.
Social Security and Veterans Benefits are Entitlements because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.

One could argue whether or not they were "earned" but there was certainly an agreement where the people did their part and were promised those benefits in return.

>? on the Muslim Refugees.
>If Muslims want to run away from a Muslim country, does that mean they're Islamophobic?

Yes.

>? on The Women's March.
>If Liberals don't believe in biological gender then why did they march for women's rights?

They believe in helping everyone who is a woman or thinks they are a woman.  They are only against people who are happy to be a man.

>? on the Russians hacking the election.
>How did the Russians get Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC to steal the Primary from Bernie Sanders? How did Russia get Donna Brazile to leak debate questions to Hillary Clinton in advance of the debates?

The Russians are very devious...

>? on Democrats and the Electoral College.
>Why is it that Democrats think Super delegates are fine, but they have a problem with the Electoral College?

Any excuse... saying you won the popular vote is like saying you played a football game and got the most yards, even though the other team scored more points.  You win by the rules of the game.

>? on the FBI and elections.
>If you don't want the FBI involved in elections, don't nominate someone who's being investigated by the FBI.

:)

>? on Hillary's speeches.
>If Hillary's speeches cost $250,000 an hour, how come no one shows up to her free ones?

Surely some of the SJW and the AntiFa show up don't they?

>? on Russia manipulating our election.
>The DNC is mad at Russia because they 'think' they are trying to manipulate our election by exposing that the DNC is manipulating our election?

Yes.  It was those evil Russians who exposed those lovable Democrats just for their own purposes.

>? on Trump's 'Locker Room Banter'.
>Why is it that Liberals and the Media are upset about the words Trump used 11 years ago but they are all right with Adult men using the Ladies Room with your Wives and Daughters?

It's a mystery.  I'm waiting for the employee who decides they identify as a women, hanging out in the women's restroom at work and being accused of sexual harassment.  Then what do you do when that person (the one identifying as a woman) accuses the company and the accuser of being a bigot against transsexuals?  Which side will the liberals take?
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: iddee on December 11, 2017, 04:34:13 pm
Thank You, MB. Some very good answers there

Poor cider, all he could do was cry.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: sawdstmakr on December 11, 2017, 06:42:44 pm
Thank You, MB. Some very good answers there

Poor cider, all he could do was cry.
:smile:
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: cidersabuzzin on December 13, 2017, 06:24:53 pm
Thank You, MB. Some very good answers there

Poor cider, all he could do was cry.
iddee
Of course I'm crying.......with laughter :cheesy: Alabama has just gone Democrat! :happy: :happy: :happy: :iddee, its getting closer!Whoopee! : :grin: :.....even Republicans are abandoning the GT: Impeachment is getting closer if your own supporters abandon you! :grin: :grin: :grin:
Don't get depressed iddee you know someone loves you!,..... even if only somewhere in the Southern swamps or the Appalachians.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Hops Brewster on December 14, 2017, 10:15:59 am
So, I'm not convinced that Alabama has 'gone Demorat' .  From where I sit, that election looked like it was about which candidate was hated the most.  Sort of like the '16 presidential election.  The Republicons won  because people tended to hate Hillary more than they hated Trump. 

This time the Demorats were successful in making people hate The Judge more than the Socialist.

I should add, The Judge did a lot of working up that hatred on his own.  He thought that acting like Trump would work.  He mis-Judged.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Dallasbeek on December 14, 2017, 11:58:14 am
If one election establishes a trend, then only offensive (to some) real estate tycoons who have been reality television stars need apply for POTUS in the future.  I think Hops has it pegged.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: kathyp on December 14, 2017, 04:39:43 pm
Quote
Alabama has just gone Democrat!

Pretty sure this election was not about republicans or democrats.  It was more a test of the morality of the voters with no way to win.

Quote
Impeachment is getting closer

On what grounds?
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: cidersabuzzin on December 15, 2017, 03:54:48 pm
Quote
Alabama has just gone Democrat!

Pretty sure this election was not about republicans or democrats.  It was more a test of the morality of the voters with no way to win.

Quote
Impeachment is getting closer

On what grounds?
Kathy, you know the US Constitution backwards, I'm sure grounds will be found! Countless people are probably digging :wink: Are you happy with DT as President?
Regards
cider
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: iddee on December 15, 2017, 04:22:24 pm
Maybe letting Hillary walk is grounds.............

https://100percentfedup.com/senator-reveals-shocking-fbi-corruption-watered-exoneration-hillary-clinton-video/

Maybe letting these kind stay is grounds.....

https://100percentfedup.com/penn-state-exchange-student-gets-protection-threats-made-911-didnt-kill-enough-fkers-hope-iran-nukes-country/

Yes, we love DT and hope many dems go to jail before it's all over.

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Michael Bush on December 18, 2017, 04:23:27 pm
>Are you happy with DT as President?

You can't impeach a president because you aren't happy with them.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Acebird on December 18, 2017, 05:19:50 pm
Quote
Impeachment is getting closer
On what grounds?

No longer need grounds.  Once the democrates get majority they will undo everything that Trump and the republicans did except get back the money that was lost to the rich.  I suspect indictments will not come to his family until DT is no longer president.  He can't pardon anything after that.
Mike, the two party system and the electoral college serves big money well so the rules will never be changed unless of course there is a revolution.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Dallasbeek on December 18, 2017, 05:43:51 pm
Quote
Impeachment is getting closer
On what grounds?

No longer need grounds.  Once the democrates get majority they will undo everything that Trump and the republicans did except get back the money that was lost to the rich.  I suspect indictments will not come to his family until DT is no longer president.  He can't pardon anything after that.
Mike, the two party system and the electoral college serves big money well so the rules will never be changed unless of course there is a revolution.

So are you advocating mob rule rather than the rule of law?  Sounds very fascist or Nazi to me.  Get your brown or black shirts and gather in the city square with like-minded bulies and misfits and establish your own rules? 
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Acebird on December 19, 2017, 08:18:44 am
So are you advocating mob rule rather than the rule of law?
How ironic.  This is what we have now.
I am for a popular vote and a no party system.  Something else that will never happen because money rules.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Dallasbeek on December 19, 2017, 01:46:03 pm
Strange how the left twists things so that they look like the good guys when in fact they are the fascists.  An example is eugenics, which was the brainchild of the "progressives" and, when nobody in this country objected to forced sterilization, lobotomies and similar "treatments" for "mental defectives" and others, was adopted by Hitler's regime and carried to its logical end. After the world recoiled in horror at the discovery of the ovens and mass graves, the "progressives" hoped the world would forget that the whole scheme was originally owned by them.  Most have, in fact, forgotten that this and some other travesties were the product of left-wing thinkers of the early 1900s, including the 1920s and 1930s, when Mussolini and Hitler were adored by many on the left in this country, including even a lot of Jews who didn't read "mein kampf" closely enough.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: kathyp on December 20, 2017, 03:32:38 pm
Quote
I am for a popular vote and a no party system.  Something else that will never happen because money rules.

So you would be happy to have a couple of major population centers elect the president with no other part of the country having a say? 

Can you explain how money rules the electoral college?
Can you explain how mob rule now elects the president? 
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Acebird on December 20, 2017, 05:54:58 pm
So you would be happy to have a couple of major population centers elect the president with no other part of the country having a say? 
As far as I am concerned this defies all logic.  Popular vote makes every vote equal.  The electoral college makes every vote unequal. It is beyond me why everyone who supports the electoral college makes this faults statement.

Quote
Can you explain how money rules the electoral college?
Congress is nothing but money and influenced by money.
Quote
Can you explain how mob rule now elects the president?
The mob is money, approximately 1% of the population.  Some would say they are gangsters.  There is the Republican mob and the Democrat mob.  Trump likes to call it the swamp but it extends far beyond the swamp.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: iddee on December 20, 2017, 06:48:07 pm
So, Ace, you think 16% of the US should be able to elect a president when 84% want someone else. Sorry, that's just not going to happen. That's why we have the electoral collage.


""Overall Trump won approximately 2,600 counties to Clinton?s 500, or about 84% of the geographic United States. However, Clinton won 88 of of the 100 largest counties (including Washington D.C.). Without these 100 largest counties she would have lost by 11.5 million votes.""

http://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Dallasbeek on December 20, 2017, 07:00:00 pm
But for the Electoral College, the individual states would have remained a loose confederation of nation-states and there would be no United States.  The interests of Boston, Philadelphia, New York and a few other population centers would have dominated against the interests of agrarian states and they would have been trading partners at times and at other times they would have been either competing or involved in hostilities, something like the nation states of Europe before the unification of the Germanic states into Germany, the little states that became Italy, etc.

There was a lot of negotiation of ideas and wording that went into the founding documents.  Fortunately, the founding fathers were smarter than any of us and they worked out the details you want to brush aside, Brian. 

All that being said, there are times I wish the leftist coasts could secede and try going it alone.  Try raising wheat and cattle and corn in Central Park and on Rodeo Drive to feed the masses seeking refuge in the sanctuary cities and sanctuary states they're so fond of.

Again, not that building a wall is the answer. We have to find a way to assimilate the millions of immigrants who WANT to assimilate and deport the ones who simply want entitlements paid for by those who do assimilate.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: kathyp on December 20, 2017, 07:07:21 pm
Quote
As far as I am concerned this defies all logic.  Popular vote makes every vote equal.  The electoral college makes every vote unequal. It is beyond me why everyone who supports the electoral college makes this faults statement.

It is about representation.  With your system, very few places would choose the president for the entire country.  If you look at the map of the last election, it is apparent that the majority of the country did not think Hillary would be a good leader for them.  You would have places like LA and NYC making decisions for the entire country in perpetuity. Do you think the people of NYC have any idea what the people of North Dakota want or need?  No.  The proof of that is that the majority of the country voted in BO twice and they were disappointed in the result, and so the majority of the country decided they did not want more of the same.   

You complain about money and power influencing policy, and it does to some extent, but consider where most of that money and power is and how much more influence it would have if decisionmaking was forever concentrated in those places.

 
Quote
Congress is nothing but money and influenced by money.
What does that have to do with the electoral college?


Quote
Can you explain how mob rule now elects the president?
The mob is money, approximately 1% of the population.  Some would say they are gangsters.  There is the Republican mob and the Democrat mob.  Trump likes to call it the swamp but it extends far beyond the swamp.

And yet your "mob" didn't want Trump.  Again, how does mob rule elect a president with the process we have now?


Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Acebird on December 20, 2017, 09:55:24 pm
It is about representation.  With your system, very few places would choose the president for the entire country.
Kathy, you are walking around with blinders on.  Who do you think elected Trump?  Do you think it is the people of Wyoming, Nebraska, Utah, or Kansas?  He was elected by Wall Street.  Where is Wall Street?  There is nothing like an educated ostrich burring their head in the sand.
These four states I mentioned will never elect a president but they could have a voice.

Quote
What does that have to do with the electoral college?
Eliminating the electoral college will require congress so it will never happen without revolution.  No different than hoping congress will have the same health care that the rest of the country has regardless of what it is.

Quote
And yet your "mob" didn't want Trump.  Again, how does mob rule elect a president with the process we have now?
Asking the same question twice and not understanding my answer leaves you in the dark.  I am only going to repeat my answer.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Dallasbeek on December 20, 2017, 10:50:42 pm
Brian, you obviously have never heard of the Socratic dialectic approach.  If you are forced to define the terms of your argument, the fallacies you espouse should become evident to you.  Answer the questions and you may learn, Grasshopper.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Michael Bush on December 21, 2017, 08:19:38 am
I have no doubt that if winning the popular vote was the way to win the election, Trump would have run his campaign to do that and he would have won that.  As it is he didn't miss it by much and that was not his goal at all.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Acebird on December 21, 2017, 09:48:08 am
I have no doubt that if winning the popular vote was the way to win the election, Trump would have run his campaign to do that and he would have won that.  As it is he didn't miss it by much and that was not his goal at all.

Thank you Mike, this is my point.  I agree, he probably would have won either way.  Over the long run though if there was a popular vote, no electoral college and no two party system we wouldn't be faced with two horrible choices.  There would be more choices and there would be better choices.  As long as money and its influence dictates who the choices are they will always be bad for the middle class.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Acebird on December 21, 2017, 09:56:48 am
Brian, you obviously have never heard of the Socratic dialectic approach.

Does that approach involve asking the question three or four times until you get the answer you are looking for?  I think not.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: kathyp on December 21, 2017, 01:28:26 pm
Quote
Does that approach involve asking the question three or four times until you get the answer you are looking for?  I think not.

I ask questions so that I understand your thought process.  I think I understand your thought process.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: iddee on December 21, 2017, 01:34:42 pm
""I ask questions so that I understand your thought process.  I think I understand your thought process.""

Or lack thereof.  :tongue:   :cheesy:
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Michael Bush on December 21, 2017, 02:17:27 pm
>  Over the long run though if there was a popular vote, no electoral college and no two party system we wouldn't be faced with two horrible choices.  There would be more choices and there would be better choices.

What is your reason for believing this?  The two party system is the problem and how they decide on their candidates.  The Electoral college was intended to be the body that elects the president with the idea that they would choose.  The original system was NOT that a particular elector belonged to a particular candidate.  The states elected the electors who got together to decide who would be president and vice president.  That was a much better system where they could choose whoever they liked.  When I first voted for President of the US they had the electors on the ballet and the candidate they were loyal to listed under that electors name...  It has changed a lot from its original intent, but the intent was that the President was NOT elected by the people.  The original intent was the Senators were not elected by the people either, but by the legislature of the state they represented.  Also a better system as the legislators were electing one of their own, who they know rather than the people electing some guy they have never met or worked with.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Dallasbeek on December 21, 2017, 03:03:27 pm
Brian, you obviously have never heard of the Socratic dialectic approach.

Does that approach involve asking the question three or four times until you get the answer you are looking for?  I think not.

It requires a person to clearly define every term he or she uses.  Bill clinton was referring to this method, in a way, when he said it depends on the definition of what "is" is.  That went over well, though, didn't it?
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Acebird on December 21, 2017, 05:27:11 pm
>  Over the long run though if there was a popular vote, no electoral college and no two party system we wouldn't be faced with two horrible choices.  There would be more choices and there would be better choices.

What is your reason for believing this?  The two party system is the problem and how they decide on their candidates.
I think I was saying the same thing but maybe not.  I don't care what went on in the 1800's.  It is not relevant today.  For the most part the population today in the US is educated unlike the 1800's.  There are groups of people that can vote today that couldn't vote back then.  We don't need an educated electoral college to vote for us because we are illiterate.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: iddee on December 21, 2017, 06:21:18 pm
""We don't need an educated electoral college to vote for us because we are illiterate.""

I can't totally agree with that.  I have watched ""voters?"" led into the polls and their slobbers wiped by there attendant, and they voted. I'm guessing they couldn't tell you their birth name. Maybe their called name. I guarantee you they did NOT know the people they voted for. With that lenient a voting requirement, they sure require somebody to think for them.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Psparr on December 21, 2017, 07:37:07 pm
I?d rather have an illiterate hardworking man or woman with some street sense and common sense choose our president, than someone with an education any day of the week.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: kathyp on December 21, 2017, 08:00:52 pm
Quote
We don't need an educated electoral college to vote for us because we are illiterate.

We never really had an illiterate population.  The founders, who developed this system, were certainly not illiterate.  If making decisions for the illiterate population was the goal there would have been a national proof of literacy requirement.  Some states did this, but were eventually overruled by the SCOTUS. 

The goal then as now was to give sparsely populated states a voice in national elections.  It is true that the way it is done now is not the same as it originally was, but the effect is the same.  The electors are not bound by the votes of the state, but they almost never go against the voters.  If you want a more fair system with the electoral college, then the states should not be winner take all.  Most are.  If the electors were apportioned according to the number of votes for candidates in a state you would have a better reflection of the popular vote and still maintain the voice of the smaller states. Of course....you'd have to give the nomination to the majority winner rather than the one who hits a set number.  if the votes are split several ways, no one might hit that number.

If you want a popular vote count then I want a complete purge of voters and re-registration first.  :wink:
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Dallasbeek on December 21, 2017, 08:57:01 pm
I?d rather have an illiterate hardworking man or woman with some street sense and common sense choose our president, than someone with an education any day of the week.

Are you saying an educated person can't have street sense and common sense?  I know you aren't, but that's why we have to be careful how we say things.  I have known some people who were functionally illiterate who had great mental ability and some educated people who, as they used to say in my home town , "couldn't pour (urine) out of a boot with instructions printed on the bottom". I have a brother-in-law who can't read because he was dyslexic, but he could build almost anything or repair engines with no problem.  I had a classmate who became the dean of a university, but he couldn't have changed a flat tire if his life depended on it.  Different strokes for different folks.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Psparr on December 21, 2017, 09:06:32 pm
Yes. I mean book smart people.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Acebird on December 21, 2017, 09:41:45 pm
We never really had an illiterate population.
  You are kidding or you are smoking some of your states crop.  Slaves did not go to school.  Women did not go to school but some how they taught their sons how to read.  Might be the gene of determination...
Quote
The founders, who developed this system, were certainly not illiterate.  If making decisions for the illiterate population was the goal there would have been a national proof of literacy requirement.  Some states did this, but were eventually overruled by the SCOTUS. 
It is a double edge sword if you educate your population they will want things you don't want.  However, if you do educate your population then your country will become a supper power, maybe number 1.  This is the dilemma China faces.
Quote
The goal then as now was to give sparsely populated states a voice in national elections.

Total propaganda... Mike has already admitted that it wouldn't make a difference and he is right.
Quote
If you want a popular vote count then I want a complete purge of voters and re-registration first.  :wink:
Knock yourself out.  I have no problem re-registration.  Once money and corruption is out of the equation it won't make a difference.  Re-registration might weed out the illiterates.  Actually, I have no problem with giving a literary test as a qualification to vote.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: kathyp on December 21, 2017, 11:19:14 pm
Quote
Slaves did not go to school.  Women did not go to school but some how they taught their sons how to read.  Might be the gene of determination...

Slaves didn't vote and going to school has nothing to do with being literate or even educated. 

Quote
It is a double edge sword if you educate your population they will want things you don't want.  However, if you do educate your population then your country will become a supper power, maybe number 1.  This is the dilemma China faces.

You realize that our founders were pretty big on the education of the population and so were the citizens. We did not have the same rising peasant class that Europe had.  Most of the people who came here were educated at least to the point of reading, writing, and numbers.  Chinas issue is not with education.  They control that.  They have and have had a literate population.  China is struggling with how to compete in free markets and still control its people while encouraging innovation.  They are creating a middle class and totalitarianism does not survive a middle class. 

Quote
otal propaganda... Mike has already admitted that it wouldn't make a difference and he is right.

Where do the majority of people live?  what are the political leanings of the people in those areas?

Quote
Once money and corruption is out of the equation it won't make a difference.  Re-registration might weed out the illiterates.  Actually, I have no problem with giving a literary test as a qualification to vote.

How do you think you get money and corruption out of the equation by changing to a popular vote?  Is there no corruption in state voting?  That is done by popular vote.  Do you think there are no backroom deals, or fraud in state systems?
  I do not need to know what novels people have read for them to vote.  Literacy tests, on the other hand, have already been thrown out by the courts. 

Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Michael Bush on December 27, 2017, 09:31:05 am
> I don't care what went on in the 1800's.  It is not relevant today.

If it worked it is.

>For the most part the population today in the US is educated unlike the 1800's. 

That is irrelevant.  The point of the state senates electing the U.S. Senate seat was that they KNEW the people they were electing.  The point of the Electoral college was the same.  It's not because they are educated and the people are not, it's that they actually know the people involved.  I don't personally know ANY of the people on the ballot.  No matter how well educated I am, I am no judge of the character of the people running.  The idea was that at each level there was some knowledge of the character of the people being considered by the constituents who got to vote.  We are at the point where no one on the ballot, except perhaps the state senator and the U.S. Congressmen are from the area of the people who are voting for them and the people have a chance of knowing their character.  Literacy does not enable you to know the values and character of the candidates.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Acebird on December 27, 2017, 10:10:49 am
Literacy does not enable you to know the values and character of the candidates.

It provides a means of learning what a candidates platform is.  It is pretty hard to operate a computer or cell phone if you can't read.  Today most media is through these devices even for standard broadcast.  If you want change you don't pick someone you already know you pick someone you don't know who promises change.  With a party system, especially two party picking a different person from the same party doesn't get you change.
A popular vote eliminates how your vote is weighted.  Today's population moves around.  Why should the weight of their vote change as you move from one state to another?
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Hops Brewster on December 27, 2017, 12:05:56 pm
There are soooo many people that are functionally illiterate in this country that it is scary!  And yes, they drive, they (sometimes) have jobs, they use cell phones and they watch TV.  They watch the TV news.  They get their ideas from TV news and from Facebook and Twitter on their cell phones.  They are told how to vote by the national "news" personalities on CNN etc., and by the functionally illiterate pop stars and sports heroes that they worship.  They are told to vote for the ones that gave them their "free Obama phones".  They are told to vote for the ones that guarantee them their monthly welfare dole, and the over-priced "free health care" which they choose not to buy anyway.
Educated voters?  ROFL  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Michael Bush on December 27, 2017, 12:45:36 pm
>It provides a means of learning what a candidates platform is.

I have never seen a candidate whose actions could be predicted based on their platform.  I have never seen any connection between their platform and their votes.  Read all you want and it will not predict the behavior of the candidate in any way.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: cidersabuzzin on April 20, 2018, 07:13:57 pm
Beemaster doubles my pay every year.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x Double 0  is still 0   :tongue:   :cheesy:
I don't think Beemaster pays anyone to post (and I think you should apologize to Beemaster for insinuating they may do!) the post referred to certain posts that seem to be 'manufactured' maybe a bit disingenuous on your part. Time to sharpen up iddee or maybe snooze in the bunker. Please make sure the Winchester is not 'locked and loaded'. One hears of so many Geriatrics being injured these days.
Regards cider
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Geoff on April 20, 2018, 08:29:24 pm
   I think Iddee got you hook, line and sinker Ciders, double nothing is still a lot more of nothing. Nearly got me as well Wally until I read to the bottom ! !
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: Acebird on April 20, 2018, 08:48:48 pm
I have never seen a candidate whose actions could be predicted based on their platform.
You would have to be a dumb ass not to predict what Trump does.  Now he tweets less and makes more sense.  Makes me think he is not running the country.  But I don't think it is the same as the Nancy Reagan era.
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: iddee on April 20, 2018, 09:15:31 pm
DANG, Cider, It took you over 4 months to come up with a response?  I think you're slowing in your older days, and I thought you were about as slow as you could get before. :tongue:
Title: Re: A few questions
Post by: cidersabuzzin on April 21, 2018, 08:10:50 pm
It?s funny how they don?t have an argument against it, so it?s just criticism.
Criticism my friend is the bedrock of Democracy, don't you ever forget it!
 We play at politics here but the basics are a given! :smile: