Far fetched fantasy story (1 Viewer)

[kevlray]

If the population counts between the rural areas and big cities were closer (not in California) we might see some changes from election to election. But not the case here.

 

[Vassago]

Therein lies the problem, rural areas with less population should not have a vastly higher vote than someone in a larger city. I'm not saying they should be completely equal necessarily as people in rural areas need some recognition at that level, even with representation in Congress. But if you look at the ratio right now, it's severely outmatched.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If you really take a look at the form of the US Government, the legislative branch is designed to force agreement between two different views of the same country; one by strict population, the other by regional/state divisions. The electoral college is the closest the founding fathers could manage to somehow merge those two viewpoints into a single body for the purpose of elections. It is weighted by population BUT all states get two more electors regardless of population, so as to "level" the effect of population by adding a per-state fudge-factor that is disproportionately stronger for the less populated states.

If anything, electoral votes should be percentage based or at least split along Congressional districts in more states.

(from Vassago)

I absolutely agree that an unbalanced distribution exists. I think where the biggest problem has occurred in the electoral college is when states became "winner takes all" for electors, which overbalances the power of the states.

On the other hand, in this election, if you look at the Democratic party (powerful centralized government, strong on federalism) vs. the Republican party (weaker central government, stronger on states' rights), then with the country swinging away from the federalist viewpoint, it would make some sort of sense that the non-federalist candidate would win, however it was managed.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

is the weighting altered when circumstances change, such as a population shift.

(from brianwarnock

In theory, states gain or lose electors once every 10 years (after each full census) when Congress recomputes the number of votes each state gets in the House of Representatives. They can never have less than 3 electors (1 for the representative, 2 for the senators). Louisiana lost population after Katrina and as a result went from 8 to 7 representatives (and thus lost 1 elector as well).

Therefore, brian, I think the answer is yes - adjustments occur.

 

[ColinEssex]

I notice in the USA, the new president (Mr Trump) appears to be settling in nicely, signing executive orders all over the place.

However, one such order I don't quite follow - I understand the others like advocating torture, banning Muslims because they can be difficult, building a long wall - that's just the American way - but I don't quite follow repealing the Obamacare healthcare system.
I understood it to be true that this Obama law was to help the poorer people in the USA who qualify, to get free healthcare as opposed to zero healthcare they had before, it seemed to be well received at the time.

Why has this apparent good thing been cancelled?

Col

 

[sneuberg]

Why has this apparent good thing been cancelled?

Col

It hasn't been yet. Trump can't undo law with an executive order although at the moment his immigration ban seems to be doing that effectively.

 

[ColinEssex]

It hasn't been yet. Trump can't undo law with an executive order although at the moment his immigration ban seems to be doing that effectively.

I'll rephrase the question

Why does Mr Trump want to change the Obamacare system? Is it not a good idea?

Col

 

[sneuberg]

I'll rephrase the question

Why does Mr Trump want to change the Obamacare system? Is it not a good idea?

Col

I can't be a good idea as it's not his or at least not a Republican idea.

 

[kevlray]

From whats I have seen of Obamacare (The Affordable Care Act I believe the the official name, and I am exempt from it since my employer offers a heath plan), If you are broke or almost broke, it works pretty good for you. If you have a decent income, it can be pretty costly (and getting more expensive each year). They have levels of service available. The more you pay, the more you can get.

 

[Frothingslosh]

The 'pretty costly' comes because marketplace plans are, overall, slightly higher priced due to higher risk, and the higher your income, the less of a federal subsidy you're eligible for.

They SEEM really expensive because you are responsible for any portion of the plan that isn't subsidized, whereas your employer's plan is usually paid in part (usually at least half) by your employer. On top of that, if you're offered coverage by your employer that at least meets Bronze standards, then you're not eligible for a subsidy, period.

Keep in mind that employer plans tend to be equivalent to a silver plan at a minimum. A lot of the complaints about the pricing have been because people are comparing what are effectively silver (or better!) plans heavily subsidized by their employer to equivalent plans with no subsidies at all.

 

[Vassago]

Ironically, many Trump supporters did not seem to understand that the ACA and "Obamacare" are actually the same thing. Once they realized they are utilizing insurance through the ACA, they seemed to regret their votes. Twitter is full of the nonsense. I guess when you use pseudo-names, you can fool the masses.

And Trump has recently said he would not repeal and replace ALL aspects of the ACA. He has mentioned he intends to keep the provisions forcing companies to accept preexisting conditions while also remove the clause that forces everyone to purchase insurance. If you think insurance rates are high now, just wait until that's out there! You'll have plenty of people not buying insurance until they "need" it since they can't be refused. Great plan, right?

The man-baby has shown no leadership qualities as of yet. My only fear at this point is that people realize he actually is as unfit as they come to be President and actually go through with impeachment. Pence would be so so much worse.

 

[Frothingslosh]

And Trump has recently said he would not repeal and replace ALL aspects of the ACA. He has mentioned he intends to keep the provisions forcing companies to accept preexisting conditions while also remove the clause that forces everyone to purchase insurance. If you think insurance rates are high now, just wait until that's out there! You'll have plenty of people not buying insurance until they "need" it since they can't be refused. Great plan, right?

I work for a not-for-profit health insurance company in Michigan. This right here is our single biggest fear. There is no other place where the money can come from, and it becomes a slippery slope where higher rates cause more people to cancel, which in turn causes rates to go up even more. One of the aspects of the ACA that the GOP has found the most objectionable was the provision protecting insurers from losses incurred from the elimination of the pre-existing condition clause, and the 'individual mandate', complete with the tax fine, was implemented in order to provide that protection.

(Also, do not take this as an argument that pre-existing conditions shouldn't be covered, because personally I find the concept to be a barbarically callous lack of concern for individual suffering. But the money to cover them - and they were refused because they're EXPENSIVE - has to come from somewhere.)

The man-baby has shown no leadership qualities as of yet. My only fear at this point is that people realize he actually is as unfit as they come to be President and actually go through with impeachment. Pence would be so so much worse.

Vassago is right. Trump's sheer incompetence will result in a certain minimization of the damage he does, as we're currently seeing with his 'Muslim Ban'. (And I use that phrase intentionally - Giuliani admitted in an interview on Fox News on Saturday that the executive order came about when Trump specifically asked for a Muslim ban and to create a committee to set one up legally.)

Pence, on the other hand, showed in Indiana that his primary goal was to ensure the supremacy of Biblical Law over US law, and both he and Ryan are on board with completely rolling back civil rights and eliminating Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all of the assorted 'Welfare' laws that are all that stand between millions of Americans and death by starvation, while at the same time freeing corporate America from all regulation and taxation.

As horrifying as Trump is as President, the next two people in the succession are arguably WORSE.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I'll rephrase the question

Why does Mr Trump want to change the Obamacare system? Is it not a good idea?

Col

Serious answer? Despite the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) being based on RomneyCare, which was created by Republican Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts, the Republicans have opposed every aspect of it from Day 1.

Multiple Republican former members of Congress (as well as a leaked tape of the meeting in question) have all confirmed that, immediately after Obama was elected, the Republican leadership all agreed that anything and everything proposed or supported by the Democrats and, especially, Obama would be opposed no matter what. It didn't matter how much the item in question would help the nation or how much opposition would harm the nation, it would be opposed, full stop, and instructions to that end were given to all Republican members of Congress during Obama's time in office.

The fact that they were regularly able to blame Obama for their own actions - even to the point that many Americans actually think Obama created racism - was only a bonus.

 

[ColinEssex]

Thanks Frothy.

It seems the republicans and the democrats prefer to poke each other and try to outdo each other, with no thought for the proposed suffering of the poorest Americans.

What was it the billionaire Trump and his billionaire cronies said? Ah yes, "America and Americans first".

By the way, what do you think first attracted Melania to the billionaire Mr Trump?

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Colin -

Some women are attracted to wealth; others to perceived power. Who knows? He might even have some physical attribute that she likes!

For what it is worth, there are those of us here in the USA that bemoan the hard fact that the electorate is forcing politicians to be polarized and to not compromise. The country was founded on principles of compromise, so the current situation is the result of nobody wanting to share the resources we have equitably (assuming one could devise an equitable division.)

Trump made it in because the voting public saw congress as gridlocked. Trump claimed that he was the person who could release the Gordian Knot - by chopping it to bits. Given the continual gridlock, I had to say that he was the ONLY candidate I thought might be able to create change in the political system. I sincerely hope I am right. I only know within myself that Hillary was the wrong answer.

A friend of mine once taught me how to play tournament level bridge, and I got to be decent at it. (Not a champion by any means, but more than just a hacker.) Anyway, one of his lessons at playing the cards you were dealt was "If you don't know what is right, at least don't do what you know to be wrong. Do something that could be right." Which is why I could not vote for HRC. And I make no claims of certainty for DJT being the right answer - but as the unknown quantity, he was all that was left.

 

[Vassago]

At can't see Trump as any better. Nothing he has done has been to undo the the deadlock. If anything, he has made it worse.

 

[Rabbie]

I hope all those who voted for Trump are concerned about his apparent lack of knowledge about what is happening in the real world. His claim about civil unrest in Sweden last Friday night shows he is delusional.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Are you kidding? The vast majority of the Trumpstaffel are standing there cheering him on. They basically worship him at this point. The only thing 'concerning' them (infuriating them, really) is that Liberals are attempting to stand up to his most egregious actions, and Conservatives. Will. Not. Have. That.

Ergo things like all the recent bills that have been pushed to criminalize protesting, and even a few legalizing the murder of protesters. Not to mention Trump's open declaration of war against the media. (You did hear, I assume, that Kushner went to Time-Warner last weekend to inform them that they either fire four specific CNN journalists who criticized Trump or else the Trump administration will block the purchase of TW by AT&T?)

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Frothy, for what it is worth, I am not a member of the Trumpstaffel, though I get the parallel. If I had a viable third party candidate, I would absolutely not have voted for the Donald. But you know what choices were available and to my way of thinking, HRC was the worst choice. DJT was 2nd worst. There was no best choice.

 

[Frothingslosh]

But you know what choices were available and to my way of thinking, HRC was the worst choice. DJT was 2nd worst. There was no best choice.

Clinton would not have alienated our allies while sucking up to a regime which interfered with our election, is busy conquering its neighbors, and has an expressed interest in overthrowing the West.

Clinton would not have appointed as National Security Advisor a man who had been reprimanded on two different occasions while serving as a general for disclosing secret information to another nation without permission, much less getting caught lying about whether he personally conducted diplomacy with Russia before the new administration had even taken office.

Clinton would not have caused an international crisis by instituting a weasel-worded religious ban, especially on no notice. People have DIED because of Trump's hatred of Muslims.

Clinton would not have replaced the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence with a white nationalist with an expressed intention of tearing down the government he works for.

Clinton would not have declared war on the press, nor would she have informed a major corporation that she would abuse her office and interfere with its business unless it became complicit in her vengeance for being criticized.

Clinton would be determining national policy based on research and advice given by people who have worked in the state department and various intelligence agencies, rather than unsourced scare stories from Fox News and Breitbart.

Clinton would not be responding to nearly every single question she gets asked by making up lies about the size of her victory.

Clinton would not be a Russian puppet providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the US.

Clinton's only 'crime' was being the target of a twenty-year-long propaganda campaign whose every single solitary allegation had been proven wrong repeatedly - and whose refutations you could have found yourself had you bothered to spend the five seconds necessary to google them. You CHOSE not to because it was easier to dislike her because other conservatives did, not because of any facts.

The fact that you can stand there and say the Traitor-in-Chief was a better choice than Clinton is just mind-boggling. It's no different than someone claiming vaccines don't work because their ingredients have scary words and because of one long-since-proven-to-be-falsified research paper claiming that they cause autism.