elizabeth warren, alexandria ocasio cortez, and other democrats are openly expressing interest (and in come cases, campaign promises) that the electoral college has to go.
i disagree for a few reasons.
first, the 25 states (out of 50, so 50%) with the smallest populations only get 21% of the electoral college votes (in our current system, today).
Exactly, Minimus. I saw that on the news yesterday, that they want to lower the voting age to 16, along with removing the electoral college. There was something else the wanted to reform as well, cant remember. Anyway, Such an obvious grab at democratic votes, imo. If you're afraid you can't win with the rules already in place, change the rules! What a novel idea... =/
But hurry! Got to get it done before the next election!!!
elizabeth warren, alexandria ocasio cortez, and other democrats are openly expressing interest (and in come cases, campaign promises) that the electoral college has to go.
i disagree for a few reasons.
first, the 25 states (out of 50, so 50%) with the smallest populations only get 21% of the electoral college votes (in our current system, today).
"(LA/Hollywood/NYC/Chicago) would be able to decide the winner of EVERY election until the end of time if the electoral college is gotten rid of."
Which is why Democrats want to abolish it...
in response to the recent terrorist attack in new zealand their government is proposing to ban semi automatic and military style weaponry.. do you agree with this idea?.
would they be better off allowing more of these weapons instead?.
would it be better to perhaps allow more of the muslim community for example, to be armed with semi automatic guns to protect themselves at their places of worship?.
For the record; New Zealand, imo, should do what its citizens decide, by vote, to do. As my above statement says, I think it's a mistake to outlaw guns, but I dont live there and it's up to them to do what they think is best. Besides, the orcs and villains of middle earth are still using bronze age weaponry, so I think they'll be ok. 😉
in response to the recent terrorist attack in new zealand their government is proposing to ban semi automatic and military style weaponry.. do you agree with this idea?.
would they be better off allowing more of these weapons instead?.
would it be better to perhaps allow more of the muslim community for example, to be armed with semi automatic guns to protect themselves at their places of worship?.
While correct, a semi automatic is no real defence against tanks and aircraft, it is still better than single action pistols and long guns. Semi autos would give any militia formed, a fighting chance, and the sheer number of citizens that would rise up in defense of this country, against a hostile domestic action would be huge. Many, if not most, military personnel would leave and join in the rebellion. Notice no other country has dared an invasion of the U.S. primarily because its citizens are armed better than most other countries militaries.
"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".
Reading and comprehending the meaning of this is key in being a sane and logical citizen of the U.S. You may choose not to own a gun, but it is the absolute truth. Only law abiding citizens would turn their guns in, if they were banned. That leaves the criminal element, who already break the law, still armed, amongst a sea of unarmed citizens, waiting to be victimized. Not to mention unchecked law enforcement and military. Live in a country that bans guns and feel secure because of it? You are in denial.
I don't personally care for guns. I would love to live in a world where there are no guns. But that is never going to be a reality, and in the unfortunate event I am confronted, I for one would rather die on my feet, fighting, than on my knees begging for my life.
after seeing the atrocity in new zealand, do you think white nationalism is a major issue affecting you or where you live?.
somebody already called out chelseaclinton, blaming her for the attack!
.
The media put a magnifying glass and spotlight on any minor issue they can exploit, for ratings. Most "issues" are non events, until the media get ahold of them.
Btw, Bad Wolf, I agree with what you said, completely. Nice summary.
after seeing the atrocity in new zealand, do you think white nationalism is a major issue affecting you or where you live?.
somebody already called out chelseaclinton, blaming her for the attack!
.
Chelsea Clinton was berated over statements she made condemning anti semitism. ....which white nationalists, supremists, nazis, etc, all engage in. They hate Jews too. Yes, white nationalist veiws are a problem. Any and all racist speech, hate, is a problem, including White nationalists, Antifa, BLM, Nazis, etc.
I'm not a fan, but Chelsea's critics, here, are out of line, and just looking for someone to take their anger out on. Frankly, the left is starting to eat itself alive. And all the sane people are calling them out on their bs. Maybe those on the left will wake up and see the hypocrisy. But I'm not gonna hold my breath.
climate change ... who doesn't believe it?
crazy fools and science deniers ... right?.
it seems like it's become the new religion, the new orthodoxy, that must be accepted and believed as gospel and preached to all.. is it ok to be skeptical?.
So, in 25 years, as of that article, the sea has risen 3", except on the west coast of the U.S. where it has actually fallen, and they dont know if it's due to natural cycle, the expansion of warmer waters, ice sheets melting, or some other natural cycle they are unaware of. 25 years of data. Wheres the data 25 years before that? Or the 25 years before that? Or the billions of years before that?... prove to me that it isn't a natural cycle.
climate change ... who doesn't believe it?
crazy fools and science deniers ... right?.
it seems like it's become the new religion, the new orthodoxy, that must be accepted and believed as gospel and preached to all.. is it ok to be skeptical?.
Oh, and I am always open to changing my mind, if someone can show me inconclusive data that disproves my line of reasoning.
Media is a business. Climate change and severe weather gets viewers, and sells ad space, i.e. creates revenue. It is in their best interest to create headlines that grab attention, and "record setting" is a tried and true one. Anyone notice how in the last year or two the media has picked up on and exploited naming winter storms? Like they're Hurricane's...
And speaking of hurricanes, of course they do more damage as time goes on. Populations increase. More people build more homes and businesses which creates more wreckage from the storm. 100 years ago, coastlines weren't as populous. Infrastructure now stands where open land once was. If no one was living in a flood plain that flooded, no one paid it any attention. Now a flood plain is populated with homes, and a powerful storm floods it, suddenly it's an unprecedented disaster.
Anyway. I'm am always willing to change my mind, if someone can, beyond a shadow of doubt, prove otherwise.
climate change ... who doesn't believe it?
crazy fools and science deniers ... right?.
it seems like it's become the new religion, the new orthodoxy, that must be accepted and believed as gospel and preached to all.. is it ok to be skeptical?.
I keep hearing "the sea levels are rising", and yet, all these cities that sit at the waters edge, aren't underwater. The beaches I played at as a kid, still have the same high and low tide levels. I agree with everything you've stated, Simon. I've been skeptical all along. Science is always finding some new variable, or new data, and change their minds every decade or so. Fact is, we've only been accurately measuring temperatures for the last 100-150 years. The earth wasn't near as populated back then. Thermometers weren't as widespread, and certainly weren't as accurate as they are today. Also, inhospitable climates were rarely, if ever, visited, much less measured in temperature. Scientists can pull cores out of sea mud and ice, and give us all sorts of data and speculation, but that's all it really can be. Now, I truly believe it's in all humans best interests to make as little impact on the environment as possible. I think looking for other sources of clean, renewable energy, and creating new technologies that more efficiently utalize those energy sources, is important. Always a balance. The earth is in constant evolution. Constant cycle. We've only been around for a blip of it. The sky is falling, sells ad space, and gets politicians elected. I am a skeptic, who strives to take care of the environment, and create as little pollution as possible.
so now whites are to blame for pollution.
lol these idiot libtards are pushing trump for the win every day.
so all whites are to blame if one factory owner is white but a black who runs a drug cartel whites are still to blame.
Pollution is pollution. Why make it racial and divisive? ...um because it makes headlines, sells ad space, and gives it a much greater chance of being debated on morning media and websites like this. Goal: achieved.
