This what U.S. companies get for chasing cheap labor and raping U.S. workers.
No it's the high taxes, and high, out of control regulations killing businesses in the U.S. The Unions don't help. They'll drive a business into the ground and still want ever more and more. You either go out of business or you flee the U.S. Trying to startup a new business is also not easy. Just hiring 1 person can be very costly even if you're making nothing yourself trying to get it going.
China, we don't give rats you-know-what about your threats. Impose high tariffs on all imports that can't be manufactured in this country. And PolicyMan you're wrong - check the facts. Trump had more popular votes as well.
News flash - don't believe everything you read online!
Trump would be a major idiot to have a trade war with China. It would be economic suicide for the world. It'd be like going to war with yourself. Not a playground to test out your hair-brained ideas hairdo.
Let's just hope it's bullshit he spouted—as he does—merely to fool Americans into electing him. I get that Americans didn't want Hilary, but boy that's little choice there. One big fat big liar and another little skinny big fat liar. Like Pepsi or Pepsi with extra sugar thrown in.
The thing is... the american people DID want Hilary... she won the popular vote over trump... the electoral system is just broken if you ask me...
I didn't vote for another entity to place their vote... I voted for the president... oh well...
Unfortunately for you (and many other occupiers), you can't change the rules of the game while it's being played. Founding father's implemented this to avoid mob rule and allow small states to have a voice. Had Hill won the electoral and Trump the pop you would have been just fine with the electoral college.
I would be against eliminating the Electoral College because
of this very reason. But I also think there is room for improvement. Currently,
all but two states use a winner-take-all approach to allocating their Electoral
votes. The US Constitution does not require this, and the founders likely did
not anticipate the huge differences in state populations as we have today. If
you are a Republican in CA or a Democrat in TX your vote in meaningless….HUGE
portions of our population essentially have no say because of the winner-take-all
approach. But I also don’t think a nation-wide populate vote is the way to go,
either, because it would mean less populated states can simply be ignored.
Nebraska and Maine allocate their Electoral votes based on
congressional district. One vote each for the equivalent of the House of Rep
seats and two state-wide votes for the equivalent of the Senate. Since nation-wide
the districts are roughly of equal population, this is a step towards the “popular
vote” people think they want. And since every state gets the same two
state-wide votes, it gives even smaller states an equal say (for those votes)
as the biggest state, preserving the intention of the founders of the nation.
And the best part is this wouldn’t require amending the US
Constitution to do it because it doesn’t dictate to the states how to allocate
their votes. Each state could enact this on their own…if only their people would
go along with it.
I'd gladly pay a few hundred dollars more to buy an American made iPhone. We are too dependent on China for things we use daily. And fewer Chinese student at our universities? That's a reward, not a threat.
It's a fantasy to think the US Govt is going to force Apple to start manufacturing and furthermore locate its first and only factory in the USA.
Same kind of fantasy as, coal is coming back. Same fantasy as, Detroit factories that employ tens of thousands of people are coming back.
But I digress. As usual lol.
Trump should start building the wall now. Export the stupid protestors. Washington state didn't vote for trump so don't care about Boeing. California didn't vote for trump so don't care about Apple and the tech companies. Slash H1-B visas to teach them. He needs to do what he promised or he won't be reelectef.
An old story that may have some similarities to the current political situation -- you pick 'em:
A driver had a flat tire and pulled off the road on a hill next to the yard of mental asylum. The driver, after removing the hubcap, jacked the car up and removed the wheel's lug nuts -- setting them on the ground. Several lug nuts rolled down to the bottom of the hill. Swearing all the way, the driver stumbled down the hill to retrieve the lug nuts.
An inmate, in the yard, was watching the whole scene.
Upon arrival back at the top of the hill, the driver was approached by the inmate: "Why don't you turn the hubcap upside down and place the lug nuts inside?"
Taken aback, the driver said: "That's a great idea... But, if you're so smart, why am I out here -- and you're in there?"
The inmate responded: "Simple... I may be crazy -- but I'not stupid!"
Popular vote to the Electoral College issue is not the answer, it is over-simplistic and doesn't understand US history. The better option is for the Electoral votes for each state be proportionally allocated to each Candidate. To solve for rounding complications, Winner rounds up, Loser rounds down. Too many people do not vote because they know that their vote will not count, the majority of states always vote Republican or Democrat therefore just a handful of 'battleground' states truly decide the election (and why cnn can project the democrat winning California the moment the polls close there). Now if we allocate proportionally, everyone's vote has a say, small states do not get overrun, voter turnout could only increase. Makes for a much better democracy IMHO.
Trump would be a major idiot to have a trade war with China. It would be economic suicide for the world. It'd be like going to war with yourself. Not a playground to test out your hair-brained ideas hairdo.
Let's just hope it's bullshit he spouted—as he does—merely to fool Americans into electing him. I get that Americans didn't want Hilary, but boy that's little choice there. One big fat big liar and another little skinny big fat liar. Like Pepsi or Pepsi with extra sugar thrown in.
The thing is... the american people DID want Hilary... she won the popular vote over trump... the electoral system is just broken if you ask me...
I didn't vote for another entity to place their vote... I voted for the president... oh well...
Unfortunately for you (and many other occupiers), you can't change the rules of the game while it's being played. Founding father's implemented this to avoid mob rule and allow small states to have a voice. Had Hill won the electoral and Trump the pop you would have been just fine with the electoral college.
I would be against eliminating the Electoral College because
of this vary reason. But I also think there is room for improvement. Currently,
all but two states use a winner-take-all approach to allocating their Electoral
votes. The US Constitution does not require this, and the founders likely did
not anticipate the huge differences in state populations as we have today. If
you are a Republican in CA or a Democrat in TX your vote in meaningless….HUGE
portions of our population essentially have no say because of the winner-take-call
approach. But I also don’t think a nation-wide populate vote is the way to go,
either, because it would mean less populated states can simply be ignored.
Nebraska and Maine allocate their Electoral votes based on
congressional district. One vote each for the equivalent of the House of Rep
seats and two state-wide votes for the equivalent of the Senate. Since nation-wide
the districts are roughly of equal population, this is a step towards the “popular
vote” people think they want. And since every state gets the same two
state-wide votes, it gives even smaller states an equal say (for those votes)
as the biggest state, preserving the intention of the founders of the nation.
And the best part is this wouldn’t require amending the US
Constitution to do it because it doesn’t dictate to the states how to allocate
their votes. Each state could enact this on their own…if only their people would
go along with it.
I totally agree with your take on it. I said much the same a few days ago.
lol. Everyone needs to just relax with this stuff.
Can't remember who said it but "The media takes Trump literally but not seriously. His voters take him seriously but not literally."
Just let the guy try and get better deals for the country. If he fails, he'll be out. If he wins even some minor concessions, it could be good for everyone.
The media hysteria over Trump stuff is just insane.
Are you as ignorant as you sound? The damage about to be perpetrated by this clown and the idiots surrounding him will go far beyond trade. One just needs to look at what they've been doing since the election - like the complete buffoon he put in charge of environmental issues and evaluating the EPA. He was elected out of ignorance - mostly clueless individuals to the real issues and the world around us. If people want real change they should start by getting a good education, by actually studying the real issues and gaining a better understanding of the world we live in.
Trump would be a major idiot to have a trade war with China. It would be economic suicide for the world. It'd be like going to war with yourself. Not a playground to test out your hair-brained ideas hairdo.
Let's just hope it's bullshit he spouted—as he does—merely to fool Americans into electing him. I get that Americans didn't want Hilary, but boy that's little choice there. One big fat big liar and another little skinny big fat liar. Like Pepsi or Pepsi with extra sugar thrown in.
The thing is... the american people DID want Hilary... she won the popular vote over trump... the electoral system is just broken if you ask me...
I didn't vote for another entity to place their vote... I voted for the president... oh well...
Unfortunately for you (and many other occupiers), you can't change the rules of the game while it's being played. Founding father's implemented this to avoid mob rule and allow small states to have a voice. Had Hill won the electoral and Trump the pop you would have been just fine with the electoral college.
I would be against eliminating the Electoral College because
of this vary reason. But I also think there is room for improvement. Currently,
all but two states use a winner-take-all approach to allocating their Electoral
votes. The US Constitution does not require this, and the founders likely did
not anticipate the huge differences in state populations as we have today. If
you are a Republican in CA or a Democrat in TX your vote in meaningless….HUGE
portions of our population essentially have no say because of the winner-take-call
approach. But I also don’t think a nation-wide populate vote is the way to go,
either, because it would mean less populated states can simply be ignored.
Nebraska and Maine allocate their Electoral votes based on
congressional district. One vote each for the equivalent of the House of Rep
seats and two state-wide votes for the equivalent of the Senate. Since nation-wide
the districts are roughly of equal population, this is a step towards the “popular
vote” people think they want. And since every state gets the same two
state-wide votes, it gives even smaller states an equal say (for those votes)
as the biggest state, preserving the intention of the founders of the nation.
And the best part is this wouldn’t require amending the US
Constitution to do it because it doesn’t dictate to the states how to allocate
their votes. Each state could enact this on their own…if only their people would
go along with it.
I totally agree with your take on it. I said much the same a few days ago.
One problem with using congressional districts as a basis for allocation electoral votes is Gerrymandering.
An old story that may have some similarities to the current political situation -- you pick 'em:
A driver had a flat tire and pulled off the road on a hill next to the yard of mental asylum. The driver, after removing the hubcap, jacked the car up and removed the wheel's lug nuts -- setting them on the ground. Several lug nuts rolled down to the bottom of the hill. Swearing all the way, the driver stumbled down the hill to retrieve the lug nuts.
An inmate, in the yard, was watching the whole scene.
Upon arrival back at the top of the hill, the driver was approached by the inmate: "Why don't you turn the hubcap upside down and place the lug nuts inside?"
Taken aback, the driver said: "That's a great idea... But, if you're so smart, why am I out here -- and you're in there?"
The inmate responded: "Simple... I may be crazy -- but I'not stupid!"
Except with the appointment of the racist and antisemitic Steve Bannon, Trump is showing himself to be crazy, stupid, and for good measure, downright devoid of humane values.
Oh, and for you guys saying the Electoral College protects us from mob rule, we just elected a president who based his campaign on mob incitement. That's how he got as much of the popular vote as he did.
The Electoral College derives from the age of print, not the age of commercial electronic media.
Trump would be a major idiot to have a trade war with China. It would be economic suicide for the world. It'd be like going to war with yourself. Not a playground to test out your hair-brained ideas hairdo.
Let's just hope it's bullshit he spouted—as he does—merely to fool Americans into electing him. I get that Americans didn't want Hilary, but boy that's little choice there. One big fat big liar and another little skinny big fat liar. Like Pepsi or Pepsi with extra sugar thrown in.
The thing is... the american people DID want Hilary... she won the popular vote over trump... the electoral system is just broken if you ask me...
I didn't vote for another entity to place their vote... I voted for the president... oh well...
Unfortunately for you (and many other occupiers), you can't change the rules of the game while it's being played. Founding father's implemented this to avoid mob rule and allow small states to have a voice. Had Hill won the electoral and Trump the pop you would have been just fine with the electoral college.
I would be against eliminating the Electoral College because
of this vary reason. But I also think there is room for improvement. Currently,
all but two states use a winner-take-all approach to allocating their Electoral
votes. The US Constitution does not require this, and the founders likely did
not anticipate the huge differences in state populations as we have today. If
you are a Republican in CA or a Democrat in TX your vote in meaningless….HUGE
portions of our population essentially have no say because of the winner-take-call
approach. But I also don’t think a nation-wide populate vote is the way to go,
either, because it would mean less populated states can simply be ignored.
Nebraska and Maine allocate their Electoral votes based on
congressional district. One vote each for the equivalent of the House of Rep
seats and two state-wide votes for the equivalent of the Senate. Since nation-wide
the districts are roughly of equal population, this is a step towards the “popular
vote” people think they want. And since every state gets the same two
state-wide votes, it gives even smaller states an equal say (for those votes)
as the biggest state, preserving the intention of the founders of the nation.
And the best part is this wouldn’t require amending the US
Constitution to do it because it doesn’t dictate to the states how to allocate
their votes. Each state could enact this on their own…if only their people would
go along with it.
I totally agree with your take on it. I said much the same a few days ago.
One problem with using congressional districts as a basis for allocation electoral votes is Gerrymandering.
True. Both parties have done Gerrymandering, but the Republicans have shown themselves lately to be particularly ruthless, which is typical, because they generally lack humane values. (Christian values are not the same as humane values.)
Trump would be a major idiot to have a trade war with China. It would be economic suicide for the world. It'd be like going to war with yourself. Not a playground to test out your hair-brained ideas hairdo.
Let's just hope it's bullshit he spouted—as he does—merely to fool Americans into electing him. I get that Americans didn't want Hilary, but boy that's little choice there. One big fat big liar and another little skinny big fat liar. Like Pepsi or Pepsi with extra sugar thrown in.
The thing is... the american people DID want Hilary... she won the popular vote over trump... the electoral system is just broken if you ask me...
I didn't vote for another entity to place their vote... I voted for the president... oh well...
Unfortunately for you (and many other occupiers), you can't change the rules of the game while it's being played. Founding father's implemented this to avoid mob rule and allow small states to have a voice. Had Hill won the electoral and Trump the pop you would have been just fine with the electoral college.
I would be against eliminating the Electoral College because
of this vary reason. But I also think there is room for improvement. Currently,
all but two states use a winner-take-all approach to allocating their Electoral
votes. The US Constitution does not require this, and the founders likely did
not anticipate the huge differences in state populations as we have today. If
you are a Republican in CA or a Democrat in TX your vote in meaningless….HUGE
portions of our population essentially have no say because of the winner-take-call
approach. But I also don’t think a nation-wide populate vote is the way to go,
either, because it would mean less populated states can simply be ignored.
Nebraska and Maine allocate their Electoral votes based on
congressional district. One vote each for the equivalent of the House of Rep
seats and two state-wide votes for the equivalent of the Senate. Since nation-wide
the districts are roughly of equal population, this is a step towards the “popular
vote” people think they want. And since every state gets the same two
state-wide votes, it gives even smaller states an equal say (for those votes)
as the biggest state, preserving the intention of the founders of the nation.
And the best part is this wouldn’t require amending the US
Constitution to do it because it doesn’t dictate to the states how to allocate
their votes. Each state could enact this on their own…if only their people would
go along with it.
I totally agree with your take on it. I said much the same a few days ago.
One problem with using congressional districts as a basis for allocation electoral votes is Gerrymandering.
Absolutely true, but I think it would still be better than the winner-take-all approach currently in use by most states. And I view this as better than having electoral votes proportional to the state's over-all popular vote because it preserves the state's two at-large votes as the Constitution originally intended.
Ideally, we'd figure out a way to get rid of Gerrymandering as well!
I'd gladly pay a few hundred dollars more to buy an American made iPhone. We are too dependent on China for things we use daily. And fewer Chinese student at our universities? That's a reward, not a threat.
It's a fantasy to think the US Govt is going to force Apple to start manufacturing and furthermore locate its first and only factory in the USA.
Same kind of fantasy as, coal is coming back. Same fantasy as, Detroit factories that employ tens of thousands of people are coming back.
But I digress. As usual lol.
Trump should start building the wall now. Export the stupid protestors. Washington state didn't vote for trump so don't care about Boeing. California didn't vote for trump so don't care about Apple and the tech companies. Slash H1-B visas to teach them. He needs to do what he promised or he won't be reelectef.
Of course, you realize that for, what, 5 years Trump protested Obama's legitimacy as President. The only difference is that he protested using his money and notoriety. Most people have neither fame nor fortune so they protest with the only currency they have...their time and their voice. Do these people have any less right to protest than Trump did?
I defend both group's, rich and poor, right to legally protest using the resources available to them.
The best way to compete with China is by eliminating barriers to business that already exist in the US due to onerous Federal regulations, but also China needs to be kicked out of the WTO (World Trade Organization) for product dumping, currency manipulation and IP theft (for starters).
Just for the US to START to compete on a better footing with regard to our unskilled and large unemployed labor force, the Federal minimum wage should finally be ended. It would at least let millions gain valuable experience, at wages which would be negotiated instead of arbitrarily decided by Washington.
An old story that may have some similarities to the current political situation -- you pick 'em:
A driver had a flat tire and pulled off the road on a hill next to the yard of mental asylum. The driver, after removing the hubcap, jacked the car up and removed the wheel's lug nuts -- setting them on the ground. Several lug nuts rolled down to the bottom of the hill. Swearing all the way, the driver stumbled down the hill to retrieve the lug nuts.
An inmate, in the yard, was watching the whole scene.
Upon arrival back at the top of the hill, the driver was approached by the inmate: "Why don't you turn the hubcap upside down and place the lug nuts inside?"
Taken aback, the driver said: "That's a great idea... But, if you're so smart, why am I out here -- and you're in there?"
The inmate responded: "Simple... I may be crazy -- but I'not stupid!"
Except with the appointment of the racist and antisemitic Steve Bannon, Trump is showing himself to be crazy, stupid, and for good measure, downright devoid of humane values.
Oh, and for you guys saying the Electoral College protects us from mob rule, we just elected a president who based his campaign on mob incitement. That's how he got as much of the popular vote as he did.
The Electoral College derives from the age of print, not the age of commercial electronic media.
I don't believe you to be typical of our more liberal Americans, thankfully. I've always considered those that are more thoughtful and "humane" to be more tolerant as a result, not less. IMHO it's the loud but fringe element that's already decided well in advance of Trump taking office that everything about his presidency will be evil. I think most others (the "humane" among us) will give things a chance to play out a few months first instead of believing themselves to be omniscient.
Trump would be a major idiot to have a trade war with China. It would be economic suicide for the world. It'd be like going to war with yourself. Not a playground to test out your hair-brained ideas hairdo.
Let's just hope it's bullshit he spouted—as he does—merely to fool Americans into electing him. I get that Americans didn't want Hilary, but boy that's little choice there. One big fat big liar and another little skinny big fat liar. Like Pepsi or Pepsi with extra sugar thrown in.
The thing is... the american people DID want Hilary... she won the popular vote over trump... the electoral system is just broken if you ask me...
I didn't vote for another entity to place their vote... I voted for the president... oh well...
The electoral system works. It prevents large population states from crushing the influence of the smaller population states. With an actual democracy, only Texas, California, New York and Florida would choose our presidents. And yes, I'm aware even Trump criticized the Electoral College. Well, he's not a constitutional scholar or a history major (and I'm sure others hold even more caustic views of him).
lol. Everyone needs to just relax with this stuff.
Can't remember who said it but "The media takes Trump literally but not seriously. His voters take him seriously but not literally."
Just let the guy try and get better deals for the country. If he fails, he'll be out. If he wins even some minor concessions, it could be good for everyone.
The media hysteria over Trump stuff is just insane.
Unbelievable. Someone who actually has a head on their shoulders and can think logically.
Bravo.
The last time I was truly proud of my my country, the USA -- was immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Individuals seemed to celebrate their shared values, respect and dreams as Americans --and mitigated their differences.
Somehow, we've got to get back to that place.
My wife of 35 1/2 years had died earlier that year... She would have been: first, appalled -- then very proud.
My 3 grandchildren were too young to understand & IMO do not realize how good Americans can be when united for a common good.
Somehow, we Americans have got to get back to that place.
Comments
I would be against eliminating the Electoral College because of this very reason. But I also think there is room for improvement. Currently, all but two states use a winner-take-all approach to allocating their Electoral votes. The US Constitution does not require this, and the founders likely did not anticipate the huge differences in state populations as we have today. If you are a Republican in CA or a Democrat in TX your vote in meaningless….HUGE portions of our population essentially have no say because of the winner-take-all approach. But I also don’t think a nation-wide populate vote is the way to go, either, because it would mean less populated states can simply be ignored.
Nebraska and Maine allocate their Electoral votes based on congressional district. One vote each for the equivalent of the House of Rep seats and two state-wide votes for the equivalent of the Senate. Since nation-wide the districts are roughly of equal population, this is a step towards the “popular vote” people think they want. And since every state gets the same two state-wide votes, it gives even smaller states an equal say (for those votes) as the biggest state, preserving the intention of the founders of the nation.
And the best part is this wouldn’t require amending the US Constitution to do it because it doesn’t dictate to the states how to allocate their votes. Each state could enact this on their own…if only their people would go along with it.
An old story that may have some similarities to the current political situation -- you pick 'em:
A driver had a flat tire and pulled off the road on a hill next to the yard of mental asylum. The driver, after removing the hubcap, jacked the car up and removed the wheel's lug nuts -- setting them on the ground. Several lug nuts rolled down to the bottom of the hill. Swearing all the way, the driver stumbled down the hill to retrieve the lug nuts.
An inmate, in the yard, was watching the whole scene.
Upon arrival back at the top of the hill, the driver was approached by the inmate: "Why don't you turn the hubcap upside down and place the lug nuts inside?"
Taken aback, the driver said: "That's a great idea... But, if you're so smart, why am I out here -- and you're in there?"
The inmate responded: "Simple... I may be crazy -- but I'not stupid!"
The better option is for the Electoral votes for each state be proportionally allocated to each Candidate. To solve for rounding complications, Winner rounds up, Loser rounds down.
Too many people do not vote because they know that their vote will not count, the majority of states always vote Republican or Democrat therefore just a handful of 'battleground' states truly decide the election (and why cnn can project the democrat winning California the moment the polls close there).
Now if we allocate proportionally, everyone's vote has a say, small states do not get overrun, voter turnout could only increase. Makes for a much better democracy IMHO.
put in charge of environmental issues and evaluating the EPA. He was elected out of ignorance - mostly clueless individuals to the real issues and the world around us. If people want real change they should start by getting a good education, by actually studying the real issues and gaining a better understanding of the world we live in.
One problem with using congressional districts as a basis for allocation electoral votes is Gerrymandering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
Oh, and for you guys saying the Electoral College protects us from mob rule, we just elected a president who based his campaign on mob incitement. That's how he got as much of the popular vote as he did.
The Electoral College derives from the age of print, not the age of commercial electronic media.
Ideally, we'd figure out a way to get rid of Gerrymandering as well!
I defend both group's, rich and poor, right to legally protest using the resources available to them.
Just for the US to START to compete on a better footing with regard to our unskilled and large unemployed labor force, the Federal minimum wage should finally be ended. It would at least let millions gain valuable experience, at wages which would be negotiated instead of arbitrarily decided by Washington.
Personal opinion:
The last time I was truly proud of my my country, the USA -- was immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Individuals seemed to celebrate their shared values, respect and dreams as Americans --and mitigated their differences.
Somehow, we've got to get back to that place.
My wife of 35 1/2 years had died earlier that year... She would have been: first, appalled -- then very proud.
My 3 grandchildren were too young to understand & IMO do not realize how good Americans can be when united for a common good.
Somehow, we Americans have got to get back to that place.