GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread

[Nick]

...and yet they didn't take to the streets around the country for days after the election and riot, commit arson, vandalized cars, break windows, throw rocks, bottles, etc, at police, block surface streets and freeway traffic, beat innocent bystanders, or shoot people because obama had been elected, did they. No. They didn't...and that graphically illustrates one of the hardcore differences between how the left and right 'operate' here in the u.s.

before anyone tries to twist it, "to make a trap for fools" i am talking about the right for peaceful demonstration.
"

:shrug:

the sad fact is that there will always be a lunatic fringe attempting to make capital with their filth, just as we had with the brexit result. The other fact is that 98% of the people are quite decent and have no truck with extremism. Regretfully, the internet is a useful tool for broadcasting messages of hate, and a reason why education is of vital importance so that the younger generation can disseminate the (mis)information that is routinely presented.

 

[Larry L.]

When Obama came in 2008 along with a democratic fillibuster-proof congress I knew my very career was threatened. I spent 14 years training for this particular career and was 31 before I began practicing medicine independently. 9 years into practice along comes a President who wants the federal govt to take over healthcare and gave us the 2000+ page Affordable Care Act (ironic name because there's almost nothing in it that improves affordability, as evidence by the 25-50% premium increases this year). One of the fecaliths in the Act was put in there by the American Hospital Association (much of the law was written by special interests such as AHA and the insurance companies, which is why most of Congress really had no idea what was in it. According to Nancy Pelosi, it was necessary to pass it to find out what was in it) was a clause that outlawed physician ownership of hospitals. Now, a hospital can own physicians, and even a health insurance company can own a hospital and even physicians. But physicans can't own a hospital, and this is in spite of the Dept of Health and Human Services determining that MD owned hospitals provide higher quality care, do not cherry pick their patients, have higher patient satisfaction and come in at lower cost. But they're now banned. I have experienced a dramatic increase in burdensome government regulation which has dramatically increased my costs. All the while, reimbursement from medicare and medicaid is roughly the same as 20 years ago.

So what did I do on the morning of Nov 10, 2008? I got up and went to work..........

Bingo.

 

[roaldin]

This article might help people from either side to understand the point of view of the other a little... I hope...
It will probably offend both sides at some point.

https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class


Tim.

 

[Nick]

This article might help people from either side to understand the point of view of the other a little... I hope...
It will probably offend both sides at some point.

https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class


Tim.

Thanks Tim,

Interesting points, although I was not offended so trust I understood it all

Following the recent votes, I hope solutions, can be found for the respective countries on both sides of the pond before the proverbial hits the fan.

 

[Scott Calabro]

Some drift.....

Armed Bystander Guns Down Criminal Suspect Attacking Cop | NewsRadio 560 WHYN

 

[Doug S.]

Shot him 3 times? The article does not say, but was it necessary to attack with such brutal and lethal force?

Gotta wonder if we're going back to the vigilante days... :stunned:

Pretty sad.....:sad:

Doug

 

[Steve]

This article might help people from either side to understand the point of view of the other a little... I hope...
It will probably offend both sides at some point.

https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class


Tim.

Spot on! Reflects what I posted several pages back. Listening to Elizabeth Warren, she feels the mandate from this election is that "Americans don't want Wall Street running the country". Totally out of touch with what happened. Ironic the article was published in a journal from a university that produces a large number of people that many Americans in the article distrust and dislike (and of course Warren came from Harvard....)

 

[Larry L.]

Shot him 3 times? The article does not say, but was it necessary to attack with such brutal and lethal force?

Gotta wonder if we're going back to the vigilante days... :stunned:

Pretty sad.....:sad:

Doug

What's "sad" is the LEO being assaulted in the 1st place. ('Wouldn't be surprised to find out the perp was on meth or something.)

LEOs are taught to fire multiple times when neutralizing a threat, so why shouldn't a civilian adhere to the same standard?

We don't know the specifics regarding the 'opponents' in this confrontation. Is it possible the perp was a 6 foot 6, 280 pound football player-type...the LEO 5 feet 10 and 180 lbs...and the civilian an older gentleman with health issues? 'See my point?

In any event, it's clear the LEO considered the perp a very real threat to his life in that situation, or he wouldn't have ordered the bystander to shoot the yo-yo. I for one don't feel inclined to fault his judgment based on what little info we've been given.

 

[Pat]

Thanks Larry, I've deleted the double post. It truly is a classic that is making the rounds and thanks for initially sharing it.

I guess I just don't lurk here enough these days to keep up. Whenever the name calling nonsense starts, I usually go on sabbatical.

I'm glad you're still representing the "right" side for the rest of us.

 

[Larry L.]

^^^ See post #675, Pat! :laugh:

 

[40 Bud]

It seems that a great many people have forgotten that we are a republic that is governed by laws. Just because you don't like the rules or the outcome of certain governing acts doesn't mean you can just ignore them without consequence. It is time we stop letting the law breakers have their way and willy nilly stomp all over the legal rights of a lot of citizens who are behaving and following the laws we have. with rights come responsibilities and one must honor both and not just pick and choose those we like. There were almost as many ellgible voters who could not be bothered to vote as there those that took the time and interest to do so. So if you don't like what is going on vote. That's what the Trump supporters did.

 

[Doug S.]

The states elect the president. Get over it. It is not a popularity contest nor will it ever be until your side gets off its azz and successfully changes the 12th amendment.

There is support for doing just that---as the votes continue to be counted it appears that H.C. received close to a million more popular votes than Trump, yet he's engaging in all those transition activities.

On the national news this morning it was mentioned that someone in one of the houses of congress HAS filed a bill that would eliminate the Electoral College as a method of electing our POTUS. The source also mentioned that there was little hope that it would be successful.

There WILL be a groundswell of support for popular vote as we have to endure the Trump presidency. He'd be a fool (not that he isn't already) to support that movement when he's a splendid example of the mistakes made by the Electoral College.

Still, it IS progress...we no longer need the Electoral College any more than we need the horses/buggies that the Founding Fathers used for transportation. There is a better way! It's time for the USA to join the 21st century!

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Scott Calabro]

Get a grip Doug, it's not happening.

 

[40 Bud]

The more the government tries to buy votes the more important our system becomes.

 

[Larry L.]

Sorry, Doug...but as Scott opined, it's not going to happen.

If the 'College were done away with, candidates would only be concerned with, spend time IN, and kowtow to the wishes of those few states with the largest population totals. The rest of the nation would be completely ignored...except for lip service.

The Founders created the 'College to negate/avoid that as best they could. There's no way 2/3rds of the nation would vote to approve its removal.

 

[Doug S.]

If the current trend of inaugurating candidates who do NOT enjoy majority support is going to continue, IMHO we'll see more and more people looking for a change. Look at what we have now...a POTUS who failed to get a majority of the votes cast and who most of the media holds in "high disregard". Surely we can (and should) do better with a popular vote process, regardless of the intentions of our founding fathers.

There is no need to stick with a system that ignores the wishes of OVER half of the voting population, that's just a sad commentary on our present system.

Doug

 

[Doug S.]

If the 'College were done away with, candidates would only be concerned with, spend time IN, and kowtow to the wishes of those few states with the largest population totals. The rest of the nation would be completely ignored...except for lip service.

I live in one of those states now, Larry...Kansas is SO sparsely populated that we don't even have any "Discount Tire" outlets in the entire state, so you could say we're use to being ignored. It's just one aspect of life we have to endure to enjoy the MANY other more important aspects of life here in the great midwest.

If the US were to eliminate the electoral college and move to popular vote, I'd feel MORE included rather than less...at least I'd feel like my one vote would be recorded with everyone else's, rather than feeling like my votes haven't even been counted.

This isn't about Trump, at least not for me...it's about doing what is right for EVERYONE in our country, rather than just the economically advantaged (and if you don't think Trump will kowtow to special interests, watch him get buddy-buddy with the other wealthy individuals...we'll have government by the rich for the rich).

You might like that, being a M.D. and all...but for every M.D. there are probably 1,000 poor people who don't know if they'll be able to pay the rent next month. Are they being represented? I think not..... :idea:

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Rod]

The majority of the campaign is run in just a few states anyway:

Two-thirds of Presidential Campaign Is in Just 6 States | National Popular Vote

California had 1 campaign event. Whoopee!

And the Electoral College would NOT have to be eliminated in order to get a popular vote for President, the only office in the country where there isn't a popular vote to elect it's officeholder.

The National Popular Vote bill:

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote | National Popular Vote

"The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide (i.e., all 50 states and the District of Columbia). It has been enacted into law in 11 states with 165 electoral votes, and will take effect when enacted by states with 105 more electoral votes. Most recently, the bill was passed by a bipartisan 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, 57–4 in Republican-controlled New York Senate, and 37–21 in Democratic-controlled Oregon House."


National Popular Vote

So, whatever candidate wins the national popular vote get all the state's electoral votes, for the states that have passed this bill. Maybe the momentum from this election will get this bill passed in more states. They just need 270!

 

[Doug S.]

The National Popular Vote bill:

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote | National Popular Vote

"The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide (i.e., all 50 states and the District of Columbia). It has been enacted into law in 11 states with 165 electoral votes, and will take effect when enacted by states with 105 more electoral votes. Most recently, the bill was passed by a bipartisan 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, 57–4 in Republican-controlled New York Senate, and 37–21 in Democratic-controlled Oregon House."


National Popular Vote

So, whatever candidate wins the national popular vote get all the state's electoral votes, for the states that have passed this bill. Maybe the momentum from this election will get this bill passed in more states. They just need 270!

Now THAT is the way to make every voter feel like their vote is important. I know that in KS there is very little chance any democrat would get elected, it's just the way the state has been for all of my life. I do not take that personally and in fact make sure I cast a vote in every race about which I am knowledgeable. The urge to vote a straight democratic ticket was easy to resist, just because I was not familiar with all the parties involved in each race. In those races I honored my firm belief that an uninformed vote is worse than no vote at all, and I didn't vote in those races.

I want my vote to be as important to the candidates as those in the most populous state...nationwide popular vote would do that!

It's just the right thing to do..... :idea:

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Keith]

Sorry, am I missing something here? I thought the US election has been run and Trump is President elect, is he not?

I am getting the feeling that some people think, well, he's not REALLY the President because.. lalilalilali.

We had the same with the Scottish & EU Referendum's here. How big or small a margin of victory do you want to argue over? For example, is a one vote majority NOT a victory?

A similar stunt is pulled after a General Election here when it is argued that more people voted AGAINST the winning party, mainly because we have a multi party system. With our 'first past the post' system that often appears to be the case, but the winners will have a majority of elected MP's. All Govts in the UK going back over 100 years have been elected the same way so it's equal for everyone, but still we have the whiners who don't want to accept the result. I would have to say that it seems to be a trait of left wing parties in all cases I have mentioned.

Let's just get on with it I say. We live in critical times and there is not much time to lose...

If I've missed the thrust of the conversation, then I sincerely apologise but I've never been a particularly bright person..