Right-wing forums and homosexuality

[Kulindahr]

Those bills help .... take 100,000s of old inefficient cars off the roads,...

I'm going to pounce on that one. The cars taken off the road, by and large, were nowhere near the bottom of the heap of what's out there. The truly old inefficient cars are still on the road, because the bill was written in such a way that the people at the bottom of the economic ladder couldn't take advantage of it. I don't know anyone around here who didn't get rid of anything other than a nice, well-running, recent model car (no more than fifteen years) just to get an even nicer car. The real stupidity is that every car that was "taken off the road" under the program was destroyed -- when they were far more fuel-efficient than huge numbers of vehicles still on the road.

My mom made a list of people in her retirement community who wanted to take advantage of that program but couldn't. The best mpg on her list was 15; the newest vehicle was an '82. But several people there did take advantage of it, and every one of their cars was newer and got better gas mileage than the best of those others. That reveals it as a really stupid program.

The final nail in its coffin is that US News did some calculations and determined that the carbon footprint of manufacturing the cars bought under that program was higher than that of the cars destroyed over the probable ownership lifetime. So the program was nothing but a showpiece, that helped out the well-to-do and harmed the environment more than it helped.

 

[Kulindahr]

However, 5.7% is an unnaturally high rate of growth for just three months, and can be attributed to help received from several bills passed in Congress in the last session.

That rate of growth is high enough it will almost certainly kick in inflation. That's a result that punishes the poor and rewards the rich.

And now if we can get rid of the equally-antiquated Electoral College.

So the whole country can be reduced to the big cities, and the rest treated like serfs?

If any reform is to be made to the E.C., it should be to give every state another vote, and then cap the number of votes a state can have, at 25.

 

[01solara]

I'm going to pounce on that one. The cars taken off the road, by and large, were nowhere near the bottom of the heap of what's out there. The truly old inefficient cars are still on the road, because the bill was written in such a way that the people at the bottom of the economic ladder couldn't take advantage of it. I don't know anyone around here who didn't get rid of anything other than a nice, well-running, recent model car (no more than fifteen years) just to get an even nicer car. The real stupidity is that every car that was "taken off the road" under the program was destroyed -- when they were far more fuel-efficient than huge numbers of vehicles still on the road.

My mom made a list of people in her retirement community who wanted to take advantage of that program but couldn't. The best mpg on her list was 15; the newest vehicle was an '82. But several people there did take advantage of it, and every one of their cars was newer and got better gas mileage than the best of those others. That reveals it as a really stupid program.

The final nail in its coffin is that US News did some calculations and determined that the carbon footprint of manufacturing the cars bought under that program was higher than that of the cars destroyed over the probable ownership lifetime. So the program was nothing but a showpiece, that helped out the well-to-do and harmed the environment more than it helped.

A good friend of mine went to the junkyard recently to get a part for an old car he is working on. He walked onto the yard to see row after row of BMW's, Mercedes and all kinds of perfectly clean good cars that could no longer be sold or used. This people with the real polluters could not afford to buy a brand new car for the most part. If this was going to be done the good cars withing a certain mpg and age should have been available for people that could not afford a brand new car to trade for.

All C for C did was convince people that were going to buy new vehicles to do it sooner and reduce the number of good used cars artificially inflating the sales price of used cars. The whole thing should have been limited to cars with at least 75 percent domestic content regardless of the brand name on the outside. Some Honda's and Nissans have more domestic content than Chevrolets.

 

[grantt]

^I have many friends in the auto industry and they told me the same thing. It was good for shrot term business, but Solara you are right on the money about this!!!!

 

[Kulindahr]

A good friend of mine went to the junkyard recently to get a part for an old car he is working on. He walked onto the yard to see row after row of BMW's, Mercedes and all kinds of perfectly clean good cars that could no longer be sold or used. This people with the real polluters could not afford to buy a brand new car for the most part. If this was going to be done the good cars withing a certain mpg and age should have been available for people that could not afford a brand new car to trade for.

All C for C did was convince people that were going to buy new vehicles to do it sooner and reduce the number of good used cars artificially inflating the sales price of used cars. The whole thing should have been limited to cars with at least 75 percent domestic content regardless of the brand name on the outside. Some Honda's and Nissans have more domestic content than Chevrolets.

It should have been written to give a greater credit for the older the car, as well. It's astounding how many cars from the sixties and seventies are still out there for the mere reason that people can't afford anything newer.

In fact that could have been a nice piece of stimulus: make it a tax credit for "buying up" for anyone with a vehicle older than 1980, regardless of whether they still owe on it, and get truly old pieces of scrap off the road. That's a good idea also from this angle: a mechanic friend tells me there's enough steel in a car from '69 to make two cars today.

 

[Kulindahr]

Solara, there are large parts of the US where they don't campaign NOW.

Republican candidates won't even go to California. What's the use? It'll go blue, anyway. Similarly, Democrats don't waste too much time in the South or in the Dakotas.

What have we ended up with? Vast numbers of both Republicans and Democrats who're effectively disenfranchised.

Why on Earth are Americans still holding on to this comically antiquated institution?

So we pass an amendment that a candidate can't get any electoral votes from a state where he/she hasn't campaigned for at least 48 hours.

Then another that says any candidate getting at least 10% of the vote in a state gets an electoral vote.

Think of ways to make it work again, instead of throwing out an integral part of the United STATES.

 

[Kulindahr]

But Kulindahr, vast numbers of people....including you...are disenfranchised right now! Why, you, a Libertarian in a blue state, might as well not show up to vote! Your state will go blue, anyway.

I don't think that's the way a democracy should work, Kulindahr.

The United States is not a democracy, and was never intended to be one. It's a Republic, for which democracy was a tool. But the Founding Fathers pointed out that it was a dangerous tool -- and here you want to make it more dangerous still!

Elect the president by popular vote, and there would be no reason whatsoever for half the states to stay in the Union -- the ten smallest would have less say than New York City. It would be better to dissolve the Union completely than go to direct election.

 

[opinterph]

… why don't they pro-rate each candidate in each state?

Each state is free to determine the method for allocation of its votes to determine the Electors for that state. Currently, Maine and Nebraska distribute votes on the basis of the winner of the popular vote in each of their Congressional Districts.

 

[opinterph]

Are they bound in any way by the "Guarantee Clause"?

That is an excellent question!

I am not currently prepared to answer, but will do some research.

 

[opinterph]

Opin, are you sure about this? If you are correct, it's a huge step in the right direction.

During the last election, one state was blue and the other red. What's this mean in terms of the electoral college votes?

See the links below.

Maine and Nebraska … allocate two Electoral Votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska) in their state. This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split Electoral Vote.

Maine & Nebraska Split Electoral Votes

From the outset, and to this day, the manner of choosing its State's Electors was left to each State legislature …

Indeed, by 1836, all States had moved to choosing their Electors by a direct statewide popular vote except South Carolina which persisted in choosing them by the State legislature until 1860. Today, all States choose their Electors by direct statewide election except Maine (which in 1969) and Nebraska (which in 1991) changed to selecting two of its Electors by a statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote in each Congressional district.

The Electoral College by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC Office of Election Administration

Alternate Link: The Manner of Choosing Electors

Congressional District Method (Wiki)​

Recent efforts to change states' method of choosing electors:

Colorado rejects proposal to split electoral votes

Republicans want share of California electoral votes​

 

[JB3]

Opin, are you sure about this? If you are correct, it's a huge step in the right direction.

During the last election, one state was blue and the other red. What's this mean in terms of the electoral college votes?

Other states have also started moving in this direction, but it is not a priority. (especially in states where a single party has had a hold on state politics, and is unwilling to let the electoral votes be split between the candidates) Case in point would be Illinois. Democrats have had a strangle-hold on state politics here for a long time, and would be unwilling to reform how electoral votes are distributed if it would hurt a democratic candidate. (there are also examples of republican dominated states doing the same thing.)

 

[opinterph]

Are they bound in any way by the "Guarantee Clause"?

That is an excellent question!

I am not currently prepared to answer, but will do some research.

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. [Link]

I interpret the “Guarantee Clause” much as a treaty by and between the various States of the Union and their central government. It suggests that an important function of the Union is to protect citizens of the States from any form of “mob rule” that might otherwise be imposed through that State’s process of affiliation with the Federation, or as a result of invasion by some external force, or through some sequence of internal malfeasance or distress.

Thus, the [short] answer to your excellent question is:

Yes.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you all are insisting on keeping your powdered wigs and your Electoral College, why don't they pro-rate each candidate in each state?

Example--Say, in California: if they have 50 electoral votes, and the vote ends up being 40% Republican and 50% Democratic, 26 electoral votes will go to the Democrats and 24 will go to the Republicans. That would be fair.

I cannot, and will not, ever support all 50 votes going to the Democratic candidate. That does not reflect a democratic process to me, Kulin, because it disenfranchises all those millions of Republicans. It's horseshit! Horseshit! And keep in mind I'm a Democrat! But I know that "what's fair is fair."

The situation is exactly reversed in Red states.

I cannot be openminded on this issue. I guess it's in my blood or something.

The process is not meant to be "democratic" -- in fact it was intended to avoid that like the plague.

The President is president of the states, so the states cast votes. Anything which changed that would essentially be an abolition of what the Union is about.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh, Kulin, that silly semantics game again. Whatever.

I'm referring to a country being holding democratic principles, anyway.

It's not just semantics. We've come to worship democracy, as though it were some noble end in itself. The Founding Fathers would be horrified; to them, democracy was just a tool, one which, if it became destructive of liberty, should be cast aside as readily as were crowns and patents of nobility.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are they bound in any way by the "Guarantee Clause"?

Yes: they can't have hereditary Electors....

Droid, it's the only "right" thing to do.

I live in a battleground state (NV) with a very small population.. It doesn't seem right that my own vote is worth infinitely more than yours. You, as a Republican in Illinois, are wasting your gas to even show up at the polls on Election Day...

Your vote is worth exactly the same his is: you are each voting for the electors for your respective states. If you were voting in the same election, it would be different, but you aren't.

States elect the president; people do not.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, I am a realist. Your vote, as a Libertarian in Oregon, a fiercely blue state, is wasted. You might as well not even get into the car.

Your vote would be equally useless if you were a Republican.

Kulindahr, I love you man but right now I want to bean you.

That's a different topic -- you were saying your vote was worth different than JB's, which isn't true.

It's up the the states how they choose their electors. Personally, I'd have them selected by the state Senate, but then I'd have one senator from each county; I'd also require that any party which got 10% of the vote got an elector.

If I lived in California, I'd say don't even put Pres & Veep on the ballot, just indicate your party preference, and assign them proportionally.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulin, my vote really is worth more than Droid's, because I live in a battleground state.

They need my vote; nobody needs his, because he's a Republican in a hopelessly Democratic state.

I reiterate that it's a waste of time for him to even start his car that morning.
By contrast, I've got people literally begging for me to show up on Election Day.

My whole point in all of this is that the status quo is bullshit. It contradicts deeply held sentiments of fairness and justice. I can't help it, even though I realize the worst victims are Republicans.

Your vote is more critical; it's not worth more.

 

[JB3]

Kulin, my vote really is worth more than Droid's, because I live in a battleground state.

They need my vote; nobody needs his, because he's a Republican in a hopelessly Democratic state.

I reiterate that it's a waste of time for him to even start his car that morning.
By contrast, I've got people literally begging for me to show up on Election Day.

My whole point in all of this is that the status quo is bullshit. It contradicts deeply held sentiments of fairness and justice. I can't help it, even though I realize the worst victims are Republicans.

No, as a matter of fact it is not.

In case you haven't heard the news, several of the primaries in Illinois were decided by less than 1,000 votes; the general election in November will be very similar. So yeah, my vote is definitely worth as much as yours, and in the case of state races, probably more critically needed by candidates.

And, although democrats control both houses of the state legislature, Illinois is NOT hopelessly democratic. Blago was the first democratic governor in 30 years, and the senate seats switch fairly regularly between democrats and republicans.

 

[JB3]

Droid, I'm referring to Presidential Elections. I thought that was pretty obvious. Isn't the Electoral College all about Presidential Elections, and nothing about anything else?

How long has it been since Illinois has gone "red"?

Its been a while. That almost entirely has to do with the city, however. The suburbs and rest of the state are fiercely independent.

 

[Kulindahr]

<chuckle> you deve. You're a stubborn one....

At any rate, Kulin, it bothers me. I'd like to see some kind of Electoral College Reform, in particular, pro-rating of electors. I don't think anybody should be disenfranchised, and, let's face it—millions of people are.

Just trying for precision.

For better or worse, without an amendment to the Constitution, reform is up to the states. That leaves it all to partisan politics, in which even liberty is up for grabs.

Once upon a time, all Americans were libertarians, and the dispute between the parties was over what sort of things aided liberty. Now almost all Americans are selfisharians, who care little about liberty -- so the states where reform could really have an impact are exactly the ones which won't do it.