President Donald Trump's Final Days...

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I would leave the EU just to be able to flick the vees at America over genetically modified crops and endocrine-disrupting chemical pesticides. Staying in the EU will sooner or later means taking it up the arse for American politicians and Monsanto etc. via the TTIP.

And the same goes for US-Canada - I don't want and won't eat pesticide, hormone, antibiotic crap out of the US. They can whine and bleat all they like about fair trade, the fact is their safety standards are pathetic designed for corporate profits. Oh, and can I add that their dairy industry is the most subsidized corporate welfare bums on the planet. Don't know if that's true but it felt good saying it...

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

Please explain why a vote in a more populous state should carry more weight than a vote in a less populous state.

Sorry, I didn't see this question until now.

The answer is the USA is a federal country rather than a unitary state. This is reflected in the doctrine of states rights and also reflected in the system for appointing (not electing) the president. The people elect the college; the college appoints the president. But each state should have a voice in proportion to its weight of population in the union; the reality is not quite so. Partly this reflects the need to maintain a union by consent.

In keeping with the need for the central government to have legitimacy across all states in the union, all states are guaranteed a voice in the process of appointing the president. It is not the voters who are guaranteed the voice; it is the states in which the voters reside. The voters of California can and do decide how California will speak, but they cannot affect the voice of any other US states, any more than any US state such as Mississippi or Alabama can speak on behalf of California. Each state sends electors to the college to represent the voters of that state only.

How the representation between states is settled is another question, to which I know not the answer. But every state has been guaranteed the right to be represented and this in turn works against the vice of unitary states where less populous, prosperous or powerful regions are systematically neglected and mistreated by the centre.

Hope that helps.

[Devius]

President Donald Trump has invited Russian leader Vladimir Putin to visit the US, in a move that drew startled laughter from a US intelligence chief.

"That's going to be special!" said Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, when he was told about the invitation during a live interview.

The political fallout is continuing from Mr Trump's first summit with Mr Putin in Finland on Monday.

Democrats are demanding the notes from the two leaders' private talks.

"Until we know what happened at that two-hour meeting in Helsinki, the president should have no more one-on-one interactions with Putin," said Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, in a statement. "In the United States, in Russia, or anywhere else."

Full Story:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44895384

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Devius

Democrats are demanding the notes from the two leaders' private talks.

"Until we know what happened at that two-hour meeting in Helsinki, the president should have no more one-on-one interactions with Putin," said Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, in a statement. "In the United States, in Russia, or anywhere else."

Full Story:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44895384

i am not absolutely sure that Mr Schumer or anyone else in Congress has any right to tell the US president whether or not he is allowed to meet other world leaders.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

How the representation between states is settled is another question, to which I know not the answer. But every state has been guaranteed the right to be represented and this in turn works against the vice of unitary states where less populous, prosperous or powerful regions are systematically neglected and mistreated by the centre.

Each state gets one electoral vote for each Representative and Senator. Each state is guaranteed at least one House seat and 2 Senators. Thus, sparsely populated states have a minimum of 3 electoral votes. Since 1911 the number of House seats was capped at 435. Therefore, the number of Electors is 538.

California has 55 electoral votes for its 37,253,956 people as of the last census, or 1 per 677,345 people. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for its 563,626 people.

The system has been rigged to disadvantage the people in large states. That has been OK in the past, but is placing great strain on the body politic. If the small states cannot come to grips with what the big states need to continue to generate the wealth that subsidizes the small states, the current government will become untenable.

Frankly, I don't see how the United States can survive the looming climate change and the next big depression in its current form. That's assuming that human beings can adapt to the quite different environment that is being created as we speak. In all likelihood somebody will start throwing nukes.

[LadyLuck]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

But each state should have a voice in proportion to its weight of population in the union; the reality is not quite so.

The reality is exactly so. Every ten years the United States conducts a census. There are 538 electors in the college, corresponding to the number of legislators in Congress (435 representatives, 100 senators) and three electors assigned to the District of Columbia. Based on the population shift by state from the census the 435 will be redistributed to reflect that shift. This state gets one more, this state loses one - that sort of thing. Each state has a voice in direct relation to its size in population both in the Electoral College and in the House of Representatives.

The rub is that each state essentially holds its own winner take all state election for president (with only a few exceptions). If a candidate can win enough close races in enough smaller states they can afford lose by a landslide in the larger states and still prevail. Its not just that each smaller state has a say but that the smaller states collectively have a say and a significant one, at that.

This is why we will never see presidential elections decided by popular vote in the US. The Constitution mandates the current format and for that to be changed a large number of states that currently benefit from that format would have to sign off on the change... and that will never happen.

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

i am not absolutely sure that Mr Schumer or anyone else in Congress has any right to tell the US president whether or not he is allowed to meet other world leaders.

Congress has the duty of oversight of executive departments. At the moment there is a struggle going on over whether the Department of Justice is required to turn over working files from the Russia investigation to an oversight committee of the Congress.

No one is objecting to the president meeting with other foreign leaders. Meeting in secret and refusing to answer any questions about what agreements were made, when the other leader's press announces that many far-reaching agreements were reached is disturbing.

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I would leave the EU just to be able to flick the vees at America over genetically modified crops and endocrine-disrupting chemical pesticides. Staying in the EU will sooner or later means taking it up the arse for American politicians and Monsanto etc. via the TTIP.

Here I have been under the impression that the EU won't accept GM foods or certain pesticides.

So you think that clever gent named Boris would negotiate any deal that wouldn't involve GM foods and pesticides? Good luck, client state.

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Frankly, I don't see how the United States can survive the looming climate change and the next big depression in its current form. That's assuming that human beings can adapt to the quite different environment that is being created as we speak. In all likelihood somebody will start throwing nukes.

Brian, we will survive the way we always have. Remember what George Washington said: "We are Americans. We will cross a river to kill you in your sleep on Christmas morning if it suits our purpose."

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by charliels531

Here I have been under the impression that the EU won't accept GM foods or certain pesticides.

So you think that clever gent named Boris would negotiate any deal that wouldn't involve GM foods and pesticides? Good luck, client state.

Much of the EU's objections are in reality more based in reality protectionism rather than 'safety'. Particularly the interests of traditional small farmers that have always held a lot of political sway in France, hence the CAP subsidies.

In the UK there's a lot of scare stories that don't stand up to real analysis.
Much hype about 'chlorine washed chicken' in the UK press but that doesn't seem bother UK tourists consuming it whilst on holiday. Same with GM food.

If we are that bothered about chlorine why commercially wash our salad leaves in it, treat our drinking water with it and bath in huge quantities of it at our swimming pools.