Questions for our American friends

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by Decadence

Yeah.. that pesky electoral college. Fortunately, our founding fathers were smart enough to guard against mob rule.

No, James Madison it's creator a Virginian and slave owner was just smart enough to create a system that would preserve the power of slave states and hence continue slavery. That's the only reason it was created, no other.

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-co...story-slavery/

The 'mob' they didn't want to rule them were the Northern Abolitionists.

On that map most of the red areas are where nobody lives anyway.
Meaningless, it's like comparing empty counties in the Aussie Outback with the heavily populous areas on the coasts.

[Decadence]

Originally Posted by palo5

So... when your vote is given to someone else, or isn't even counted, that's ok is it?

No argument, it's your call

I've been a registered voter for over 40 years. My vote has never been given to anyone else unless it's via identity theft and I don't know about it yet.

Votes not counted: well, they do count provisionals and absentee ballots separately, but I've never been in that situation. I don't know how they'd skip my ballot in the long line of them at the polling place.

I've voted for the Libertarian candidate in the last three presidential elections, knowing full well he wouldn't win. Some would call it a wasted vote. I call it a vote indicating I'm sick to death of Washington as it exists. Little by little, the numbers grow. But there were also state and local elections on the same ballot.

Maybe you know something I don't?

[Decadence]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

No, James Madison it's creator a Virginian and slave owner was just smart enough to create a system that would preserve the power of slave states and hence continue slavery. That's the only reason it was created, no other.

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-co...story-slavery/

The 'mob' they didn't want to rule them were the Northern Abolitionists.

On that map most of the red areas are where nobody lives anyway.
Meaningless, it's like comparing empty counties in the Aussie Outback with the heavily populous areas on the coasts.

Wow. Time Magazine. I think they're the ones who purposely reported (falsely) that Trump removed the MLK bust from the oval office. Hell, even Bob Dylan has accused Time of bias and sloppy reporting. Hardly a credible source.

Here's a real source:

The Federalist Papers (c. 1787). Written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay:

The reason that the Constitution calls for this, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy.

James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” (FP 10)

According to Alexander Hamilton, the point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” (FP 68)

And as far as nobody living in red states, I had no idea nobody lived in Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, etc. I'll bet it'll be news to them, too... especially when it was enough to win an election.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Decadence

Here's a real source:

The Federalist Papers (c. 1787). Written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay:

The reason that the Constitution calls for this, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy.

James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” (FP 10)

According to Alexander Hamilton, the point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” (FP 68)

And as far as nobody living in red states, I had no idea nobody lived in Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, etc. I'll bet it'll be news to them, too... especially when it was enough to win an election.

Correct. The whole deal was that the state legislatures held the power under the Articles of Confederation. Those legislatures would not provide the funds for the federal government to do much of anything, including pay the bondholders, soldiers, and suppliers who had accepted securities in lieu of specie during the Revolutionary War. Several of these legislatures were monkeying with contract law and forcing lenders to accept paper currency as repayments for loans made in hard currency.

It was necessary to appease the slaveholders to keep the nation together as a security measure. Nobody anticipated that the Industrial Revolution would create power mills and sharply increase the demand for cotton. Slave plantations went from being marginally profitable to very lucrative in the early 19th century. The real impetus, however, came from financiers and merchants. They and their lawyers comprised most of the convention.

Most of these founders had large holdings of Continental scrip. While self interest was very much involved, the founders were correct that the survival of the nation depended on sound fiscal policy, protecting contracts, and rule of law. Now we just have to make sure to wrest enough control of the republic from the hands of the financiers that the Golden Goose survives.

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by Decadence

While the market is a beneficiary of the robust economy, it's not the cause.

Where I see the signs is the Federal Reserve.. who has signaled it's going to continue to raise interest rates. The economy has to be running at a fast enough rate to justify these increases without it backfiring.

the FED chairman and other recent appointments or put in there in order to raise rates Powell and the others are just putting forth the narrative to justify the move.

Originally Posted by Decadence

We've seen robust job gains, low unemployment, rising after tax incomes and rising consumer sentiment among households that has increased consumer spending.

most of these things were true under Obama yet and still the Fed under janet Yellen yet and still she was hesitant to raise rates, I'm sort of willing to bet that she knows that the numbers are not all what they seem to be.

Originally Posted by Decadence

Similarly, investment by businesses has continued to grow at a healthy rate.

I could understand if the investment was slated to workers pay, equipment, or stuff like that but most of that investment bookstores share BuyBacks which is only going to help the upper echelon at the expense of the workers.

Originally Posted by Decadence

Wages are rising, but not fast enough to spark concerns of inflation.

wages are also not fast enough to keep inflation listen to count food and I think fuel. Also worker's share of profits has been steadily declining. Even fed chairman had to admit that it workers share profits number was "very troubling" in an otherwise good economy.

Originally Posted by Decadence

In a recent Q&A session, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell referenced examples like those above and painted a largely positive picture of the economy which he said is expanding at an increasing pace and is being boosted by aggressive fiscal policy. Powell was first nominated to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors by President Obama in 2011 and name chairman by President Trump earlier this year.

So the market is a sign, but not a direct cause, IMO.

bottom line: I still sense smoke and mirrors when it comes to these numbers when it comes to the economy and for the record I know that the smoke and mirrors were there under Obama also.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by Decadence

And as far as nobody living in red states, I had no idea nobody lived in Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, etc. I'll bet it'll be news to them, too... especially when it was enough to win an election.

I guess many just enjoy living in the dark

[vinceprince]

http://geographical.co.uk/places/mapping/item/1981-us-election-cartogram-special

USA 2016 map proportionate for population.


This is actually made before the final count was fully complete and underestimates Clinton's final popular vote lead mostly in California by about 2 million votes.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by Decadence

Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” (FP 10)

'Tyranny of the majority'

Obviously he preferred the 'Tyranny of the minority' where white slave-masters in the south could exercise the votes of their much more populous black slaves as 3/5 of a white person in order to maintain slavery and their financial interests.

James Madison, the lead drafter of the Constitution genuinely rejected the idea of racial inferiority yet he still totally failed to put his beliefs in equality and liberty into practice. That makes him even worse that a genuine racist IMO.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

James Madison, the lead drafter of the Constitution genuinely rejected the idea of racial inferiority yet he still totally failed to put his beliefs in equality and liberty into practice. That makes him even worse that a genuine racist IMO.

Madison was concerned with getting a workable country and government. Unpalatable compromises needed to be made to that end. He and many others expected slavery to wither away. They did not foresee that the Industrial Revolution would raise the demand for cotton exponentially. They did see that having the 13 original colonies split into regional blocks would make the blocks easy prey for foreign intervention and make the possibility of war between the new regional powers quite real.

IMO it is quite unfair to judge the people of the past by our current moral standards. Hypocrisy is rampant then and now. For example, Britain did not move to outlaw the slave trade until the American Revolution cut them out of a large share of the traffic.

In any event, politics is a messy business. Finding the balance between moral and ethical behavior and actually creating a workable consensus with those of different persuasions is always difficult. If one reads the notes from the Constitutional Convention and Madison's correspondence, it will be seen that much of Madison's vision was chipped away in the making of the final document. Indeed, the Constitution was only adopted by several states with the proviso that the "Bill of Rights" contained in the first ten amendments would be enacted immediately.

[Davemetalhead]

I have a question - it's my understanding that the prices you see on a shop shelf may not be the price you pay at the till - does that not get bloody confusing? And is it for everything - food, electricals, clothing etc.?

If I'm right in thinking this, why don't the shops just add the tax there and then and showin the prices on the shelves?