|
Post by kerouac2 on Aug 28, 2018 14:45:41 GMT
And is it an electoral issue? Or just 2nd amendment rights?
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Aug 28, 2018 16:04:45 GMT
The student loan burden is a result of two factors: a reduction in federal and state government support for public universities and colleges (in MT, the state contribution used to be near 70%, now it’s only 38%), causing tuitions to rise, and a shift from grants to loans for student financial aid. Those who graduate with 10’s of thousands of $$$$ in loans, are not able to get mortgages, so can’t buy a house, a further drag on the economy. It’s a result of stingy/greedy representatives shifting social costs to allow spending on their preferred categories (military, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc.). The feds shift onto states, and states shift the burden to students in the form of increased tuition & fees.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 29, 2018 15:25:05 GMT
Yes indeed, that is a perfect example!
I realize it's campaign rhetoric, but that excerpt from Gillum's speech is stirring.
As far as DeSantis, this made me laugh: One of his ads showed him building a wall — of the border sort — out of blocks with one of his children and reading “The Art of the Deal” to another. It sounds more like a political cartoon making fun of him than something chosen as an ad promoting him. Oh well, I guess he knows his voting base.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Aug 29, 2018 17:37:50 GMT
Copying this from the “funny” elections thread because it’s a serious issue, one of many facing American voters. The number of US Representatives has remained at 435 since 1911, though the US population has increased between 3 and four-fold. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911After each decade’s census, congressional seats are shifted around to represent demographic shift since the last census. This is not a nonpartisan process, however, so the party in power in a state that gains or loses a seat in the H of R has the ability - and the motivation - to “gerrymander” the new districts to favor candidates from their own party and disadvantage the other party. Over time, the redistribution of representatives from declining-population states to growing states - without changing the total number of reps from 435 - has resulted in some serious inequities. Montana for example, has ONE rep serving over a million people (and an area larger than Germany and close in size to Zimbabwe), whereas the smallest state, Rhode Island, has TWO seats in Congress, though it’s smaller in area than either the Cape Verde Islands or Trinidad and Tobago. Yes, they have more people in RI than in MT, but not TWICE as many. In fact, the populations of the two states are close to the same. And doing some checking of more recent population numbers: Since 2016, when RI had about 14,000 more people than MT, Montana has grown faster, and current estimates put MT UP about 600 people over RI. So if demographic trends continue till the 2020 census, MT should regain its 2nd seat in Congress and RI should drop to one. In theory. Other states could have bigger population increases that could negate our gain, sending RI ‘s lost seat elsewhere, to a state that already has multiple seats in Congress. And MT is currently fairly red (GOP), though our current governor is a moderate Democrat, so a new seat gained in the 2020 redistributing could be gerrymandered to favor Republicans in both districts. Our system sucks! But the inequity in seats could be improved by changing the NUMBER of seats from 435 to a number that would allow each district to have approximately the same number of people in it. Here’s an article that spells it out better than I can: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/31/u-s-population-keeps-growing-but-house-of-representatives-is-same-size-as-in-taft-eraThe average US House of Representatives contains 747,184 population. “There have been occasional proposals to add more seats to the House to reflect population growth. One is the so-called “Wyoming Rule,” which would make the population of the smallest state (currently Wyoming) the basis for the representation ratio. Depending on which variant of that rule were adopted, the House would have had 545 to 547 members following the 2010 census.”
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Sept 20, 2018 22:12:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Sept 22, 2018 19:28:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Sept 23, 2018 0:15:51 GMT
I guess if it has to be said, well then, it has to be said. Thanksgiving is going to be a little tense in that family this year.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Sept 23, 2018 11:34:55 GMT
Indeed!
Bixa, are US citizens who live in other countries allowed to vote in congressional elections?
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Sept 23, 2018 12:43:54 GMT
Oh, yes indeedy-do!
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Sept 23, 2018 13:19:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Oct 22, 2018 11:11:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Oct 23, 2018 22:25:14 GMT
It's terrifying. Just look at her proudly displaying her asshole attitude in a country with multiple mass murders of school children. She is allowed to vote and to reproduce. At least she's got her ball cap on backwards so when she isn't carrying her sign people will still know she's a dangerous fool.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Oct 27, 2018 16:21:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Oct 27, 2018 16:44:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 1, 2018 6:00:55 GMT
As election day approaches, Trump has pushed it up a notch.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 6, 2018 19:33:17 GMT
Even Fox News ended up banning the ad above.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Nov 6, 2018 23:27:00 GMT
The thing about the Amy McGrath ad is that it will only get people to vote for her who probably would have voted for her anyway. Libertarians will say that if people want health care, they need to work and save to pay for it (through insurance companies of course). Some people won't like McGrath because she's a woman. And true conservatives would never vote for her because she's a Democrat, and you know how they are with their give-away programs.
It's a cute enough ad, but pretty useless in terms of getting out the undecided vote, or the indifferent registered voters who might sit out the election.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 7, 2018 14:37:06 GMT
One of the worst things about American elections as far as I'm concerned is the term length for the House of Representatives. Two years is the shortest term of any legislature in the world (I checked). El Salvador, Malaysia, Mexico, Nauru, New Zealand and the Philippines have 3 year terms, but the vast majority of the countries of the world have 4 or 5 year terms, and of course the others are even longer. A two year term does not give the person enough time to even learn how the legislature works and then it is time to become a candidate again. Obviously, people who are re-elected several times have learned how it all works, but so much time is lost on campaigning and elections that it is ridiculous. (And of course the taxpayers are financing all of this.)
So here we go again. Many of us can be a bit happy that the Democrats reconquered the lower house this year. But hey, the next election is in just two years -- it's time to start campaigning again!
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Nov 7, 2018 15:44:47 GMT
Well, that, and the damned Electoral College.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 7, 2018 15:56:22 GMT
Unfortunately, France still uses an electoral college to elect senators.
|
|
|
Post by whatagain on Nov 8, 2018 20:18:01 GMT
I heard somewhere that polls give Trump winner if he choose to be reelected.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 8, 2018 20:38:44 GMT
For the moment, that's what most analysts are saying.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Nov 9, 2018 1:30:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Feb 9, 2019 20:49:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Feb 10, 2019 14:07:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Feb 17, 2019 6:59:48 GMT
I see that Bernie Sanders is trying again, possibly inspired by Algerian president Abdelaziz Bouteflika who is running for reelection.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Feb 17, 2019 7:07:52 GMT
I'd vote for him, since I like him better than any others proposed for 2020.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Feb 17, 2019 15:09:58 GMT
I think Biden will get in, too.
Though I like him, due to his age I feel his time to run was in 2016, when he was too broken up over son Beau’s death.
That said, IF he pledged to serve only one term, his younger VP pick would be well-placed for a 2024 run.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Feb 22, 2019 11:10:05 GMT
Both Sanders and Biden would have to choose much younger running-mates. Actually while Sanders' age is certainly a factor, he is in good shape, unlike the Algerian president who seems pretty much out of it. And he's never been president; the highest public office he's ever held is Senator from Vermont.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Feb 22, 2019 18:33:24 GMT
Biden? BIG yawn. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/20/bernie-sanders-democratic-party <-- very worthwhile reading Sanders' biggest base in 2016 was composed of young voters and they don't appear to have deserted him. Also, two of the great forces in the US right now are old: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (86) and Nancy Pelosi (78). Let's not dismiss the age-old belief that age can equal wisdom.
|
|