Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
George1 wrote:
JohninMK wrote:Geographically speaking, except for big cities and a few isolated areas, the country cannot stand Hillary.[/i]
JohninMK wrote:At the White House today. Only one happy face, the rest have unexpectedly (to them) lost their jobs. What a shame!
..............
.................
And here is why you are wrong...higurashihougi wrote:The problem is if we consider the number of popular voters, Trump had less popular vote. Less people voted for Trump. But more electors voted for him and that made him win.
I do not say that I prefer who over who. For me both are in the same boat, representatives of US "big government of oligarchs". But I consider the US's electoral college system as a cancer of US politics.
kvs wrote:If Trump does try to move the US away from the neocon trajectory then expect all the stops to be pulled. Aside
from any direct assassination attempt, there will be major false flags to try to poison the political climate against
Russia and foist Killary's agenda onto the menu. MH17 will look like a joke. The neocons will need real blood and
for Americans to get mad with rage. Perhaps a dirty nuke on US soil linked to Russia.
This is why having scum like Litvinenko smuggle radioactive material out of the former USSR is dangerous. One of these
5th column maggots could be used to stage a false flag against Russia. I would swat these vermin like flies and give
them no quarter. Obviously the Polonium "Putin did it" offing of Litvinenko was a false flag itself. But now is a very
critical time and Russia's security depends on control of its assets and liabilities.
havok wrote:And here is why you are wrong...higurashihougi wrote:The problem is if we consider the number of popular voters, Trump had less popular vote. Less people voted for Trump. But more electors voted for him and that made him win.
I do not say that I prefer who over who. For me both are in the same boat, representatives of US "big government of oligarchs". But I consider the US's electoral college system as a cancer of US politics.
It is well known that concentrations of population, which usually equals to concentrations of wealth, equals to potential and exercise of political power.
The American founding fathers long ago recognized that truth. They knew that as the country and its people expands, limits unknown, there will inevitable disparity of concentrations of population and wealth. If any state and/or territory feels that it is being ignored in the political process, the odds of dissension increases and unity proportionately threatened. What the electoral college does is to make each state equally relevant, forcing Presidential contenders, or at least their proxies, to face the voters in each state.
Look at the map above.
What do city dwellers know of farming or mining ? On the other hand, what do farmers know of semiconductor manufacturing ? And what do farmers and city slickers know of open water fishing ?
If the electoral college does not exist and the President is chosen via direct democracy, instead of the current representative method, have no doubt that the contenders will focus their energies on a few populous states, giving them disproportionate political sway in the Congress and in the Executive branches.
havok wrote:And here is why you are wrong...higurashihougi wrote:The problem is if we consider the number of popular voters, Trump had less popular vote. Less people voted for Trump. But more electors voted for him and that made him win.
I do not say that I prefer who over who. For me both are in the same boat, representatives of US "big government of oligarchs". But I consider the US's electoral college system as a cancer of US politics.
It is well known that concentrations of population, which usually equals to concentrations of wealth, equals to potential and exercise of political power.
The American founding fathers long ago recognized that truth. They knew that as the country and its people expands, limits unknown, there will inevitable disparity of concentrations of population and wealth. If any state and/or territory feels that it is being ignored in the political process, the odds of dissension increases and unity proportionately threatened. What the electoral college does is to make each state equally relevant, forcing Presidential contenders, or at least their proxies, to face the voters in each state.
Look at the map above.
What do city dwellers know of farming or mining ? On the other hand, what do farmers know of semiconductor manufacturing ? And what do farmers and city slickers know of open water fishing ?
If the electoral college does not exist and the President is chosen via direct democracy, instead of the current representative method, have no doubt that the contenders will focus their energies on a few populous states, giving them disproportionate political sway in the Congress and in the Executive branches.
Sorry but no, the agrarian society where wealthy politicians lived required a system that guaranteed their power quotas against the growing masses from the cities and that's why the electoral collage was instituted not because some mythical envisions of social justice.havok wrote:It is well known that concentrations of population, which usually equals to concentrations of wealth, equals to potential and exercise of political power.
The American founding fathers long ago recognized that truth. They knew that as the country and its people expands, limits unknown, there will inevitable disparity of concentrations of population and wealth. If any state and/or territory feels that it is being ignored in the political process, the odds of dissension increases and unity proportionately threatened. What the electoral college does is to make each state equally relevant, forcing Presidential contenders, or at least their proxies, to face the voters in each state.
Look at the map above.
What do city dwellers know of farming or mining ? On the other hand, what do farmers know of semiconductor manufacturing ? And what do farmers and city slickers know of open water fishing ?
If the electoral college does not exist and the President is chosen via direct democracy, instead of the current representative method, have no doubt that the contenders will focus their energies on a few populous states, giving them disproportionate political sway in the Congress and in the Executive branches.
kvs wrote:The US elites are willing to sell the American majority down the river through offshoring. Offshoring is a way for the US to
win the loyalty of elites in developing countries (this includes China and India). They are "spreading the wealth" and the
stimulus is much appreciated by these developing country elites.
During the Cold War the US used the commie bogeyman to align various third world elites into its own camp and establish
a foothold. As the old colonial order disappeared a new version was being created. After the commie bogeyman disappeared,
they used globalism to maintain and develop these links. One could say that the US has been actively pursuing a one-world-government
scheme full tilt for decades. Government is not just about politicians and bureaucrats, it is about elites. Having the global elites in
its pocket would give the US total control over the planet.
Clearly, throwing the US workers under the bus is a small price to pay for such power. The long term payoff in terms of wealth
is enormous. Let the peasants die under bridges homeless and starving. Or throw some welfare crumbs at them. They do not
matter. The newly rising global consumers and their local elite shepherds is what it is all about now.
Trump is not going to stop this train since the US elite is not going to give up on their global utopia. He is just one man and
likely not even truly interested in doing what he claims he wants to do. Giving the American workers their jobs back simply
ain't gonna happen. Renegotiating NAFTA and assorted other moves are just window dressing. At least Trump bothered
to appeal to the US worker, Killary practically spat in their faces. (So much for the Democratic Party being pro-labour, they
are just another sock puppet collection owned by the elites).
havok wrote:
What do city dwellers know of farming or mining ? On the other hand, what do farmers know of semiconductor manufacturing ? And what do farmers and city slickers know of open water fishing ?
If the electoral college does not exist and the President is chosen via direct democracy, instead of the current representative method, have no doubt that the contenders will focus their energies on a few populous states, giving them disproportionate political sway in the Congress and in the Executive branches.
Hey Garry B, what do you think about Trump's election as President? Do you think his talk about good relations with foreign countries like Russia is just hot air? Will he continue to pursue an imperialistic foreign policy? I have my reservations.
Sorry, but no.whir wrote:Sorry but no, the agrarian society where wealthy politicians lived required a system that guaranteed their power quotas against the growing masses from the cities and that's why the electoral collage was instituted not because some mythical envisions of social justice.
|
|
|
Home
Register
Log in
Vann7