Why Our Country Is So Screwed Up

[Peacenik]

It's complicated. But Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, and the propagandization of the right wing media environment is top of the list.

Those are all actually byproducts of our uneven voting system and the fact that the votes of many do not have as much power as the votes of those in poorly populated states. The fact that each state has 2 Senators regardless of state population, combined with the fact that the Senate controls the SCOTUS placements gives control of 2 branches of government to a minority.

That is what makes Fox news so powerful. Fox's rural audience has more voting power than urban voters.

 

[jaypatriot]

I am going to tell you exactly what is going on here. You're not going to like it, but it needs to be said.

Nice twist there. You took my view that the Constitution is a work in progress and tried to turn it into me having a 'negative view of the greatest country in the world.' What BS. Total straw man. Apparently you like things just the way they are. You want the votes of poorly educated rural people to be worth more than those of well educated urban people because those poorly educated rural people are easier to manipulate with emotional appeals. It's easy to get them to hate our government. You like this system where all votes are not equal because you support those who exploit the differences to get power and satisfy their greed.

Let's break that down a bit further. If we are the greatest country in the world then we are already great. That means we do not have to make America great again because we are already there. That means Donald is full of crap and nobody should vote for him. That makes sense because he is a proven liar, an insurrectionist, a rapist, a cheat, a fraud, and a convict. A jury of his peers unanimously rejected his defense that he didn't cheat on his wife, have sex with a porn star, and then pay her hush money to illegally influence the 2016 election because he thought it would be devastating to his election after the release of the Access Hollywood tape in which he was caught saying he likes to grab women by the *****, and that he thought since he was a big star they would let him.

Basically, Donald got away with cheating his way into the white house in the first place. If that had come out about the same time that Comey made his infamous public statement, Hillary might have won the 2016 election.

As to the second sentence of your post, that is also wrong. The ideas I posted are not mine. I read them at the Atlantic so it is obvious they are indeed held by a large number of people. And the skeptics are those who think the Constitution ratified in 1789 should serve for America in 2024 and never need amending. We have amended our Constitution many times. Nothing is frozen in stone. The idea that we could amend our Constitution again to better approach the concept of one person one vote has great merit. It certainly does not represent the straw man of 'a negative view of America.' (total BS) It would remove a troublesome undue advantage which is giving power to those who are not being responsible with it, and it would help preserve our nation in the long run.

The problem with things they way they are is hello, our nation is being ripped apart by this favoritist system that was originally created to appease the slave holders. They lost that struggle and their descendants should lose this imbalanced political advantage currently being exploited by a con man and a convict.

You pose too many hypotheticals in your critique of our current system of electing presidents.
The EC is not going away. And the suggestion of an Amendment to get rid the EC has no merit or practical future.
The EC was not created to appease slave holders. It was created to give rural America and equal voice in selecting a president.
Who says urban voters are better educated or more qualified to elect a president with a popular vote?
Your antipathy toward Trump is well noted but not shared by the legislature which will not pass an Amendment to get rid of the EC. If you have evidence to show such enthusiasm for change, then show it.

 

[jaypatriot]

Noone said everyone would get education. Many choose not to, which is fine. My only suggestion was they don't get to vote.



I don't get that. You are not ripping anyone off by getting an education. State schools are quite affordable often - at least for better students.

Having said that, I would vote to increase taxes (or better yet reduce military budget) so that we get 4-years free public colleges.

Reducing the military budget in this time of global threats from four different countries dedicated to reducing the influence of the West is not a viable option.
Countries in Western and Eastern Europe are increasing their defense budgets to counter the Russian threat to Eastern Europe.
And so should we.
In the contest of guns versus butter, guns are going to win.
Get used to it.
Sorry you don't see the practical reality of combating Russia, China, Iran, and N Korea.

 

[Slavister]

Reducing the military budget in this time of global threats from four different countries dedicated to reducing the influence of the West is not a viable option.
Countries in Western and Eastern Europe are increasing their defense budgets to counter the Russian threat to Eastern Europe.
And so should we.
In the contest of guns versus butter, guns are going to win.
Get used to it.
Sorry you don't see the practical reality of combating Russia, China, Iran, and N Korea.

We already outspend 10 or so militaries of the world combined. So no, just because others are increasing their spending does not mean we should. We could cut ours in HALF and still outspend China + Russia combined easily. And with NATO countries increasing spending, all the MORE reason for us to slow down; but my point would stand no matter what other NATO countries do...

 

[jaypatriot]

We already outspend 10 or so militaries of the world combined. So no, just because others are increasing their spending does not mean we should. We could cut ours in HALF and still outspend China + Russia combined easily. And with NATO countries increasing spending, all the MORE reason for us to slow down; but my point would stand no matter what other NATO countries do...

We need more maritime military assets to combat China's growing navy.
So what if we "already outspend 10 or so militaries of the world combined."? We have to be stronger to lead the world in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. You want us to grow weaker in those disputed areas?

 

[NolanVoyd]

t rid the EC has no merit or practical future.
The EC was not created to appease slave holders. It was created to give rural America and equal voice in selecting a president.

nonsense.

At the time like 90% of Amerricans were rural.

That is shifted dramatically.

Now days it is populated areas that do not have an equal voice

 

[Peacenik]

You pose too many hypotheticals in your critique of our current system of electing presidents.
The EC is not going away. And the suggestion of an Amendment to get rid the EC has no merit or practical future.
The EC was not created to appease slave holders. It was created to give rural America and equal voice in selecting a president.
Who says urban voters are better educated or more qualified to elect a president with a popular vote?
Your antipathy toward Trump is well noted but not shared by the legislature which will not pass an Amendment to get rid of the EC. If you have evidence to show such enthusiasm for change, then show it.

Already shown in the OP. 2 Senators per state gives small states just as much power in the Senate as big states. Since there are more small states than big states, this amounts to an uneven advantage for small states. And then to have the Senate control the seating of the SCOTUS hands control of 2/3 of our government to the small states. Rural voters are not as well educated as urban voters. Essentially the result is the make up of 2/3 of our government is in the hands of poorly educated rural voters. No wonder things are so screwed up!

We gotta fix that.

We need a new amendment.

They said it wouldn't happen in 1900. The Senate was a mess. Many states struggled to place a Senator. There were extended vacancies. And some of the people in the Senate had no business being there, only representing big monied interests. (Sound familiar?) 12 years later, boom. 17th Amendment. Direct election of Senators.

"It'll never happen." was what they said. They were wrong. It happened. America is an experiment. We need to keep tweaking our government to make it work for us. Many are dissatisfied with our government. This is change what will make American government work better.

 

[triharder]

Already shown in the OP. 2 Senators per state gives small states just as much power in the Senate as big states. Since there are more small states than big states, this amounts to an uneven advantage for small states. And then to have the Senate control the seating of the SCOTUS hands control of 2/3 of our government to the small states. Rural voters are not as well educated as urban voters. Essentially the result is the make up of 2/3 of our government is in the hands of poorly educated rural voters. No wonder things are so screwed up!

We gotta fix that.

We need a new amendment.

They said it wouldn't happen in 1900. The Senate was a mess. Many states struggled to place a Senator. There were extended vacancies. And some of the people in the Senate had no business being there, only representing big monied interests. (Sound familiar?) 12 years later, boom. 17th Amendment. Direct election of Senators.

"It'll never happen." was what they said. They were wrong. It happened. America is an experiment. We need to keep tweaking our government to make it work for us. Many are dissatisfied with our government. This is change what will make American government work better.

Studies show that an "empire" survives, on average, approximately 250 years. The average country will last 150 years. Hopefully that illustrates the point well enough.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Already shown in the OP. 2 Senators per state gives small states just as much power in the Senate as big states. Since there are more small states than big states, this amounts to an uneven advantage for small states. And then to have the Senate control the seating of the SCOTUS hands control of 2/3 of our government to the small states. Rural voters are not as well educated as urban voters. Essentially the result is the make up of 2/3 of our government is in the hands of poorly educated rural voters. No wonder things are so screwed up!

We gotta fix that.

We need a new amendment.

They said it wouldn't happen in 1900. The Senate was a mess. Many states struggled to place a Senator. There were extended vacancies. And some of the people in the Senate had no business being there, only representing big monied interests. (Sound familiar?) 12 years later, boom. 17th Amendment. Direct election of Senators.

"It'll never happen." was what they said. They were wrong. It happened. America is an experiment. We need to keep tweaking our government to make it work for us. Many are dissatisfied with our government. This is change what will make American government work better.

Example.

Wyoming's two senators represent half a million people.

California's two senators represent 40 million people.

So wyoming voters have a massively larger voice in the senate than California voters do.

 

[Slavister]

We need more maritime military assets to combat China's growing navy.
So what if we "already outspend 10 or so militaries of the world combined."? We have to be stronger to lead the world in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. You want us to grow weaker in those disputed areas?

I want us to spend less on military waste. If we cannot compete while greatly outspending others, we are doing something wrong.

 

[jaypatriot]

I want us to spend less on military waste. If we cannot compete while greatly outspending others, we are doing something wrong.

I did not realize you have so much insight into our military preparedness in the world today. America is working to preserve its dominance in two different global areas. The more we spend, the better we can retain such dominance. If you do not trust military to decide what it needs to defend Asia and Europe against the encroachments of China, N Korea, Russia, and Iran, then your opinion doesn't carry much weight.
I want us to be stronger militarily and politically.

 

[Slavister]

I did not realize you have so much insight into our military preparedness in the world today. America is working to preserve its dominance in two different global areas. The more we spend, the better we can retain such dominance. If you do not trust military to decide what it needs to defend Asia and Europe against the encroachments of China, N Korea, Russia, and Iran, then your opinion doesn't carry much weight.
I want us to be stronger militarily and politically.

None of this contradicts what I said. We have trillions in debt. Other countries and superpowers (yes, including Roman Empire) fell (in part) because of overspending on their militaries. They all wanted similar objectives to what you have. In the mean time, we are the only 1st world country without decent healthcare for everyone.

 

[jaypatriot]

Already shown in the OP. 2 Senators per state gives small states just as much power in the Senate as big states. Since there are more small states than big states, this amounts to an uneven advantage for small states. And then to have the Senate control the seating of the SCOTUS hands control of 2/3 of our government to the small states. Rural voters are not as well educated as urban voters. Essentially the result is the make up of 2/3 of our government is in the hands of poorly educated rural voters. No wonder things are so screwed up!

We gotta fix that.

We need a new amendment.

They said it wouldn't happen in 1900. The Senate was a mess. Many states struggled to place a Senator. There were extended vacancies. And some of the people in the Senate had no business being there, only representing big monied interests. (Sound familiar?) 12 years later, boom. 17th Amendment. Direct election of Senators.

"It'll never happen." was what they said. They were wrong. It happened. America is an experiment. We need to keep tweaking our government to make it work for us. Many are dissatisfied with our government. This is change what will make American government work better.

I guess as a Progressive, you live in an urban ares so, therefore, you are smarter than "those rural voters' lacking your superior education.
So what's your 'new Amendment'? Abolishing the EC so that urban voters have more political power? So that urban voters can continue to screw up their cities with more crime? More Progressive DAs who fail to punish criminals and keep them in jail? More homelessness costing more money that the cities don't have? Is that what the country now needs to improve the election process?

 

[jaypatriot]

None of this contradicts what I said. We have trillions in debt. Other countries and superpowers (yes, including Roman Empire) fell (in part) because of overspending on their militaries. They all wanted similar objectives to what you have. In the mean time, we are the only 1st world country without decent healthcare for everyone.

We have Medicare, Medicaid, VA health care, emergency hospital care, and Obamacare. Plus, we give medical care to million of legal and illegal migrants. Why do people come from overseas to seek our advanced health care?

 

[triharder]

We have Medicare, Medicaid, VA health care, emergency hospital care, and Obamacare. Plus, we give medical care to million of legal and illegal migrants. Why do people come from overseas to seek our advanced health care?

Because when they seek "advanced" health care needs, the United States is - arguably - the place to go. But when you need routine medical care, check ups, or just evaluations, EVERYWHERE else is the place to go because the US will bankrupt you.

 

[jaypatriot]

nonsense.

At the time like 90% of Amerricans were rural.

That is shifted dramatically.

Now days it is populated areas that do not have an equal voice

Each state has two Senators.
Each state has Representatives based on the populations of each state.
Cities are gaining immigrant populations which will increase Congressional representation in blue states.

Who or which states do not have an "equal voice"?

 

[Slavister]

We have Medicare, Medicaid, VA health care, emergency hospital care, and Obamacare. Plus, we give medical care to million of legal and illegal migrants.

Great! You can create 100s of piecemeal programs and still be behind a country with 1 program simply covering everyone.

(But hey, at least it's nice to hear you recognize some value in Obamacare.)

Why do people come from overseas to seek our advanced health care?

Because we have good healthcare for some things ... when you have money to pay for expensive treatments. Duh.

 

[Fearandloathing]

The Electoral College system stems more from pragmatism and efficiency. It's also symbolic of state's stature, rights and autonomy. Everyone knows the voter rules and how to work within the system. I really don't see a problem with it.

NO

It stems from classical class warfare and ignorance.

The "founding fathers" did not trust the rank and file American (non land owner) to be smart enough to see through charlatans etc. and so appointed a 'parent to supervise'. They were also fearful of that much power in the hands of mere villages and were well aware what the villagers did in Paris.

The founding fathers were not only racists, but classists as well.

 

[jaypatriot]

Because when they seek "advanced" health care needs, the United States is - arguably - the place to go. But when you need routine medical care, check ups, or just evaluations, EVERYWHERE else is the place to go because the US will bankrupt you.

That's a sweeping generalization about our entire health care system.
I wonder if you know what you are talking about.
Maybe you should move to Canada or the UK to see how their national health care systems are handling their citizens with their 'free' health care.

 

[soylentgreen]

Noone said everyone would get education. Many choose not to, which is fine. My only suggestion was they don't get to vote.



I don't get that. You are not ripping anyone off by getting an education. State schools are quite affordable often - at least for better students.

Having said that, I would vote to increase taxes (or better yet reduce military budget) so that we get 4-years free public colleges.

Why not? In a country that brags it is the freest of the free, but in the fine print, only if you have a high education with a degree.

 

[triharder]

That's a sweeping generalization about our entire health care system.
I wonder if you know what you are talking about.
Maybe you should move to Canada or the UK to see how their national health care systems are handling their citizens with their 'free' health care.

It's a sweeping generalization to say that our "basic" health care needs are more expensive that practically everywhere else in the world? That's a fact.

 

[Fearandloathing]

It's a sweeping generalization to say that our "basic" health care needs are more expensive that practically everywhere else in the world? That's a fact.

The "needs" are more expensive? Or do you mean the cost of procedures? On the latter you're being screwed right up the ass.

 

[Slavister]

Why not? In a country that brags it is the freest of the free, but in the fine print, only if you have a high education with a degree.

Huh? Why not what?

Why don't all get a BS/BA degrees? Because they don't want to and they don't have to.

 

[triharder]

The "needs" are more expensive? Or do you mean the cost of procedures? On the latter you're being screwed right up the ass.

No doubt that America is a nation that is VERY unhealthy. And they obviously have more people in comparison. 39 million in Canada. 333 million in the United States. I'm just talking about the costs of stuff. Let's not make this into something it doesn't need to be. I'm sure you understand

 

[Fearandloathing]

Studies show that an "empire" survives, on average, approximately 250 years. The average country will last 150 years. Hopefully that illustrates the point well enough.

Studies?

Can you site at least one?


There are some countries that are hundreds and hundreds of year old, in fact most of the old world is more than 5,000 years. China has a history dating back even further.

So where do you get your data?