90 million votes have been cast so far.

[_glaciers]

You are confusing liberalism with Biden and the Democratic Party. Rookie mistake. Who said Biden represented pure liberalism?

if we're talking about the indoctrination that takes place in college campuses (testing over the importance of transgender NA's in a US History course, emphasizing the impact of non-binary people in the workplace in Business Management courses, going on anti-Trump tirades in Leadership courses) and referring to that as "liberal" then it wasn't my mistake to make.

Neither party is liberal nor conservative, as both party thinks they are the liberal one, but liberal has undoubtedly become a colloquial term to describe "leftists".

 

[sk8knight]

Liberalism is literally the move away from traditionally held beliefs. Science, critical thinking, and innovation are the tools that facilitate that move. Conservatism is literally the maintaining if traditional beliefs and opposition to innovation. I’m not talking the Democrat/Republican divide as neither party is truly one or the other.

You’ve been done a disservice by your schooling. Political conservatism is not in opposition to innovation. You’re talking about theological conservatism and possibly people who can be described as being conservative in nature that are averse to changes in general. The intentional conflation is demagoguery.

People who believe in the political concepts of conservatism believe in individualism over collectivism, government with limits as defined by the Framers, free enterprise, private ownership, and traditional social values such as encouraging nuclear families, self-sufficiency, and fiscal responsibility. Many engineers and entrepreneurs are politically conservative and live their lives based on innovation.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

You’ve been done a disservice by your schooling. Political conservatism is not in opposition to innovation. You’re talking about theological conservatism and possibly people who can be described as being conservative in nature that are averse to changes in general. The intentional conflation is demagoguery.

People who believe in the political concepts of conservatism believe in individualism over collectivism, government with limits as defined by the Framers, free enterprise, private ownership, and traditional social values such as encouraging nuclear families, self-sufficiency, and fiscal responsibility. Many engineers and entrepreneurs are politically conservative and live their lives based on innovation.

You are confusing conservatism and liberalism as you wish them to be with how they are strictly defined. No doubt you may believe in innovation yet call yourself conservative. That’s fine. Your feelings don’t change how we define those terms though. And if a person lives their lives “based on innovation” they certainly aren’t defined as conservative in those specific viewpoints. It isn’t black or white. It’s possible to hold both conservative and liberal viewpoints on different issues. But innovation is a liberal one.

 

[Boosted87]

You’ve been done a disservice by your schooling. Political conservatism is not in opposition to innovation. You’re talking about theological conservatism and possibly people who can be described as being conservative in nature that are averse to changes in general. The intentional conflation is demagoguery.

People who believe in the political concepts of conservatism believe in individualism over collectivism, government with limits as defined by the Framers, free enterprise, private ownership, and traditional social values such as encouraging nuclear families, self-sufficiency, and fiscal responsibility. Many engineers and entrepreneurs are politically conservative and live their lives based on innovation.

This is an interesting discussion you guys are having.

Perhaps if we said "political and social innovation" then this makes more sense. The government as defined by the framers was a liberal event in history. It innovated away from traditional governmental structures in an effort to let people govern themselves while protecting key rights.

Just about all calls for structural change today are originating on the left. You might not view universal healthcare, supreme court reforms, electoral college reforms, ranked choice voting, UBI, trans rights, etc as "innovations", but from a social/political perspective, I think they are. Doesn't mean they're all good innovations, but I'm hard pressed to identify what conservative lead political innovations are happening right now.

Look at the electoral college. It was an innovative compromise of the time to get everybody on board. Venerating it as a holy cow of American greatness 250 years later is like insisting we continue to drive Model T's around. It doesn't mean you just throw it away, but insisting on maintaining a 250 year old system in the light of changing needs is not the kind of thing the Founding Fathers were into.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.​

-Jefferson​

 

[goodknightfl]

The reason for the Electorial college still exist today. Big populated states still have the biggest say, but at least politicians have to pay some attention outside of them.

 

[Boosted87]

The reason for the Electorial college still exist today. Big populated states still have the biggest say, but at least politicians have to pay some attention outside of them.

The biggest corrective power for small states is the senate. A voter in Wyoming has something like 67x the power a voter in California.

The electoral college was originally intended for a qualified group of decisionmakers to get together a pick a president, each representing the interests of their state. This makes sense in a world where each individual voter had limited access to information, and each state could decide how they would choose electors.

Over time, state by state, we've switched to a system where each state's popular vote dictates how the electors vote. Our current "electoral college" system has very little to do with the original intent of the system.

 

[sk8knight]

This is an interesting discussion you guys are having.

Perhaps if we said "political and social innovation" then this makes more sense. The government as defined by the framers was a liberal event in history. It innovated away from traditional governmental structures in an effort to let people govern themselves while protecting key rights.

Just about all calls for structural change today are originating on the left. You might not view universal healthcare, supreme court reforms, electoral college reforms, ranked choice voting, UBI, trans rights, etc as "innovations", but from a social/political perspective, I think they are. Doesn't mean they're all good innovations, but I'm hard pressed to identify what conservative lead political innovations are happening right now.

Look at the electoral college. It was an innovative compromise of the time to get everybody on board. Venerating it as a holy cow of American greatness 250 years later is like insisting we continue to drive Model T's around. It doesn't mean you just throw it away, but insisting on maintaining a 250 year old system in the light of changing needs is not the kind of thing the Founding Fathers were into.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.​

-Jefferson​

I’m sorry but the government being the only provider of healthcare is a regressive idea, not a progressive idea. We just delude ourselves into thinking that somehow our implementation of it will be better than the thousands of years that governments provided healthcare to their people. Now, if you wanted to say that free market principles would rule and our government system would improve that, then fine. But that’s not the system envisioned when the people pushing so hard for it are the same people demonizing corporations and businesses.

Innovation refers to new ideas. A lot of the left’s ideas aren’t new, they’re retreads of failed concepts from other places or time.

UBI was a concept talked about among conservatives and others a long time ago when it was called Guaranteed Minimum Income. Milton Friedman made the Conservative case for GMI in his book “Capitalism and Freedom” in 1962. He argued that GMI would supplant a bloated and inefficient welfare system, transfer spending decisions away from the government into the hands of private citizens and allow people to get out of poverty gradually by not cutting off their benefits when they began to earn more money – escaping the “welfare trap.”

A Nixon-backed bill that included GMI passed the House in 70 and 71 but died in a Democrat-controlled Senate.

The main reason that you think that the left controls innovation is because the left’s ideas that are pushed (allowed even) in media, social media, and academia than ideas from the right. When people with ideas from the right try to convey those ideas today, they are either ignored or actively attacked.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

Whether you want to admit it or not, innovation and new ideas are liberal constructs and resistance to innovation and adherence to traditional ways are conservative constructs. You seem to be arguing from a standpoint of a political party being solely one thing or another. While true that the Republican Party traditionally has held more conservative viewpoints on topics historically, that doesn’t mean they can’t propose ideas that are by definition liberal.

 

[DaShuckster]

When people with ideas from the right try to convey those ideas today, they are either ignored or actively attacked.

Gee, I wonder why the "ideas" from the right create eye-rolls:

• Build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it.
• Separate children from parents at border when immigrant families seek asylum.
• Give tax breaks for the most wealthy in this country despite its long-term impact on our national debt.
• Roll back environmental protections that have been established over the past two decades under both Democrat and Republican Presidents.
• "Bromance" a nuclear arms agreement with North Korea.
• Ignore the pandemic; like the flu it will just disappear.
• Push through the courts (all the way to the Supreme Court) to end the requirement that insurance cover pre-existing conditions while telling the American People with a straight face you support the coverage of pre-existing conditions.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Gee, I wonder why the "ideas" from the right create eye-rolls:

• Build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it.
• Separate children from parents at border when immigrant families seek asylum.
• Give tax breaks for the most wealthy in this country despite its long-term impact on our national debt.
• Roll back environmental protections that have been established over the past two decades under both Democrat and Republican Presidents.
• "Bromance" a nuclear arms agreement with North Korea.
• Ignore the pandemic; like the flu it will just disappear.
• Push through the courts (all the way to the Supreme Court) to end the requirement that insurance cover pre-existing conditions while telling the American People with a straight face you support the coverage of pre-existing conditions.

What sources do you read/watch/listen to that have helped you form a firm grasp of idea space on the right?

 

[Boosted87]

I’m sorry but the government being the only provider of healthcare is a regressive idea, not a progressive idea. We just delude ourselves into thinking that somehow our implementation of it will be better than the thousands of years that governments provided healthcare to their people. Now, if you wanted to say that free market principles would rule and our government system would improve that, then fine. But that’s not the system envisioned when the people pushing so hard for it are the same people demonizing corporations and businesses.

Innovation refers to new ideas. A lot of the left’s ideas aren’t new, they’re retreads of failed concepts from other places or time.

UBI was a concept talked about among conservatives and others a long time ago when it was called Guaranteed Minimum Income. Milton Friedman made the Conservative case for GMI in his book “Capitalism and Freedom” in 1962. He argued that GMI would supplant a bloated and inefficient welfare system, transfer spending decisions away from the government into the hands of private citizens and allow people to get out of poverty gradually by not cutting off their benefits when they began to earn more money – escaping the “welfare trap.”

A Nixon-backed bill that included GMI passed the House in 70 and 71 but died in a Democrat-controlled Senate.

The main reason that you think that the left controls innovation is because the left’s ideas that are pushed (allowed even) in media, social media, and academia than ideas from the right. When people with ideas from the right try to convey those ideas today, they are either ignored or actively attacked.

The left has no monopoly on ideas - don't get me wrong - lots of great innovative ideas come from conservative thinkers, and lots of terrible ideas come from the left. But in the current environment, where is the innovation from the right?

So sure something like UBI has been proposed in the past by conservatives. That was a time when conservative thinkers recognized a problem (poverty) and proposed a government solution they deemed superior to the alternative proposed by the left.

That's the conservative party I want. I want one that says "Obamacare is a great effort, but we can do so much better, let me show you how we build a better marketplace for American consumers." Instead we get 10 years of Republican health-care policy being "repeal Obamacare", and 5 years now of Trump promising his amazing plan is just a month away from being released.

 

[Crazyhole]

The left has no monopoly on ideas - don't get me wrong - lots of great innovative ideas come from conservative thinkers, and lots of terrible ideas come from the left. But in the current environment, where is the innovation from the right?

So sure something like UBI has been proposed in the past by conservatives. That was a time when conservative thinkers recognized a problem (poverty) and proposed a government solution they deemed superior to the alternative proposed by the left.

That's the conservative party I want. I want one that says "Obamacare is a great effort, but we can do so much better, let me show you how we build a better marketplace for American consumers." Instead we get 10 years of Republican health-care policy being "repeal Obamacare", and 5 years now of Trump promising his amazing plan is just a month away from being released.

Just off the top of my head, I think economic freedom zones is a really good, conservative minded solution to a problem we all can agree exists.

 

[firm_bizzle]

I think we are going to get over 150M votes this time.

 

[Cubs79]

The reason for the Electorial college still exist today. Big populated states still have the biggest say, but at least politicians have to pay some attention outside of them.

There is no such thing as a pure blue or pure red state. States we define as blue or red are typically ignored because of the electoral college, not the other way around. Trump got just under 5 million votes in California in 2016 for instance. If you take out the electoral college, those Republican votes actually matter and candidates have to pay attention to California. Clinton got just under a million votes in Tennessee (out of 2.2 million votes total). The electoral college doesnt get candidates to pay attention to more states, it allows them ignore more states that they dont see as being in play. Just look at what is going on now, both candidates are only focusing on a handful of states. . Take out the EC, and the state totals dont matter, so those candidates would still have to appeal to the individual voters in each state.

 

[Cubs79]

I’m sorry but the government being the only provider of healthcare is a regressive idea, not a progressive idea. We just delude ourselves into thinking that somehow our implementation of it will be better than the thousands of years that governments provided healthcare to their people. Now, if you wanted to say that free market principles would rule and our government system would improve that, then fine. But that’s not the system envisioned when the people pushing so hard for it are the same people demonizing corporations and businesses.

Innovation refers to new ideas. A lot of the left’s ideas aren’t new, they’re retreads of failed concepts from other places or time.

UBI was a concept talked about among conservatives and others a long time ago when it was called Guaranteed Minimum Income. Milton Friedman made the Conservative case for GMI in his book “Capitalism and Freedom” in 1962. He argued that GMI would supplant a bloated and inefficient welfare system, transfer spending decisions away from the government into the hands of private citizens and allow people to get out of poverty gradually by not cutting off their benefits when they began to earn more money – escaping the “welfare trap.”

A Nixon-backed bill that included GMI passed the House in 70 and 71 but died in a Democrat-controlled Senate.

The main reason that you think that the left controls innovation is because the m ideas that are pushed (allowed even) in media, social media, and academia than ideas from the right. When people with ideas from the right try to convey those ideas today, they are either ignored or actively attacked.

THere are countries all over the world have a better healthcare systems than we do right now. Our system doesnt work. And also, it isnt government healthcare that people are wanting, it is government insurance.

 

[Crazyhole]

There is no such thing as a pure blue or pure red state. States we define as blue or red are typically ignored because of the electoral college, not the other way around. Trump got just under 5 million votes in California in 2016 for instance. If you take out the electoral college, those Republican votes actually matter and candidates have to pay attention to California. Clinton got just under a million votes in Tennessee (out of 2.2 million votes total). The electoral college doesnt get candidates to pay attention to more states, it allows them ignore more states that they dont see as being in play. Just look at what is going on now, both candidates are only focusing on a handful of states. . Take out the EC, and the state totals dont matter, so those candidates would still have to appeal to the individual voters in each state.

I get your point, but the entire reason our system was set up the way it is was to ensure the minority would not be subject to the whims of the majority.

 

[Cubs79]

I’m sorry but the government being the only provider of healthcare is a regressive idea, not a progressive idea. We just delude ourselves into thinking that somehow our implementation of it will be better than the thousands of years that governments provided healthcare to their people. Now, if you wanted to say that free market principles would rule and our government system would improve that, then fine. But that’s not the system envisioned when the people pushing so hard for it are the same people demonizing corporations and businesses.

Innovation refers to new ideas. A lot of the left’s ideas aren’t new, they’re retreads of failed concepts from other places or time.

UBI was a concept talked about among conservatives and others a long time ago when it was called Guaranteed Minimum Income. Milton Friedman made the Conservative case for GMI in his book “Capitalism and Freedom” in 1962. He argued that GMI would supplant a bloated and inefficient welfare system, transfer spending decisions away from the government into the hands of private citizens and allow people to get out of poverty gradually by not cutting off their benefits when they began to earn more money – escaping the “welfare trap.”

A Nixon-backed bill that included GMI passed the House in 70 and 71 but died in a Democrat-controlled Senate.

The main reason that you think that the left controls innovation is because the left’s ideas that are pushed (allowed even) in media, social media, and academia than ideas from the right. When people with ideas from the right try to convey those ideas today, they are either ignored or actively attacked.

Nixon also created the EPA, which Republicans at this point pretty much want to more or less make powerless. I dont think Nixon would be considered a conservative by todays standards. Do you think the modern day Republican party would go for much of anything you just listed? Granted, party politics can and do change over time, and the parties dont define conservatism or liberalism, but the general view of what those things are do change over time and party politics does play a role in how those concepts are viewed by the general public. Richard Nixon establishing the EPA, pushing for GMI, etc, would not be considered conservative by todays standards and Republicans would laugh him out of the party.

 

[Cubs79]

I get your point, but the entire reason our system was set up the way it is was to ensure the minority would not be subject to the whims of the majority.

The electoral college has absolutely nothing to do with that. That is what the Senate and House is for. The electoral college is simply a way of choosing the president, it has nothing to do with whims of the majority, because those can be balanced out by the House and Senate.

And since Sk8 brought up Nixon, he also wanted to abolish the electoral college.

 

[fried-chicken]

I get your point, but the entire reason our system was set up the way it is was to ensure the minority would not be subject to the whims of the majority.

What a dumb ****ing thing to think. Instead we get the majority subjected to the whims of the minority. You're a low IQ individual.

 

[Cubs79]

What a dumb ****ing thing to think. Instead we get the majority subjected to the whims of the minority. You're a low IQ individual.

Never understood when people talk about that. Why is it better for the minority to rule?

 

[Crazyhole]

The electoral college has absolutely nothing to do with that. That is what the Senate and House is for. The electoral college is simply a way of choosing the president, it has nothing to do with whims of the majority, because those can be balanced out by the House and Senate.

And since Sk8 brought up Nixon, he also wanted to abolish the electoral college.

The presidency was never intended to be as powerful as it is. The system was set up to be kind of a pseudo parliamentary system where legislators wouldn't have full authority over the chief executive but neither would the general population. Its a brilliant system that ensures we don't end up with a political king.

 

[Cubs79]

The presidency was never intended to be as powerful as it is. The system was set up to be kind of a pseudo parliamentary system where legislators wouldn't have full authority over the chief executive but neither would the general population. Its a brilliant system that ensures we don't end up with a political king.

Again, nothing to do with the electoral college. If you take away the EC, you still have the house and senate, and the courts. The system is still in place without the EC.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

Keep the electoral college if you like it. But I think we can all agree the winner take all nature of states leads to 90% of states being neglected (non-swing states). Allocate the EC votes based on proportion of the votes in a state and keep all the protections against mob rule that you think it provides in the 21st century. Everybody wins.

 

[Crazyhole]

Keep the electoral college if you like it. But I think we can all agree the winner take all nature of states leads to 90% of states being neglected (non-swing states). Allocate the EC votes based on proportion of the votes in a state and keep all the protections against mob rule that you think it provides in the 21st century. Everybody wins.

This is just a veiled way of saying that you want a popular vote.

 

[_glaciers]

Never understood when people talk about that. Why is it better for the minority to rule?

What a dumb ****ing thing to think. Instead we get the majority subjected to the whims of the minority. You're a low IQ individual.

leftists hate minorities, raise you hand if you're shocked

 

[hemightbejeremy]

This is just a veiled way of saying that you want a popular vote.

Why? Electoral votes are not exactly proportionate to state population (smaller states get more per capita) so you would still get the benefit of smaller states getting more electoral power per capita. If that’s something you want. There is absolutely no reason a Republican voter in California for example shouldn’t have his vote counted toward a share of a corresponding electoral vote rather than just tossed in the wastebin year after year.

 

[DaShuckster]

What sources do you read/watch/listen to that have helped you form a firm grasp of idea space on the right?

By all means, please share with us your better grasp of the modern-day conservative ideas that are shaping our country.

 

[Crazyhole]

Why? Electoral votes are not exactly proportionate to state population (smaller states get more per capita) so you would still get the benefit of smaller states getting more electoral power per capita. If that’s something you want. There is absolutely no reason a Republican voter in California for example shouldn’t have his vote counted toward a share of a corresponding electoral vote rather than just tossed in the wastebin year after year.

As long as the 2 additional votes per state exist, I'm ok with it and endorse that system. I personally think that the system Maine and Nebraska use should be the standard

 

[hemightbejeremy]

As long as the 2 additional votes per state exist, I'm ok with it and endorse that system. I personally think that the system Maine and Nebraska use should be the standard

I like their system, however the congressional district part is open to gerrymandering. No reason it couldn’t be based on proportion of the vote.

 

[Crazyhole]

I like their system, however the congressional district part is open to gerrymandering. No reason it couldn’t be based on proportion of the vote.

Proportion is just a watered down version of a popular vote.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

Proportion is just a watered down version of a popular vote.

It’s not. More heavily populated states get less influence in the EC system since there are less EC votes per capita. That’s the protection you want right? It’s possible that the EC would elect more in line with the popular vote more often, but it wouldn’t be guaranteed. Also it’s not automatically a bad thing either.

 

[fried-chicken]

What if we kept the electoral college and just increased the number of EC voters to 100,000? Would that be fair or is it only a fair way to determine a president if it allows for minority rule?

 

[Crazyhole]

It’s not. More heavily populated states get less influence in the EC system since there are less EC votes per capita. That’s the protection you want right? It’s possible that the EC would elect more in line with the popular vote more often, but it wouldn’t be guaranteed. Also it’s not automatically a bad thing either.

We must be talking about 2 different things. Are you, for example, saying that if a state goes 60-40, you divvy up the ec votes 60-40 and then the winner gets the 2 senate based ec votes?

 

[goodknightfl]

By all means, please share with us your better grasp of the modern-day conservative ideas that are shaping our country.

Modern liberal ideas shaping country, Burn down our cities and destroy businesses. Defund the police. Stop free speech on twitter and face book. Ignore science and discover 72 genders.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

We must be talking about 2 different things. Are you, for example, saying that if a state goes 60-40, you divvy up the ec votes 60-40 and then the winner gets the 2 senate based ec votes?

Yes.

 

[Boosted87]

This is just a veiled way of saying that you want a popular vote.

The EC has morphed into popular vote contest at the state level. That's not how it started. The idea was to choose electors who would vote on your behalf who would be fully educated on the issues and candidates Electors were meant to be chosen at a district level so again, representation was local and consistent with the demographic represented.

When you voted, you literally voted for an elector - not a national candidate. This was generally how it worked for a long time. But eventually, individual states started to realize that if selected electors at the state level, winner take all, it would influence the power of their state, and everyone followed suit.

Hamilton argued against pre-pledged electors, saying it violated the spirt of the Constitution because the point was for well qualified electors to get together and deliberate.

So that's my issue. When you defend the modern version of the EC, you're not defending the system envisioned by the founders at all. You're defending the logical conclusion to a prisoner's dilemma where each state binds their electors and goes winner-take-all to maximize their own influence.

 

[Boosted87]

Found this chart interesting. One of Trump's big challenge is shifting demographics. His core support is non-college whites. They make up a huge, but declining, chunk of the electorate.

Whites with college degrees + minorities are a growing demographic, and favoring Biden in swing state polls. This chart from NYT shows the changes in the last 4 years by this demographic breakdown in swing states.

The counter to this is that in Pennsylvania, Republican have shrunk a 900k voter registration deficit by ~150k+ in the last 4 years. But there's evidence that much of that is democrats who voted for Trump last time formalizing the switch (as opposed to growing the 2016 base).

Anyway - thought this was interesting.

 

[Crazyhole]

The EC has morphed into popular vote contest at the state level. That's not how it started. The idea was to choose electors who would vote on your behalf who would be fully educated on the issues and candidates Electors were meant to be chosen at a district level so again, representation was local and consistent with the demographic represented.

When you voted, you literally voted for an elector - not a national candidate. This was generally how it worked for a long time. But eventually, individual states started to realize that if selected electors at the state level, winner take all, it would influence the power of their state, and everyone followed suit.

Hamilton argued against pre-pledged electors, saying it violated the spirt of the Constitution because the point was for well qualified electors to get together and deliberate.

So that's my issue. When you defend the modern version of the EC, you're not defending the system envisioned by the founders at all. You're defending the logical conclusion to a prisoner's dilemma where each state binds their electors and goes winner-take-all to maximize their own influence.

I dont defend the current version of the EC. I do defend the system that Maine and Nebraska use. Winner take all makes too many states uncontestable, so why bother trying. At the same time, nobody can really predict which states will be "swing" states in any given cycle so its not a completely faulted system

 

[fried-chicken]

Debates are done. Now we wait. 50mm already locked in.

 

[Cubs79]

Debates are done. Now we wait. 50mm already locked in.

Honestly, if they want these debates to matter they probably need to move them up in future elections. When so many people have already voted, it's hard to see how debates this close to the election are going to have much impact.