Topic: Are you going to vote? - page 2. (Read 1712 times)

The specifics of what money went where isn't entirely relevant when you get down to it, the POTUS is the head of the government which means all things fall back to him while under his leadership even though Congress is actually the one that is the most responsible for the debt. Congress doesn't get the blame though as the president has to approve of it.

The article you posted alleviated 10% of his debt sure, but the remaining 90% debt acquired under his leadership still falls back to him regardless of who caused it. Sadly that is just a side effect of being a government patsy.

In the history of the US a different president has been chosen against the People's wishes 4 times, 10% of the time which is a really high percentage for something that was deemed very important by the founders.

So how often in US history did the electoral college elect someone else?
Im in doubt that you understand what a representative democracy is.

About the obama debt - can you refute this please:

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293

Votes received do not matter as stated in the first post.

For the second question, no. Obama doubled the national debt entirely, would be one hell of an interest rate at that point. Keep in mind this is debt accumulated by all of the previous presidents.

Did obama loss the voting for his 2nd term?

Also wasnt a great part of the new obama debt just interest from huge old debt?

Not necessarily. Look at Obama, hes put our country into massive debt and has always had a low approval rating from the citizens but was still put back in office by the electoral college.

If Hillary Clinton choose for a second term, it would mean that she coped with the task and won the hearts of Americans. So she knowingly chose.

Yes. But not for the fact that I believe that my voice is important, but just want to walk

Only time will tell I guess, Obama had a very poor approval rating during his first term but he was put back into office by the powers that be for a second term.

I don't think Hillary is a second term. Only if she can turn the tide in their favor. I hope that it will make America stronger.

They usually come in sets, could have 8 years of an incompetent president.

And I'm not going to vote. I don't like neither Trump nor Hillary. This time all have no worthy candidates. It is a pity that I will have 4 years to live with the unloved President.

And I already voted for Hillary. Hope she wins and maybe she will show Russia that the Americans are a strong nation and we can defend their interests.

The Electoral College performs a vital role yes. I just think it should be different.

Let the American citizens vote for who they want and if there is a dispute then the Electoral College should come in and settle the differences.

The current system leaves the American public out of the picture completely, not even one vote matters. Everyone could vote for Hillary for example but if Congress and the Electoral College want Trump in guess who's getting in?

I'm not saying votes don't mean anything at all, just that they don't mean anything in regards to our president or what they are designed for.

This isn't a case of mob rule in regards to citizens voting, its a case of mob rule based off of only a few select the most important part of our life while we cannot do anything.

I'm too young to vote, but if I qualified, I definitely would. Every bit counts, right?

It's how representative government works. The electors represent the electorate. Perhaps imperfectly, but historically they've been 99.9% tied to the what the electorate told them. If we scrap the electoral college we might as well scrap congress and just go to direct balloting for every piece of legislation, for the reasoning for both is the same.

The founders of America detested direct democracy as "mob rule" and strongly denounced it. I've little doubt they'd have chosen to return to monarchy if forced to choose between the two extremes. What the system of representative government does is magnify the will of the electorate. If the electorate (as a whole) wants good leaders, it chooses the best from among itself to lead. But if it wants corrupt leaders, it chooses the most corrupt to lead them. That's how you've gotten to where you are today. And it's why de Toqueville and others warned that American government would only work if the people themselves were moral and upright. The rot in Washington merely reflects the net will of the electorate when all is said and done.

There is also a practical reason the electoral college was instituted - on more than one occasion the college has had to vote for president over many rounds of balloting. Imagine if you scrapped the electoral college and instead had to have a new election over and over and over until a winner emerged. I think they went 40 rounds or so one time. That would be insane if it had to be a general ballot of the whole of the American people that many times.

Since 1992 I've voted for candidates receiving less than 1% of the vote. Is my vote worthless? Every time I cast it I'm sending a message about what my real preferences are. I think the people who are really wasting their votes are the ones who "vote" by staying home, or who vote by compromising their conscience and picking "the lesser of two evils" because they think only a republicrat can win. Thus perpetuating the uniparty system and telling the political class that they have your support no matter how corrupt they become.

The above quote is from wiki as they explain it in laymen terms and clearly shows your vote doesn't mean 1 single iota of sand. Are you going to waste your time, gas, and energy to go vote like the government and media tells you to even knowing it is a waste of time?

The politics behind it are quite simple really, lead the people to believe they actually matter while they laugh in the background as they know we are only here to provide them with a more comfortable life at our expense.