Benghazi e mails?

[Inconel710]

It depends on how you look at it. In the current system If I told you that 6/10's of a country wanted candidate A to win then should he win? Currently it would depend on where the 6 out of ten people lived. We can play all sorts of math games, but it all depends on what you define as "fair". I happen to believe that everybody's vote should count as equal no matter where you live or where the population centers of this country are.

The end result of going to a popular vote only system would be that the interests of New York, California, Illinois, Ohio, Florida, and couple other states would get attention and nobody would give a shit what Colorado thinks. Does that sound "fair" to you? The other byproduct would be that the urban vote would outweigh the rural vote. Live in BFE? No one cares.

Bottom line - The Electoral College is a compromise to ensure every state gets a say. At the founding, it ensured the older, more populous states didn't completely overwhelm the younger or more agrarian and less populated states. Today, it ensures the President has to at least pay lip service to people that don't live in the top 20 TV markets.

[Fmedges]

If you had one person deciding the policies for every state in the country then I would agree that the electoral college system would be a good one, however this is not the system that we have. I would say that the federal government should concentrate on issues that effect the nation as a whole and state governments should concentrate on state issues. The argument for the electoral college is that all of the states are represented equally, instead of just a few. However the reality of it is that only certain states under this system really matter. The fact that this system makes it fair for everyone doesn't add up. It all depends on where you live. I do not think that one persons vote should count more or be de-valued depending on what part of the country you live in. I also don't like the fact that with my vote I elect an elector that then casts the vote that counts.

[Ronin13]

If you had one person deciding the policies for every state in the country then I would agree that the electoral college system would be a good one, however this is not the system that we have. I would say that the federal government should concentrate on issues that effect the nation as a whole and state governments should concentrate on state issues. The argument for the electoral college is that all of the states are represented equally, instead of just a few. However the reality of it is that only certain states under this system really matter. The fact that this system makes it fair for everyone doesn't add up. It all depends on where you live. I do not think that one persons vote should count more or be de-valued depending on what part of the country you live in. I also don't like the fact that with my vote I elect an elector that then casts the vote that counts.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just say each state tallies up their votes for each candidate, then all the states put their numbers in, and each individual vote gets counted?

[Fmedges]

The end result of going to a popular vote only system would be that the interests of New York, California, Illinois, Ohio, Florida, and couple other states would get attention and nobody would give a shit what Colorado thinks. Does that sound "fair" to you? The other byproduct would be that the urban vote would outweigh the rural vote. Live in BFE? No one cares.

Bottom line - The Electoral College is a compromise to ensure every state gets a say. At the founding, it ensured the older, more populous states didn't completely overwhelm the younger or more agrarian and less populated states. Today, it ensures the President has to at least pay lip service to people that don't live in the top 20 TV markets.

Tell me what kind of "lip service" he paid to Maine, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, and Rhode Island? The fact is that the way it is now excludes States as well. Who's to say which state is more important? Why don't we just do away with the notion of winning states as a whole and move toward the notion of winning the country as a whole? Should the federal government treat you differently depending on what state you live in? Does the military protect certain states only? Of course not, then why does it matter what state you live in when you vote for the executive of the federal government?

[Fmedges]

Wouldn't it be simpler to just say each state tallies up their votes for each candidate, then all the states put their numbers in, and each individual vote gets counted?

Yes. It is true that states with higher population numbers would be "battleground" states, but does it really matter if California has more voters than Nevada? An individuals vote still counts for the same % no matter what state they voted in.

[NightCat]

Here is what I dont get...

Reports put UAV's in the area capturing live images at the time of the attack on the Consulate... They clearly saw what was going on in a Sit. Room somewhere....

We had Marines in Tripoli...we had Apache's and other rotary wing aircraft in Italy, the 173 Airborne is in Vicenza, Italy...

We have Air craft carriers in the Mediterranean with combat effective aircraft on deck..

We have the Israeli's to the north east...with IDF guys geared up almost 24/7.



Soldiers, Airman, Marines, we know when we go downrange that if the shit really hits the fan to just hold out until the Calvary comes in...someone, something will come for us, it's just a matter of time.... Thunderbolt-II's, Rotary Wing Aircraft, QRF from somewhere...something.

The weapons these two lone SEAL's were operating were found caked in there own blood.....These guys held out for over 7 hours...TWO of them...vs the attackers...

And what did our Government do....watch these guys get slaughtered on the UAV feed...watched the car chase and rounds exchanged to the " safe house" that was under prepared and had inadequate protection...which was breached..and still no one came.

Just...what the fuck!!!!

I just left Active duty 4 weeks ago (come monday) and for fucks sake, I know Rangers dont leave anyone behind, so what in the fuck was going on in Bengahzi that we left these SEAL's to die...

its infuriating..

[Ronin13]

Here is what I dont get...

Reports put UAV's in the area capturing live images at the time of the attack on the Consulate... They clearly saw what was going on in a Sit. Room somewhere....

We had Marines in Tripoli...we had Apache's and other rotary wing aircraft in Italy, the 173 Airborne is in Vicenza, Italy...

We have Air craft carriers in the Mediterranean with combat effective aircraft on deck..

We have the Israeli's to the north east...with IDF guys geared up almost 24/7.



Soldiers, Airman, Marines, we know when we go downrange that if the shit really hits the fan to just hold out until the Calvary comes in...someone, something will come for us, it's just a matter of time.... Thunderbolt-II's, Rotary Wing Aircraft, QRF from somewhere...something.

The weapons these two lone SEAL's were operating were found caked in there own blood.....These guys held out for over 7 hours...TWO of them...vs the attackers...

And what did our Government do....watch these guys get slaughtered on the UAV feed...watched the car chase and rounds exchanged to the " safe house" that was under prepared and had inadequate protection...which was breached..and still no one came.

Just...what the fuck!!!!

I just left Active duty 4 weeks ago (come monday) and for fucks sake, I know Rangers dont leave anyone behind, so what in the fuck was going on in Bengahzi that we left these SEAL's to die...

its infuriating..

Isn't it plainly obvious? "By order of the President" do nothing... I call treason.

[NightCat]

Isn't it plainly obvious? "By order of the President" do nothing... I call treason.

Agreed!!!!! Treason indeed! Crucify the mother fucker!