Who Are You Voting For This Election

[Josiegirl]

See this is why I am at a crossroads. I feel like I should vote. I think if we don't exercise the right, we could in fact loose it. And as far as a write in, well that would be okay if there was a push for someone who could win, but that isn't likely to come about. I am really feeling in a quandary about this.

Ok, I'm darn ignorant about the way votes are counted, etc. But because they don't count our votes one for one, haven't we lost a lot right there? I just can't help but feel, especially years like this, that the biggest pocketbook gets the most votes. And I'm not asking this to be snarky but to understand better. I don't feel voting is done fairly anyways.

[Thriftylady]

Ok, I'm darn ignorant about the way votes are counted, etc. But because they don't count our votes one for one, haven't we lost a lot right there? I just can't help but feel, especially years like this, that the biggest pocketbook gets the most votes. And I'm not asking this to be snarky but to understand better. I don't feel voting is done fairly anyways.

In a way you are right. Voting has never really been done fairly. The electoral college was set up so that the south would ratify the constitution, and put benefits in there for the south. By counting slaves, it swayed the population numbers. Slaves were not allowed to vote, but were counted as 3/5 of a person for the college. This made the south way more populated and gave them more pull in elections. And we still operate with that system today, even though we no longer have slaves. It was set up, to insure slavery.

That alone shows our system of voting is not really fair. So yes, we are loosing something. But for now, we have what we have. The only thing we can do is try to change it! The issue there of course is that in order to change the system, we have to fully understand it. And how many of us really do? I don't completely.

[DaveA]

In a way you are right. Voting has never really been done fairly. The electoral college was set up so that the south would ratify the constitution, and put benefits in there for the south. By counting slaves, it swayed the population numbers. Slaves were not allowed to vote, but were counted as 3/5 of a person for the college. This made the south way more populated and gave them more pull in elections. And we still operate with that system today, even though we no longer have slaves. It was set up, to insure slavery.

That alone shows our system of voting is not really fair. So yes, we are loosing something. But for now, we have what we have. The only thing we can do is try to change it! The issue there of course is that in order to change the system, we have to fully understand it. And how many of us really do? I don't completely.

Little bit in the historical weeds on this one, but here goes:

The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent a direct majority election of a President. As strange as that sounds, without the electoral college a few major cities could basically run over the rest of the country. I do agree it needs tweaking (votes distributed proportionally instead of winner take all) but the principle is sound. The 3/5 compromise is a whole different history discussion, and not a pleasant one.

I had a college professor who stated the 16-18th amendments will go down in history as the point the federal government went from servant to ruler. The 16th (income tax) gave the government the funding to grow exponentially, the 17th (direct election of Senators) stripped the states of one of their biggest check on the federal government, and even though it was repealed the 18th (prohibition) solidified the precedent of government forcing moral/ behavior changes on the people.

Like I said in my earlier post- get out the popcorn. This election is going to be "interesting" in all kinds of different ways.

[Thriftylady]

Little bit in the historical weeds on this one, but here goes:

The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent a direct majority election of a President. As strange as that sounds, without the electoral college a few major cities could basically run over the rest of the country. I do agree it needs tweaking (votes distributed proportionally instead of winner take all) but the principle is sound. The 3/5 compromise is a whole different history discussion, and not a pleasant one.

I had a college professor who stated the 16-18th amendments will go down in history as the point the federal government went from servant to ruler. The 16th (income tax) gave the government the funding to grow exponentially, the 17th (direct election of Senators) stripped the states of one of their biggest check on the federal government, and even though it was repealed the 18th (prohibition) solidified the precedent of government forcing moral/ behavior changes on the people.

Like I said in my earlier post- get out the popcorn. This election is going to be "interesting" in all kinds of different ways.

I guess this part depends who you believe. Regardless it is a part of history that is not truly taught in schools. I believe as the professor who taught the class does, that the college was ONLY done so the south would ratify the constitution. And it gave them the major population, so turned them into the "biggest cities with the most votes". Basically it was "we will give you this, so you don't have to worry about slavery ending, so that you will sign this". Otherwise we would have never had a constitution and perhaps never the US. I believe it had nothing at all to do about the big cities having more pull. It was framed that way, but as with many things in government many things are framed in a way that make them look like something they are not.

[sleepinghart]

Cruz "suspended" his campaign. He is holding his delegates for the GOP convention. It's leverage that he intends to use to move the party agenda.

~Oh wow, I was wondering about this:confused:! I knew, I just knew, there was something to it...something more going on...hard to believe it was really going to be as simple as that smh. ~Do you know if Rubio is still holding on to his delegates; and if so, reckon what he plans on doing with them:confused:? I believe I read an article the other day that suggested Rubio was "warming up" to Trump.

[sleepinghart]

But if we don't all vote for the same third party, the vote is wasted. And honestly I haven't heard of any third parties being put on the ballot in my area.

~I know some, including Donald Trump, have suggested that Bernie Sanders run as an independent, or another 3rd choice, in this election. The idea doesn't seem too far fetched to me...at all, and is something right now, I can see likely happening.

[Michael]

~Oh wow, I was wondering about this:confused:! I knew, I just knew, there was something to it...something more going on...hard to believe it was really going to be as simple as that smh. ~Do you know if Rubio is still holding on to his delegates; and if so, reckon what he plans on doing with them:confused:? I believe I read an article the other day that suggested Rubio was "warming up" to Trump.

Yes, Rubio asked the RNC to allow him to keep his delegates a few weeks after he "suspended" his campaign. All the other candidates that dislike Trump would love a piece of the power if he wins. Yes, Rubio would love to be VP. Republicans are starting to circle around the buffet table and are positioning for leverage.

The federal government has the most money and the most power. It's why it's so systemically controlled by those that want a piece of it. It's very hard to change for even those that get elected to change it. Once the newly elected get into the Washington process, they are overwhelmed by it and ultimately decide to become a part of the establishment which can be very rewarding to them if they fall in step with the ruling class.

Trump is a very interesting candidate to me. I think I understand what he's doing and Van Jones touched on it in his YouTube video (http://youtu.be/DHLp-P5cayw). The candidate is not really the Trump you see in the headlines. Just like FDR controlled radio, JFK and Reagan controlled television and Obama controlled the Internet, Trump is controlling social media. That's why the others became President. They knew how to reach the public more effectively.

Trump is creating "personas" for what the differing public "needs". The country has become so complicated and divisive that he knows he has to reach out to many sectors that in the past have been separated by differing ideologies. We are a vastly different country than we were 20 years ago and he seems to grasp this intuitively.

He understands that the ends justify the means. His means is justified, he is winning. I don't believe he's a racist or misogynist as the media and elites are making him out to be.

He simply knows that the government and elites are stacked against him and the only way he can win, in a place that is corrupted in it's lust for power, is by going to the people.

Look at his family. They seem polite, moral and successful to me. They are a product of what he has created. They do not seem perverse. Trump is episodic in what he does which can be unattractive. Long term, he wins and that is attractive to me.

Your vote does count. It is the one time our elected officials and elites shudder that they could lose their position. They can't fool all of the people all of the time.

[Annalee]

Yes, Rubio asked the RNC to allow him to keep his delegates a few weeks after he "suspended" his campaign. All the other candidates that dislike Trump would love a piece of the power if he wins. Yes, Rubio would love to be VP. Republicans are starting to circle around the buffet table of leverage and are positioning.

The federal government has the most money and the most power. It's why it's so systemically controlled by those that want a piece of it. It's very hard to change for even those that get elected to change it. Once the newly elected get into the Washington process, they are overwhelmed by it and ultimately decide to become a part of the establishment which can be very rewarding to them if they fall in step with the ruling class.

Trump is a very interesting candidate to me. I think I understand what he's doing and Van Jones touched on it in his YouTube video. The candidate you see is not really the Trump you see in the headlines. Just like FDR controlled radio, JFK and Reagan controlled television and Obama controlled the Internet, Trump is controlling social media. That's why the others became President. They knew how to reach the public more effectively.

Trump is creating "personas" for what the differing public "needs". The country has become so complicated and divisive that he knows he has to reach out to many sectors that in the past have been separated by differing ideologies. We are a vastly different country than we were 20 years ago and he seems to grasp this intuitively.

He understands that the ends justify the means. His means is justified, he is winning. I don't believe he's a racist or misogynist as the media and elites are making him out to be.

He simply knows that the government and elites are stacked against him and the only way he can win, in a place that is corrupted in it's lust for power, is by going to the people.

Look at his family. They seem polite, moral and successful to me. Trump is episodic in what he does which can be unattractive. Long term, he wins and that is attractive to me.

Ironically, my college nephew and niece had this discussion at the supper table last night...they both are all in for Trump and say they are moving to England if Hillary wins::

[Cat Herder]

I carefully considered every candidates view on early childhood.

It's exactly why I am NOT voting for Hillary.

I am with her. Blackcat, that is.

Looks like Trump is where my vote will land. From my FB feed, it seems most of my peers have reached the same conclusion.

Funny, when I first saw he was running I though it was an onion article. His world seemed so irrelevant to mine.

[Mom2Two]

Added OTHER. Whomever wants me to change their vote to "other", let me know by PM. I would need to subtract it from your original vote though.

I see the "disruptors" are taking the lead here. I find it odd that no women here are voting for Hillary. In California I hear about the need for a woman in the WH. She seems qualified by her resume, I would be interested in why she is not anyone's vote. I guess you could always log out if you wanted to comment anonymously.

I'm old enough to remember her attempt as FLOTUS to bring in socialized medicine. My family is still in Australia (where I'm originally from) and as I hear about how my BIL has to be on a waiting list for an echo after a heart attack, or when my dad was on a wait list for a hospital bed when he was in late stage cancer...um, no. Note that this was for those who ONLY had public health care. You can pay for secondary private insurance and get better care. But still...only proof that there will always be classes and while I agree with some attempt to minimize some of that...it will always happen.

I also experienced the "free" university/tertiary education. They limited seats in the universities the same as they limit hospital beds. Compared with experiencing tertiary education here...here is better. PEOPLE, DON'T BELIEVE THE SLANTED COMPARISONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. My Aussie family would tell you that things are great there, but they haven't experienced both. But I have.

[Mom2Two]

"On the D side, I believe Sanders was a "prop"- running just to show that Clinton could overcome a "challenge" in the primary. Problem is- either he wasn't in on the joke or enough people really don't like her so he almost took her out. As is, I think she's irreparably damaged."

Wow, interesting thought about the prop thing. Maybe you're right...

[Mom2Two]

Yes, I think Hillary would bring more government money and involvement in the child care field vs. Trump. And I think this would be a good thing.

Head Start is not a failure. It helps millions of low income children and families.

The child care subsidy program helps millions of families enabling them to be able to work and support their families.

To ignore this is reckless. Our country provides free school education (K-12) for everyone. Our government (federal and state) heavily subsidize higher education.Tell me how a low-income family is supposed to afford high quality child care without some government assistance?

I do think there is a serious issue of whether or not more government involvement means a greater shift towards school based care and away from family child care. I do not support that trend. I think the family child care community needs to press hard to ensure that it doesn't.

To shun all government involvement in child doesn't make sense. Do you want to eliminate the Food Program? Do you want to eliminate the parent child care tax credit? Do you want to eliminate the special tax rules that allow providers to deduct house expenses? Do you want to eliminate the new $2,500 rule that allows providers to deduct expenses less than this amount in one year? I don't understand this anti-government attitude. It sounds like some folks are against government programs that benefit others, but not themselves.

Family child care, in general, is one of the lowest paid professions for people who must meet increasingly higher quality standards. Government programs don't always operate efficiently and can be improved. The proper role for government is a debatable issue that we reasonably disagree on. But, to say that we don't need government at all in the child care field doesn't make sense to me.

My feelings about improving things for home daycare providers are similar to the way I'd like to see things improve for teachers: not just more money, but better working environment. Specifically, I wish that there was some kind of encouragement for more days off work allowed for parenting needs. That would make our lives better, because the conflict for parents is constant, and we end up getting dumped on. Especially for single moms. I know that I'm low paid...but of course there are benefits, or we wouldn't be doing it (such as being able to homeschool or whatever).

Government money is never free. I trust the natural flow of capitalism over government help. Yes, I'm on the CACFP, and I take state grants.

But I would give up the fed money in a heart beat rather than have to swallow more socialism. Blech! It ruins people. Puts too much power on the unreachable government. I'm not libertarian, but with homeschooling, I see how a lot of those moms operate. They are the most pro-active, confident, out-reaching, volunteering people I know. Socialism kills that. My Aussie family is always looking to (or whining about) the government when they have a problem. My conservative neighbors are more proactive, but the libertarians and even far, far more proactive. I don't know if people realize how valuable and powerful that is.

Yes, I do value the rule of law greatly, and I believe there is place for shared costs, such as public education (too many parents are just "not that into" their kids and the kids deserve a chance), and disability (it's extremely difficult to be prepared for disability/chronic illness in young/middle age). But I really believe that the line should be where there is a crying need.

For affordable child care...I honestly believe that we need to wake up and realize that having babies out of wedlock is just an extremely difficult situation to be putting oneself into. Studies show that it's mainly the less educated, lower-income part of society where children are born out of wedlock. Generally speaking, more educated mothers are waiting til after marriage.

I started off by saying that I wish there was government encouragement (labor law) for days off for working parents. There are things I don't like about the direction our society has headed with regard to protecting and nurturing children...but I do think we need to deal with reality of the way things are. People are hard to change sometimes.

[spud912]

One of HRC's "selling points" is to have free preschool for everyone. I provide preschool.....legally unlicensed. She will put me out of business because I have no desire to change my age group to babies and toddlers (my least favorite ages).

I know I can get a job easily at my prior employer and I will eventually go back to work outside of the home. BUT if I get pushed out sooner rather than later than that means we definitely will not have another child.

[Michael]

"On the D side, I believe Sanders was a "prop"- running just to show that Clinton could overcome a "challenge" in the primary. Problem is- either he wasn't in on the joke or enough people really don't like her so he almost took her out. As is, I think she's irreparably damaged."

Wow, interesting thought about the prop thing. Maybe you're right...

While I don't believe that socialism is what is needed for this country I do think that Sanders would have at the very least attempted what was most needed for our country; breaking up the corporations and their monopolies.

While he complains that some "people" are worth billions, it is the government that has the options at its disposal to limit what a company can take from America's economy. Corporations grow and will continue to do so unchecked. At some point it can become unhealthy to our market. We are at a point where anti-trust measures are needed. It was this government's fault that allowed these powerhouses to control so much. IMO It is an unholy alliance that I now believe is corrupt.

Time to break them up. Teddy Roosevelt did it and over 50 years later Eisenhower (he was republican) did it with a 90% tax at the top bracket on "corporations" that were given the keys to the treasury to ensure our production of war materials in order to win the war. They had pooled too much money in the same way many corporations are doing so today. The rest of us need a tax break maybe even a flat tax. Corporatism is what is crushing the middle class, not capitalism.

[sleepinghart]

Cruz floats restarting campaign if he wins Nebraska primary

Cruz floats restarting campaign if he wins Nebraska primary

"Ted Cruz doesn’t want to release his delegates and is looking at restarting his campaign if he wins Nebraska.

Cruz, who suspended his White House run last week, said he does not expect to win Nebraska’s primary but is leaving the door open.

“We launched this campaign intending to win. The reason we suspended our campaign was that with the Indiana loss, I felt there was no path to victory,” he said Tuesday on conservative host Glenn Beck’s radio program.

“If that changes, we will certainly respond accordingly.”


~Respectfully Snipped From-- http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...-wins-nebraska