Government should never have the right to decide how many kids people have. Nor should the rest of society be obliged to pay for the kids they do have.
We bring it up because God willing most of YOU will never have to go through it, and I am personally sick of the cavalier attitude I keep seeing from a bunch of people with a chip the size of the Rock of Gibraltar on their shoulders. We bring it up because some of you seem to forget that victims lie, cops lie, and many of you want the friggin death penalty for everything including jaywalking.
You guys spend a day doing my job and you'll quickly find that your naive attitude about the criminal justice system will be shattered into lots of little pieces.
Let's just say that there is a reason we have so many suppression hearings. Whether it's a bald-faced lie (which I've personally dealt with), or a bit of fudging (sorry, but I don't believe these cops see half of what they do, it's not possible), it's just a matter of degrees, IMO. Are all cops liars? Hell no. But there are a certain few around here who are called into question whenever they sign something, and we've had enough instances of police brutality around here that we have the experience to back our comments up.
But again, let me re-iterate, most of them are damn good guys I'd not hesitate to buy beers for, they're job is just as tough, and more dangerous, than mine.
How about we enforce the illegal immigration laws we have already instead of writing new ones? That goes for all you folks in Europe also, don't you have a problem with the north africans coming in?
I believe that currently the president already focuses on the states with the most Electoral votes...because he can get the most votes.
A big state like California has a population of 36 million and they have 55 votes....that is equal to Texas with a population of 23 million, with 34 votes, and Pennsylvania with a population of 13 million and 21 votes. It all balances out.
The original purpose of the Electoral college was to even the voice of the people out across the union so the President would be elected by the states and not the people.
I think, that the original purpose of the voting system is not needed in today's world.
Give the people one vote, one voice and leave the state out of it.
Once presidents in office are more effected by the population then maybe other laws with migrate down.
Iowa? New Hampshire? Rhode Island? Etc? Candidates will always stump in Calif and NY and Tex, because that's where the big numbers are. Right now they put just as much effort courting little voters in little places like Iowa and Rhode Island. Don't take away their reason for courting voters in Iowa.
Oh, I'm afraid of drunk drivers all right. I just hope he's not serious about re-instituting prohibition. It was one of the most unmitigated disasters in our nation's history.
I think you missed the broader concept of "equality."
It's good that the presidential candidates pay attention to the rural people as well as to the urban people. Take away the electoral college and they'll stop paying attention to the rural people, because the urban areas have more people = more votes = I could win a populous election without a single rural vote.
I see your point. But, I think the electoral system still makes the president listen to the votes of the state and not the people.
There have been times were the people said we want this, but the electoral college said no you get this.
Examples would be as early as the Presidental Election of 2000. Al Gore had won the popular vote....more people wanted Gore in the Presidency...but Bush had more Electoral Votes.
(Opening History Book)
In 1876, Tilden won the popular vote but Hayes had the Electoral Votes to be come president.
In 1888, Cleveland won the popular vote but Harrison had the Electoral's.
Wow, 112 years before it happened again. 2000-1888.
(Closing History Book)
Iowa has a population of 3 million and carries 7 Electoral votes....I'm just thinking that the "President to be", should not think of Iowa as 7 votes, but as 3 million voices. (As long as they are voting age, of course )
Exactly, no one is arguing that those in rural areas should not have a vote. Simply that their vote should not be more important than anyone elses vote.