American Politics

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943739]My argument with the mini so-called libertarians is there not actually for freedom of choice, they are constitutionalists. [/QUOTE]Exactly what is wrong with that. It is the founding document. The entire idea was liberty unless I misread the [I]Declaration of Independence[/I] incorrectly.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943739]In my argument against the Constitution is that it hasn't seen a meaningful amendment in over 50 years.[/QUOTE]Who's fault it that? It is the fault of the citizens of the United States of America. I once saw a joke from a comedian on YouTube. He said: If the founders came back today the would look at the constitution and say [I]you guys didnt change anything. What the fuck?[/I].

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943739]We certainly wouldn't endorse using science textbooks that were written over 50 years ago without being updated, yet we cling to a document and it's amendments that haven't been reviewed and updated in over half a century. [/QUOTE]Exactly. But my right to keep in bear arms, yep we keeping that!

The real problem is that the United States of America cannot even keep up to the standards of the current Constitution of the United State of America as it was written. The deadlock serves the [B]Plutocrocy[/B] by preserving the status quo.

[QUOTE=Huacho;2943693]Trump and Vance are at it again, lying about tariffs. Lying about what they are, lying about what they do, lying about who shoulders the burden, just lies from start to finish. The best defense against a torrent of lies is simply a reiteration of the truth:

1) Tariffs are a tax on imports, designed to [B]raise prices[/B] of a country's imports, as opposed to domestic products.

2) Tariffs are paid by the importer to the US Treasury.

3) The importer can either raise the price to cover the tariff, eat the entire tariff, or do some of both.

4) Elasticities of demand and income determine which a smart importer will do.

5) Only if the full tariff can be passed on to the customer WITHOUT affecting demand at all, is the importer not worse off.

6) And that will never happen since no product's demand is completely inelastic.

7) Which means some combination of the importer's shareholders suffering due to lower profits and its employees suffering due to less employment and fewer pay increases.

8) Which means general tariffs are just stupid and ignore the fundamental concept of "comparative advantage," and generally lead to retaliation.

Of course, Rs are monopolists at heart and monopolists have better luck passing tariffs on to customers. So there's that.[/QUOTE]I agree, except for "Rs are monopolists at heart. " But why didn't Biden roll back Trump's tariffs? He kept them in place and added a few. And Harris seems to be matching or exceeding every stupid tax policy Trump proposes. Trump's latest idea is a 100% tariff on countries that transact trade in currencies besides the dollar. Kamala will probably come back with 150%, just give her time.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943456]Whenever I see the no free lunch blurb I think of Dr Kelton's quote, "The government can give everybody a pony as long as it can make enough ponies. ".[/QUOTE]And I guess the way the government pays the people making the ponies is that it prints money and gives it to the them right?

I want to understand this more too. We do not need to go into debt. Given that a nation defaults historically when a third of its income is used to pay interest on the debt, and we are there now, why do we not just quit issuing debt? If you do not have debt, you cannot go broke, so we can just tell the credit agencies to fuck off then. Gee, I wonder what would happen if we did that. I am sure that would be fine.

And we do not have to pay any interest if we do not issue debt. That is brilliant. We can tell all those people getting 5% interest now, you are going to get zero and like it. What a cost saving move that would be. I cannot think of any downside to that either.

In the Movie Dumb and Dumber, Jim Carrey was handing out pieces of paper / IOUs to pay for things after he blew all his money and swore those IOUs were as good as gold. Is that where MMT came from? Are you sure all these Democratic economists did not just steal the idea from Jim Carey?

[QUOTE=Spidy;2943403]
Which we all know, the great Biden economy of almost four (4) solid years of growth, has proven them wrong.
[/QUOTE]2021 was the pandemic when people were not allowed to work.

2022 had two quarters of negative growth and the market tanked.

2023 and until recently in 2024, the market has exploded. I said I was wrong about that and Tooms was right, but here is the thing you do not get Spidy, markets can be irrational and people can be rational. The most common measure of market valuation is the PE ratio. Historically, that has been in the high teens and now the market PE is in the high 20's and low 30's. That is about double what it historically what it has been suggesting it is massively overvalued.

Those are called facts. Be different and try using them some time to make an argument.

In 2000, the market soared and the federal government amazingly went into surplus. Unemployment was 2% and strip clubs had customers lined up 5 deep. People had more money in real life then than I have ever seen.

Look at it right now. Red Lobster went under. Strip clubs are empty. The consumer is so tapped out McDonald's is offering up cheaper meals. The dollar stores are getting killed because their low end customers are buying less and their only growth is in the higher income folks looking to save a buck. The airport I was just in, one of the nation's busiest, was as empty as during Covid times.

So where is the money coming from? Oh, well that is easy. With the Fed pulling back, the only place so much money could come from is government, and government is in fact running massive deficits racking up the credit card debt. The Democratic solution to that was brilliant. Quit issuing debt and just print money. Brilliant.

As for all those jobs, we do not know what all those government jobs are and what people are doing. That is a great fix for unemployment. Pay people to sit in a chair and tell them they had a job like they did in the USSR and claim you have full employment.

Of course, we do not know how productive those workers are but we do know who the people are getting those jobs. [URL]https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/great-replacement-job-shock-13-million-native-born-americans-just-lost-their-jobs-replaced[/URL] "since October 2019, native-born US workers have lost 1. 4 million jobs; over the same period foreign-born workers have gained 3 million jobs".

So yeah, if you are an illegal immigrant, life has never been better.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2943484]You know, given that proven [B]50:1 million jobs created by Dems since 1989[/B] figure and my proven [B]100,000,000: 37,000,0000 jobs created by Dems over the past 100 years[/B] you alluded to here, it occurs to me President Clinton and I have unfairly grossly understated true Dem Jobs Creation numbers and overstated true Repub jobs destruction numbers.

We both neglected to factor in the typical overhang of continued jobs creation for the following months or year after a Repub takes over from a Dem until that incoming Repub gets his way on policy and stewardship adjustment as well as the continued jobs destruction for the following months or year after a Dem takes over from a Repub and before that incoming Dem gets his way on policy and stewardship adjustment.

So the understandable and unavoidable months of continued jobs destruction or weak jobs creation after the incoming Dem takes over from the outgoing Repub as in Hoover to FDR, Eisenhower to JFK, Nixon / Ford to Carter, Bush1 to Clinton, Bush2 to Obama and Trump to Biden at least until those incoming Dems got their first Great Dem Recovery Legislation passed and heading into the system should not be counted against that incoming Dem. Even though it is unfairly counted against them in the typical historical data overview.

By the same token, the months or year of continued jobs creation after an incoming Repub takes over from an outgoing Dem at least until that incoming Repub gets his first economic "stimulus" legislation passed and headed into the system should not be unjustifiably credited to the incoming Repub. Even though it is unjustifiably credit to them in the typical historical data overview.

Therefore, taking that unforgivable oversight and reality into account, and admittedly I have not done the full research on it to know more exact figures, it would not be an unrealistic assertion to suggest an estimate that [B]Dem policy and stewardship is responsible for perhaps 130,000,000 of the jobs created since 1925 while Repub policy and stewardship has been responsible for a likely far too generous estimate of 7,000,000 of them.[/B].[/QUOTE]That is indeed, unprecedented, unparalleled and unmatched economic job creation by Dems!

This cannot be over stated enough, especially to those would be, ISG Repub economists and conspiracists, where facts matter, in the face of [b]Trumpian "Jedi mind tricks"[/b] and unfounded opinions.

Who knew, your initial calculations, as good as they were, could be even better, more impressive and include an even more substantial increase, in the economic job creation, upon farther review of [i]"clawed-back generosity"[/i] (extended to the Repubs), over the same period of time for Dems.

Truly Amazing!

[B]PS:[/B] Although, it's quite the enigma, as to why this amazing economic data point, has yet to be dunked, challenged or refuted with any degree of veracity, from our self-appointed Repub economists and conspiracists and their vaunted notion, in the form of a fallacy, suggesting [I][b]"...we (Repubs) know best, when it comes to the economy..."? [/b][/I].

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943739]Many thanks for the compliment. It's been fun to report on Bangkok for the last couple of decades.

In my argument against the Constitution is that it hasn't seen a meaningful amendment in over 50 years. We certainly wouldn't endorse using science textbooks that were written over 50 years ago without being updated, yet we cling to a document and it's amendments that haven't been reviewed and updated in over half a century. The United States in the world is completely different than it was in the early 1970's in the structure of the government needs to reflect that.
.[/QUOTE]Well I seriously doubt science changed much since I was in HS I'm willing to bet Chemistry hasn't changed since I used the textbook in 1979.

But nonetheless its very odd you think that's analogous to a 240 yr old political document? You say the world has changed? Well I would say mostly for the worse.

So let me decide on those changes to the Constitution, are you ok with that, or are you just interested in changes to your ideological liking?

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2943697]There is more to a nation than just people. Land and resources are best represented by the local population. If electoral college is eliminated, rural populations will basically have no politicians even attempt to appeal to them. All campaigning will be done in extremely liberal centers of urban populations.

Personally I believe you shouldn't even have a vote until your 30 years old or have done something like earn a college degree, start a business, or serve in the military to be eligible to vote at a younger age. Voting should also be merit based. The 19 year meth head convicted felon has the same voting strength as a 55 year old doctor who has dedicated his life to serving people and improving their health. Just doesn't seem logical their votes should count as the same. Convicted child molesters have the same vote as a military 5-star general. 18 year old video game kid with absolutely no real world experience has same vote as a 75 year retiree who worked his whole life and raised a multi-generational family.[/QUOTE]Here's another reasonable proposal, your connection to the USA gives some votes more weight than others, ie.

Your family has run a huge farm for 200 yrs, or you just crossed illegally from some 3rd world shithole and Scumbag Joe gave you asylum and papers to vote?

Or not even that?

[URL]https://www.foxnews.com/us/doj-illegal-immigrant-stole-us-citizens-identity-vote-multiple-elections-obtain-american-passport[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2943753]Hey Goatscrot, First, I largely agree with your post and think similarly. I've never thought about allowing individuals to exercise liberties, freedoms and rights in accordance with state or federal law, whichever is more liberal, but that makes good sense.

The Mises Caucus tried to take control of the Libertarian Party from the Gary Johnson wing a few years ago. And some of your criticisms, like intolerance and excessive Constitutionalism, are valid for them. However, they have since been booted to the ground like the scum they are. The Libertarian candidate for president this year, Chase Oliver, is a classical liberal from the Gary Johnson wing. He says he's armed and gay. And I suspect the only significant social policy you might disagree with Chase about is gun control.

The Libertarians would have to be closer to you on social issues than either of the major parties. The Progressive democrats might come closer than the rest, but they still condemn our lifestyle. On the other hand the Libertarians probably are farther from your beliefs on economic and foreign policy than the major parties. However the Gary Johnson Libertarians are kinder and gentler and stronger believers in a social safety net than the Mises Caucus, which again is probably history.

I don't have strong feelings about the Constitution, except that to the extent it protects individual liberties and rights and prevents a tyranny of the majority. I'm all on board with that.

I took a multiple choice test many years ago that would tell me which presidential candidates I should vote for. It came back with a tie, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Some would say they're as far apart on the political spectrum as two candidates can be. But on some issues they're like two peas in a pod. So it is with many of us.[/QUOTE]When I take the political spectrum test I'm down in far libertarian left. Yes on the majority of social issues I guess I could be considered fairly libertarian, however when it comes to economics I'm a bit to the right of Lenin. I like chomsky's ideas of a narcosynicalism and also Dr Richard Wolff's ideas of democracy in the workplace. Why shouldn't labor have a say in what is produced, how it is produced, and how it is distributed? Without democracy yet there is none in the workplace, which is really rather where it should be rooted. And it's that that keeps me from voting libertarian. I've always liked Dennis Kusinich, but Ron paul, well he staunchly anti-abortion and believes it should be left up to the states, which I don't, I believe it should be left only to women.

One book that I found thoroughly enlightening was democracy in chains by Nancy McClean. It's basically a history of libertarian party starting with John see Calhoun. He argued that his property rights, the right to own a slave, superseded the slaves human rights. This in a nutshell is the American struggle since inception, and I do find that libertarians tend to embrace private property in many ways more than they embrace human rights.

Another excellent book is we the elites how the Constitution serves the very few by Robert Ovetz. America was designed to sure that landowners made the decisions. And with the exception of the time between World War II and the 1990's it's pretty much been that way. The wealthy and control. It took both sides of the political aisle 50 years to undo the good that Teddy and FDR did. The majority of us were raised in that idyllic time when labor had power and the corporatists were kept somewhat at bay.

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2943697]There is more to a nation than just people. Land and resources are best represented by the local population. If electoral college is eliminated, rural populations will basically have no politicians even attempt to appeal to them. [/QUOTE]Meaning what exactly? And how is it local reps. Are related to the electoral college (EC)?

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2943697]All campaigning will be done in extremely liberal centers of urban populations. [/QUOTE]How is that any different from how things work now? Meaning, your local representation is down-ballot (if up for re-election), is it not?

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2943697]Personally I believe you shouldn't even have a vote until your 30 years old or have done something like earn a college degree, start a business, or serve in the military to be eligible to vote at a younger age. Voting should also be merit based. The 19 year meth head convicted felon has the same voting strength as a 55 year old doctor who has dedicated his life to serving people and improving their health. Just doesn't seem logical their votes should count as the same. Convicted child molesters have the same vote as a military 5-star general. 18 year old video game kid with absolutely no real world experience has same vote as a 75 year retiree who worked his whole life and raised a multi-generational family.[/QUOTE]While your suggestions are understandably different w/r to who gets to vote, I think it's a slippery slope. Next thing you know, no doubt, the billionaires, would be lobbying for more votes according to status, wealth and size of their crowd rallies. Ahem! I mean corporations and businesses.

Besides, I can't imagine for a second, giving Repubs, even more ammunition (ie. Reasons), to purge people from voter lists. Or torpedo (ie. Mess up) and farther complicate a simple voting process, any more than they already have, with nonsense like "STOP THE STEAL" (...kkkk!)

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943831]When I take the political spectrum test I'm down in far libertarian left. Yes on the majority of social issues I guess I could be considered fairly libertarian, however when it comes to economics I'm a bit to the right of Lenin. I like chomsky's ideas of a narcosynicalism and also Dr Richard Wolff's ideas of democracy in the workplace. Why shouldn't labor have a say in what is produced, how it is produced, and how it is distributed? Without democracy yet there is none in the workplace, which is really rather where it should be rooted. And it's that that keeps me from voting libertarian. I've always liked Dennis Kusinich, but Ron paul, well he staunchly anti-abortion and believes it should be left up to the states, which I don't, I believe it should be left only to women. [/QUOTE] All very good, but I'm too lazy right now, to expound on Chomsky and Wolff at the moment. But will say the story of Mondragon is what many U.S. companies should follow.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943831]One book that I found thoroughly enlightening was democracy in chains by Nancy McClean. It's basically a history of libertarian party starting with John see Calhoun. [b]He argued that his property rights, the right to own a slave, superseded the slaves human rights.[/b] This in a nutshell is the American struggle since inception, and I do find that [u]libertarians tend to embrace private property in many ways more than they embrace human rights.[/u][/QUOTE] Very well said!

I couldn't put my finger on how to think about "libertarians" (much less "Republican Libertarians"), but your description (in bold), nicely highlights what I couldn't quite pinpoint. Thanks, you've encapsulated what I was kinda thinking.

However, this maybe more of a depiction of "right-libertarians", and wouldn't want to offend any "left-libertarians", if there is indeed a discerning difference? Long story short, I didn't want to go down the [b]"libertarian rabbit-hole",[/b] as I surmised the realm of [b]what is a "libertarian",[/b] is a vast and diverse, contrasting of ideals.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943831]Another excellent book is we the elites how the Constitution serves the very few by Robert Ovetz. America was designed to sure that landowners made the decisions. And with the exception of the time between World War II and the 1990's it's pretty much been that way. The wealthy and control. It took both sides of the political aisle 50 years to undo the good that Teddy and FDR did. The majority of us were raised in that idyllic time when labor had power and the corporatists were kept somewhat at bay.[/QUOTE] Agreed! Today, Biden/Harris, are making inroads with regards to more equity and rights for Unions, and bringing back a modicum of a more balanced power structure. But definitely more employee empowerment companies structures like Mondragon, will go a long way to that end.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2943740]Excellent link Tooms! I'd say I'd welcome you to Texas with open arms, just as long as you don't vote, but I'll be leaving here soon. I'm sure Elvis will though in my place.

Here are some excerpts:

An examination of key economic measures -- including job and income growth -- found an overwhelming majority of red states among 18 top performers.

The disparity between red and blue states has little to do with anything Biden has done, experts interviewed by ABC News said, noting that federal policy typically holds minimal influence over state-by-state economic trends.

Instead, they added, the dynamic owes in large part to the appeal of warm weather states for workers and businesses, as well as the combination of company-friendly state policies and *leaning cities that attract young, educated workers.

Five states are currently enjoying better-than-average performance on four key metrics analyzed by ABC News: job growth, personal income growth, gross domestic product growth and gas prices, according to data from the USA Bureau of Economic Analysis, the USA Bureau of Labor Statistics and AAA..[/QUOTE]Have you ever wondered why those typical and rather routine by now Great Repub Depressions, Great Repub Recessions and Massive Repub Jobs Destruction results cause more damage to Red States and therefore require more Federal Aid to bail them out of the Repub Economic Disaster when Dems are voted in to recover America from the latest Repub economic disaster?

It is for the same reason so many Red States work so hard to tout themselves as "Company-friendly" or "Business-friendly. " LOL. The very terms that are used to supposedly glorify the "Red State / Repub Model" in the links and as they sell themselves to America;.

Those terms are Code for "We do not support or require companies to pay well, provide benefits, enforce pesky rules and regulations or in any meaningful way give a shit about your employees."

Consequently, when the inevitable Great Repub Economic Disaster occurs, well, it is pretty obvious how that is going to wreak way more havoc on the lives of the workers who live in those "Business-friendly" states than workers who live in "Worker-friendly" states:

[B]These are Americas 10 worst states to live and work in for 2023, and theres a big surprise at the very bottom[/B]

[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/14/these-are-americas-10-worst-states-to-live-and-work-in.html?__source=androidappshare[/URL]

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2943784]2021 was the pandemic when people were not allowed to work.

2022 had two quarters of negative growth and the market tanked.

2023 and until recently in 2024, the market has exploded. I said I was wrong about that and Tooms was right, but here is the thing you do not get Spidy, markets can be irrational and people can be rational. The most common measure of market valuation is the PE ratio. Historically, that has been in the high teens and now the market PE is in the high 20's and low 30's. That is about double what it historically what it has been suggesting it is massively overvalued.

Those are called facts. Be different and try using them some time to make an argument.

In 2000, the market soared and the federal government amazingly went into surplus. Unemployment was 2% and strip clubs had customers lined up 5 deep. People had more money in real life then than I have ever seen.

Look at it right now. [B]Red Lobster went under.[/b] Strip clubs are empty. The consumer is so tapped out McDonald's is offering up cheaper meals. The dollar stores are getting killed because their low end customers are buying less and their only growth is in the higher income folks looking to save a buck. The airport I was just in, one of the nation's busiest, was as empty as during Covid times...[/QUOTE]A couple of Red Lobsters opened in Bangkok over the past couple of years.

I tried the bigger, nicer one a few months ago. The food was way overpriced for what you get even if it had been good. But it was crap.

I am surprised that place has survived as long as it did.

However, apparently they have not gone completely under. Despite their atrocious mismanagement, it appears the USA Economy is doing so well even a badly managed restaurant chain that serves overpriced crap food can keep hundreds of their locations open:

[B]Red Lobster cleared to exit Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Red Lobster will operate 544 locations across North America.[/B]

[URL]https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/red-lobster-cleared-exit-chapter-11-bankruptcy-protection[/URL]

Americans have discretionary money to burn, apparently.

Thanks, Joe. I think.

[QUOTE=Spidy;2943806]That is indeed, unprecedented, unparalleled and unmatched economic job creation by Dems!

This cannot be over stated enough, especially to those would be, ISG Repub economists and conspiracists, where facts matter, in the face of [b]Trumpian "Jedi mind tricks"[/b] and unfounded opinions.

Who knew, your initial calculations, as good as they were, could be even better, more impressive and include an even more substantial increase, in the economic job creation, upon farther review of [i]"clawed-back generosity"[/i] (extended to the Repubs), over the same period of time for Dems.

Truly Amazing!.[/QUOTE]A majority of poll respondents quite often tell polsters they prefer the "Red State / Repub Economic Model" of economic policies.

And who wouldn't? As I have heard Repubs sell their economic "policies" over the decades, they always sound pretty damn sweet to me too.

A couple of examples:

- We will cut your taxes (well, mostly big cuts for the wealthy, a little bit for you but then we will cut some other service or tax exemption you used to enjoy. Have to. Those tax cuts for the wealthy aren't going to pay for themselves, dummy), the increased income for the wealthy will come "Trickling Down" into your pockets and we can all live like deadbeat millionaires! (Please ignore the Great Repub Depression, Great Repub Recession and Massive Repub Jobs Destruction that is bound to follow).

- Tariffs are taxes we impose on other counties and when those other countries pay those taxes the revenue windfall will be so great, YOU will never have to pay for anything. Ever. Really. Swear to God.

Yeah. I would vote for those policies anytime IF only they remained academic policies that never, ever produced the Real World results those Repub economic policies virtually always produce.

[QUOTE=MarquisdeSade1;2943815]Here's another reasonable proposal, your connection to the USA gives some votes more weight than others, ie.

Your family has run a huge farm for 200 yrs, or you just crossed illegally from some 3rd world shithole and Scumbag Joe gave you asylum and papers to vote?

Or not even that?

[URL]https://www.foxnews.com/us/doj-illegal-immigrant-stole-us-citizens-identity-vote-multiple-elections-obtain-american-passport[/URL][/QUOTE]Stay true to what the document that you always tout as set in stone.

Pick a lane, you have the Constitution that is amendable, yet you argue about the what if's. The Constitution is credible when you agree with it, and not because you dislike part of it. That 200 year old farm may have been set up by someone seeking asylum once upon a time. England used to call us a shithole country. Strange how history does repeat itself.

PSA: Make your case to people to vote for your guy. Don't try to distract others on nonsensical things you found on the internet. Encourage everyone to vote, and then through a majority (electral college or not) of votes, the best candidate wins. Exactly (paraphrasing) how the Constitution was written.

[QUOTE=Spidy;2943832]Meaning what exactly? And how is it local reps. Are related to the electoral college (EC)?

How is that any different from how things work now? Meaning, your local representation is down-ballot (if up for re-election), is it not?

While your suggestions are understandably different w/r to who gets to vote, I think it's a slippery slope. Next thing you know, no doubt, the billionaires, would be lobbying for more votes according to status, wealth and size of their crowd rallies. Ahem! I mean corporations and businesses.

Besides, I can't imagine for a second, giving Repubs, even more ammunition (ie. Reasons), to purge people from voter lists. Or torpedo (ie. Mess up) and farther complicate a simple voting process, any more than they already have, with nonsense like "STOP THE STEAL" (...kkkk!)[/QUOTE]If USA eliminates the electoral college and switches to a popular vote, the only areas politicians would campaign in would be large urban cities. That's how they would garner the most support and votes. What incentive would a politician have to travel to a small rural town on the campaign trail to get a very small amount of votes? Basically anyone living outside of a large metropolitan area would be insignificant in terms of winning the presidential election. Those small town populations are still extremely important. They best understand the issues affecting their community.

An example of that is the Southern New Jersey coast right now. They are trying to build wind farms all along the coast which most residents hate and don't want it to happen for several reasons. It will effect the boating and fishing industries as well as have an environmental impact. Politicians at the national level and more urban Northern NJ are pushing it through anyway. It will most likely also lower property values all along the coast. New Jersey for the most part is very urban, but Southern NJ is actually more rural and suburban. The urban population is using their superior voting power to push an agenda which will enrich them through these wind farm contracts, and it is coming at the expense of rural community voters who don't want wind farms all over their coasts.

This is just a state issue too. If you eliminate the electoral college, urban cities will have the voting power to get whatever they want and it will come at the expense of rural communities and the vast natural resources that support those industries. Agriculture, mining, timber, fresh water, fishing, and many other industries those local people work in will have their profits start to be siphoned off as they lose voting power. That is just the nature of the beast / large Corporations. The people who spent their lives living around their natural resources usually have the best understanding of how they should be utilized without damaging their environment and communities. They should have the most say in what is happening to their environment. Not some big city 1000 miles away across the country.

That is why the electoral college is so important. It protects the voting power of people and resources outside the large urban cities. Think of the things San Francisco advocates for and think of things a small town in Texas advocates for. It is totally different. Small rural populations need to have a voice too.