Does your vote in 2020 really matter- most likely not

[BreadOfLife]

Does your vote in 2020 really matter- most likely not

USA 1016 election
Here are the final numbers:

Clinton received 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote.
Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the total vote. (That's a difference of 2.86 million votes.)
Here is the final popular vote count of the 2016 election just in case you want to feel bad

It was the Electoral College that got Trump into the White House, not the U.S. citizens vote.

So folks, it matters not how you vote but if you don’t vote you have so say in the matter.

Are You Going To Vote & why

Thanks in advance

:)-

It's unfortunate that there are so many ignorant Americans out there like YOU who don't understand how the country works.
I blame it on the fact that they don't teach Civics classes in schools anymore.

FIRST of all - we don't live in a democracy. This is a Federal Republic.

Secondly - our Presidential election is NOT based on who gets the most overall votes. If that were the case - then only the largest states would have a voice. It is based on 50 independent elections. The winner of the most states wins.

Hillary got ALL of her "extra" votes from California - the most populated - and LIBERAL state in the Union.
Trump won more STATES than she did - so he won the election, Einstein.

Instead of crying about the Electoral College - start insisting that they teach Civics to our young students again so they don't wind up ad bitter - and clueless as YOU . . .

 

[Willie T]

What you say could easily be true. He had been against being aligned with any super PACs. That changed when his campaign wasn't raising enough money from the "little guys." GO ahead, laugh at the hypocrisy, I did. His son's shennigans also look terribly suspicious. Oh yes, now his son resigned from that cushy Chinese company that was paying him for doing who knows what -- as if that fixes anything. Biden's been having a tough time lately, what with being refused Communion in South Carolina over his abortion stance.

Harris just closed offices in New Hampshire, perhaps to focus more on Iowa? Who knows how long she'll hang in there, but I think all the black candidates were having trouble raising money. I expect she'll drop out soon.

Warren had been going up in the polls; but she's now going down. Somehow I also doubt if Sanders can make it. Could Buttigieg win the nomination?

There's a good chance the Dems will have a last-minute new entry candidate. One nobody will have enough time to find out anything about except that they will promise all sorts of free stuff.

 

[Giuliano]

There's a good chance the Dems will have a last-minute new entry candidate. One nobody will have enough time to find out anything about except that they will promise all sorts of free stuff.

Hillary seems to be toying with the idea of jumping in. Too bad for her, people already know about her.

I like Tulsi Gabbard. She's been languishing in the polls. Clinton attacked her; but that attack was so foolish, no one believed it. I think it may backfired and drew more attention to Gabbard. As other candidates drop out, she could pick up some of their supporters. She also is doing better in New Hampshire than expected in the open primary since some Republicans say they'll vote for her instead of a Republican.

Tulsi Gabbard Rising in New Hampshire Polls, Thanks to Republican Support

A new CNN poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire and released this week shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) with 5 percent support from likely voters in the state, which is scheduled to hold the nation's first Democratic primary on February 11. That level of support is good enough to put Gabbard in fifth place, trailing only Sen. Bernie Sanders (21 percent) of Vermont, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (18 percent) of Massachusetts, former vice president Joe Biden (15 percent) and Pete Buttigieg (10 percent), the mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Tied with Gabbard at 5 percent are Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and entrepreneur Andrew Yang.

The CNN poll is perhaps the best signal yet that Gabbard—whom Hillary Clinton nonsensically smeared as a "Russian asset" two weeks ago—is experiencing a bit of a polling bounce, especially in New Hampshire. She's risen by 4 percentage points since the same pollsters' July survey while Biden has fallen by 6 points and Sen. Kamala Harris of California has fallen by 9 points. Nationally, Gabbard has experienced a small but noticeable bump in her poll numbers in recent weeks too, though she continues to sit in the third tier of Democratic hopefuls.

One big reason I like her is she's opposed to wasteful spending. The spending is horribly out of control under Trump (who said once he loved debt and is now proving it) and the current Congress. We're on the way to becoming a banana republic if the overspending doesn't end soon.

Trump's upsetting world markets with his trade wars has also put him in a box where the federal government needs to spend more and more money to keep farmers afloat.

Nearly 40% of 2019 farm income will come from federal aid and insurance

The Agriculture Department projects that farm incomes will reach $88 billion in 2019 but nearly 40% of that — $33 billion — will come from trade aid, disaster assistance, the farm bill and insurance indemnities, according to a new report by the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF).

Why it matters: Farmers — a critical constituency for President Trump in the 2020 presidential election — are feeling the squeeze from China’s retaliatory tariffs, extreme weather and record-high farm debt that's driving farm bankruptcies.

By the numbers: In a 12-month period ending in September 2019, Chapter 12 farm or fishery bankruptcies totaled 580 filings, up 24% from a year earlier and the most since 2011, when 676 chapter 12 bankruptcies were filed.

• Wisconsin experienced the highest Chapter 12 bankruptcy filings at 48 filings, followed by 37 filings in Georgia, Nebraska and Kansas.
• Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Wisconsin and West Virginia reported Chapter 12 bankruptcy filings on par with or above 10-year highs
• Yes, but: The AFBF noted that the Chapter 12 filings remain well below the historical highs in the 1980s.

The big picture: "The support provided to farmers in 2018 and 2019 is expected to alleviate some of the financial stress, however, not all farmers will benefit from trade assistance, farm bill programs, crop insurance or disaster aid. As a result, it could take some time for the financial relief to manifest in the farm bankruptcy trends," per the AFBF.

We are not living in a capitalist country any more. Trump can complain about other countries subsidizing their industries and agriculture; but goodness, do they do it at the rate of 40%?

 

[Giuliano]

It's unfortunate that there are so many ignorant Americans out there like YOU who don't understand how the country works.
I blame it on the fact that they don't teach Civics classes in schools anymore.

FIRST of all - we don't live in a democracy. This is a Federal Republic.

Secondly - our Presidential election is NOT based on who gets the most overall votes. If that were the case - then only the largest states would have a voice. It is based on 50 independent elections. The winner of the most states wins.

Hillary got ALL of her "extra" votes from California - the most populated - and LIBERAL state in the Union.
Trump won more STATES than she did - so he won the election, Einstein.

Instead of crying about the Electoral College - start insisting that they teach Civics to our young students again so they don't wind up ad bitter - and clueless as YOU . . .

Ah, so somebody knows about California! I think maybe Hillary didn't pay enough attention to the electoral votes and too much on national polls. Trump's campaign had him going to states that mattered. Her campaign neglected key swing states as if the overall number of votes was the thing. . . as if all those extra votes in California meant she would win.

 

[tooldtocare]

but the Founders denied that such consent could be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule.

The founding fathers had good intentions when creating the EC because in the old days it took too long to tally everyone’s vote; so, the EC was created.

Today we vote for our senators and members of the house and even our Governors’ without the need of an EC.

We no longer need the EC. We have the internet and other means to tally all the votes in a timely manner.
(:-

 

[Giuliano]

The founding fathers had good intentions when creating the EC because in the old days it took too long to tally everyone’s vote; so, the EC was created.

Today we vote for our senators and members of the house and even our Governors’ without the need of an EC.

We no longer need the EC. We have the internet and other means to tally all the votes in a timely manner.
:)-

Can you imagine the turmoil if the results were extremely close? Can you imagine how it could encourage election fraud? Right now, how many extra votes Democrats get in California doesn't matter. If we went to popular vote, people there might want to rig their elections to get even more Democratic votes.

It's wishful thinking anyway since most states are not highly populated; and you would need two thirds of the states to change it. It's not going to happen unless you can talk states like New Hampshire and Montana to give away the influence they have. That would be like trying to talk them into having one Senator.

 

[Windmill Charge]

Mark Twain's comments on this subject are about as true as any can be. "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it"

That goverments in a democracy change shows the lie in Mark Twains comment.

 

[shnarkle]

That goverments in a democracy change shows the lie in Mark Twains comment.

This isn't a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic. Democracies are "mob rule", or rule by the "demos". All democracies eventually devolve into tyrannies. We're seeing that happen right before our eyes. Some insights aren't readily apparent to everyone.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

This isn't a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic. Democracies are "mob rule", or rule by the "demos". All democracies eventually devolve into tyrannies. We're seeing that happen right before our eyes. Some insights aren't readily apparent to everyone.

You are correct. The mob can't overrule our constitution, which was written with the help of God.

 

[Giuliano]

This isn't a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic. Democracies are "mob rule", or rule by the "demos". All democracies eventually devolve into tyrannies. We're seeing that happen right before our eyes. Some insights aren't readily apparent to everyone.

I think we see an impetus from some quarters towards mob rule; but time will tell if the "republic" angle prevents the rise of a tyranny.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I think we see an impetus from some quarters towards mob rule; but time will tell if the "republic" angle prevents the rise of a tyranny.

That impetus has existed from the beginning of our republic because man is sinful. The question is will we see revival in this nation--a turning back to God? I believe that we will!

 

[shnarkle]

The founding fathers had good intentions when creating the EC because in the old days it took too long to tally everyone’s vote; so, the EC was created.

That wasn't the purpose of the electoral college. The purpose of the EC was an effort to prevent power from coallescing in one branch of government. We still have the popular vote which we all stand around with bated breath to see those election results, and when they differ from the electoral college, those who lost the EC vote cry that we need to get rid of the EC because it's not what the people really want.

Representative government is also supposed to prevent power from accumulating in one place, but when a representative represents a few million people rather than a few thousand, your vote doesn't mean much anymore. The founders understood this principle and split up states quite readily. Today, however, states like California are looking at splitting up their state to give them the opportunity to change Presidential elections

 

[shnarkle]

I think we see an impetus from some quarters towards mob rule; but time will tell if the "republic" angle prevents the rise of a tyranny.

We already have a tyranny. We are a republic in name only. The Constitution is a dead letter, and has been for quite some time. I was just reading about a guy who has been in prison for over 17 years. He's seen people who were imprisoned for murder come and go. He was a mechanic working on a fleet of trucks in his own garage when it was raided by the FBI, DEA, etc. They arrested him because the trucks he was working on had been used to transport narcotics. He had no way to know any of this, but the state wanted to make an example of him.

There are over 80k SWAT raids in the US every year. The department of Education has a SWAT team.

Have you heard of "Civil Asset Forfeiture"? It's a fancy name for highway robbery by the State. If they suspect you have money that was used in the commission of a crime, or was given as payment for a crime, they will confiscate it as well as you car, truck, etc. You could owe $50k on that truck, and it will cost you $50k just to get it back. All 50 states have it now, and are making BILLIONS in revenue.

The State now guarantees to keep private prisons at 80% capacity or more. They have a contractual obligation to do this. This is a blatant conflict of interest.

There is no such thing as due process anywhere within 100 miles of US borders, and the vast majority of Americans live within 100 miles of the border. Law enforcement needs no reason to simply walk into your home and search and seize whatever they please. That's the law of the land today. It's a pathetic joke.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

We already have a tyranny. We are a republic in name only. The Constitution is a dead letter, and has been for quite some time. I was just reading about a guy who has been in prison for over 17 years. He's seen people who were imprisoned for murder come and go. He was a mechanic working on a fleet of trucks in his own garage when it was raided by the FBI, DEA, etc. They arrested him because the trucks he was working on had been used to transport narcotics. He had no way to know any of this, but the state wanted to make an example of him.

There are over 80k SWAT raids in the US every year. The department of Education has a SWAT team.

Have you heard of "Civil Asset Forfeiture"? It's a fancy name for highway robbery by the State. If they suspect you have money that was used in the commission of a crime, or was given as payment for a crime, they will confiscate it as well as you car, truck, etc. You could owe $50k on that truck, and it will cost you $50k just to get it back. All 50 states have it now, and are making BILLIONS in revenue.

The State now guarantees to keep private prisons at 80% capacity or more. They have a contractual obligation to do this. This is a blatant conflict of interest.

There is no such thing as due process anywhere within 100 miles of US borders, and the vast majority of Americans live within 100 miles of the border. Law enforcement needs no reason to simply walk into your home and search and seize whatever they please. That's the law of the land today. It's a pathetic joke.

Do you think that tyranny hasn't existed in America from the beginning? It has and it will continue as long as people have turned their hearts away from God!

 

[Giuliano]

We already have a tyranny. We are a republic in name only. The Constitution is a dead letter, and has been for quite some time. I was just reading about a guy who has been in prison for over 17 years. He's seen people who were imprisoned for murder come and go. He was a mechanic working on a fleet of trucks in his own garage when it was raided by the FBI, DEA, etc. They arrested him because the trucks he was working on had been used to transport narcotics. He had no way to know any of this, but the state wanted to make an example of him.

There are over 80k SWAT raids in the US every year. The department of Education has a SWAT team.

Have you heard of "Civil Asset Forfeiture"? It's a fancy name for highway robbery by the State. If they suspect you have money that was used in the commission of a crime, or was given as payment for a crime, they will confiscate it as well as you car, truck, etc. You could owe $50k on that truck, and it will cost you $50k just to get it back. All 50 states have it now, and are making BILLIONS in revenue.

The State now guarantees to keep private prisons at 80% capacity or more. They have a contractual obligation to do this. This is a blatant conflict of interest.

There is no such thing as due process anywhere within 100 miles of US borders, and the vast majority of Americans live within 100 miles of the border. Law enforcement needs no reason to simply walk into your home and search and seize whatever they please. That's the law of the land today. It's a pathetic joke.

Actually there is some kickback against the current prison situation. Arkansas is a great example. They're releasing 527 prisoners and plan to release more after that.

Oklahoma freeing 527 from prison; state officials call it largest single-day commutation in U.S. history

Oklahoma is preparing to release 527 people today who are serving low-level drug and nonviolent offenses in what the state's lawmakers are calling the largest single-day commutation in both state and U.S. history.

The commutation is a success for criminal justice change efforts in a state that has a long history of harsh sentencing practices and high incarceration rates. It's also evidence of the Republican-dominated Legislature's willingness to move closer in line with the majority of voters who favor a less punitive approach. The historic commutations come amid nationwide efforts to reduce punishment of low-level crimes and move the U.S. prison system in a more rehabilitative -- or at least less punitive -- direction.

Republicans often want prison reform for fiscal reasons. Democrats often want it for other reasons. Other states are also looking at cutting the number of prisons; the state I live in, Pennsylvania, is.

I've also seen news lately about how the current administration is investigating state prisons and taking some to court. It's one thing I applaud the current administration for. California just banned private prisons. They're ridiculously expensive and often used to reward political allies. The fact is we can't afford so many prisoners when alternatives that work better are available. Obama had decided to phase them out in the federal system; but Trump's reversed that. I expect more civil lawsuits that put many of them out of business since they often can't hire good people and wind up with employees who abuse prisoners or who sneak in drugs, etc.

I have heard of the civil forfeiture laws; and I agree with you something needs to be done since they really are anti-constitutional. Such rules also actually make the jobs of the police more difficult since people view them as predators instead of protectors.

 

[shnarkle]

Actually there is some kickback against the current prison situation. Arkansas is a great example. They're releasing 527 prisoners and plan to release more after that.

Oklahoma freeing 527 from prison; state officials call it largest single-day commutation in U.S. history

Oklahoma is preparing to release 527 people today who are serving low-level drug and nonviolent offenses in what the state's lawmakers are calling the largest single-day commutation in both state and U.S. history.

The commutation is a success for criminal justice change efforts in a state that has a long history of harsh sentencing practices and high incarceration rates. It's also evidence of the Republican-dominated Legislature's willingness to move closer in line with the majority of voters who favor a less punitive approach. The historic commutations come amid nationwide efforts to reduce punishment of low-level crimes and move the U.S. prison system in a more rehabilitative -- or at least less punitive -- direction.

Republicans often want prison reform for fiscal reasons. Democrats often want it for other reasons. Other states are also looking at cutting the number of prisons; the state I live in, Pennsylvania, is.

I've also seen news lately about how the current administration is investigating state prisons and taking some to court. It's one thing I applaud the current administration for. California just banned private prisons. They're ridiculously expensive and often used to reward political allies. The fact is we can't afford so many prisoners when alternatives that work better are available. Obama had decided to phase them out in the federal system; but Trump's reversed that. I expect more civil lawsuits that put many of them out of business since they often can't hire good people and wind up with employees who abuse prisoners or who sneak in drugs, etc.

I have heard of the civil forfeiture laws; and I agree with you something needs to be done since they really are anti-constitutional. Such rules also actually make the jobs of the police more difficult since people view them as predators instead of protectors.

I'm not surprised California banned private prisons. They're not making any money off them. I suspect the prisons that you referenced being closed were all State, Federal, etc. because they're a burden while everyone released will soon be right back in the private prison system per their obligation.

I suspect we're going to be seeing a lot more "rehabilitation" centers or some other title attributed to the prison system in the future. Regardless of what they call them, they're a great way to provide slave labor for corporate interests, and the state only has to fork out a fraction of what it costs them to run a prison. That's how it works in the free market. The most efficient business model turns a profit, but this is a rigged market for corporate welfare recipients.

 

[Enoch111]

Clinton received 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote.

Remove 6-7 million fraudulent votes from that number, and you might get a better picture.

There is no question that the Democrats will use voter fraud to win this election. There are millions of illegals who will be paid to use fraudulent documents in order to vote. And unless Mr. Trump addresses this issue very seriously and effectively, he will pay the price.

 

[Giuliano]

Remove 6-7 million fraudulent votes from that number, and you might get a better picture.

There is no question that the Democrats will use voter fraud to win this election. There are millions of illegals who will be paid to use fraudulent documents in order to vote. And unless Mr. Trump addresses this issue very seriously and effectively, he will pay the price.

How people vote clearly doesn't matter to you. If you don't like the results, you claim there was voter fraud. Evidence? Oh, never mind that, just claim voter fraud.

Get used to it: Most people don't think like you.

 

[Giuliano]

I'm not surprised California banned private prisons. They're not making any money off them. I suspect the prisons that you referenced being closed were all State, Federal, etc. because they're a burden while everyone released will soon be right back in the private prison system per their obligation.

I suspect we're going to be seeing a lot more "rehabilitation" centers or some other title attributed to the prison system in the future. Regardless of what they call them, they're a great way to provide slave labor for corporate interests, and the state only has to fork out a fraction of what it costs them to run a prison. That's how it works in the free market. The most efficient business model turns a profit, but this is a rigged market for corporate welfare recipients.

I don't see the situation getting truly fixed without real campaign contribution reform so that only private citizens can contribute money. I'd like to restrict it to only people qualified to vote in an election. Why should a person in one state be allowed to influence elections in other states? He can't vote everywhere, so why is he allowed to donate money everywhere?

 

[shnarkle]

I don't see the situation getting truly fixed without real campaign contribution reform so that only private citizens can contribute money. I'd like to restrict it to only people qualified to vote in an election. Why should a person in one state be allowed to influence elections in other states? He can't vote everywhere, so why is he allowed to donate money everywhere?

Money has to be removed from the equation altogether. Any number of corporations can simply funnel their money through individual private citizens. The founding fathers understood how to keep it honest by splitting up states as their numbers grew. When your vote is one in a few million, or even a few hundred thousand, it's not worth nearly as much as when it's one in 50 thousand.

I like the Cayman Islands because the entire population is less than 40k. You can sit down to dinner in a restaurant and get direct access to your representative. You can't do that in this country. Your vote doesn't matter at all.