Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Politics In General / Re: The Electoral College: Should it be abolished?
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on December 14, 2016, 10:05:37 AM »
Politics In General / Re: The Electoral College: Should it be abolished?
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on December 07, 2016, 09:51:51 PM »
And here are a few more facts about why we have (and need to keep) the electoral college.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of them, and Clinton won only 57.

There are 62 counties in the state of New York. Trump won 46 of them, and Clinton won only 16.

Clinton won the national popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton won 4 of them- Trump won Richmond.  With only 4 of those 5 counties, Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. Therefore, these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the national popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it is ludicrous to even suggest that the votes of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
The Living Room / Thanksgiving, and 5 kernels of Corn
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on November 23, 2016, 11:12:34 PM »
Politics In General / Re: Now hiring!
« Last post by Janet Nunziato on November 23, 2016, 09:32:39 PM »


                Make America GREAT Again!
Politics In General / Re: The Electoral College: Should it be abolished?
« Last post by Janet Nunziato on November 23, 2016, 09:23:53 PM »
Very well stated, Jim.  You've explained the purpose and effect of the  Electoral Collage very precisely.  I hope those who read this and participate in this poll will, also, grasp the importance of the EC as an integral part of our electoral process.
Politics In General / The Electoral College: Should it be abolished?
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on November 23, 2016, 08:19:07 PM »
In the 2016 presidential election, the Democratic nominee received a majority of the popular vote, but lost the election to the Republican candidate, because of the Electoral College. The same thing happened in the 2000 Presidential election. This is the 5th time it has happened in the nation's 56 Presidential elections. How can the Electoral College allow this to happen? Shouldn't it go without a second thought that whomever wins the popular vote should win the Presidency?  Why do we have this Electoral Collage, who started it, and why is it set up the way it is?

A lot of people mistakenly believe that the United States is a democracy. It isn't. It is a Constitutional, Representative Republic. Our Founding Fathers did everything in their power to ensure we were NOT a democracy. In a pure democracy, simple majority (51%) rules.  That means 51% control the other 49%. In a republic, LAWS rule, not majority.

I suspect one would be hard pressed to find anyone who would not agree that every legitimate vote cast should count. With that concept in mind, let's look at a few numbers. I will use estimated numbers, based on various websites. They are not exact, but will serve to illustrate the concept.

According to estimates on various websites, total eligible voters in the 2016 Presidential election was somewhere around 231,556,622. Voter turnout is estimated to be around 58.4%, or somewhere around 135,228,196. If we divide the number of votes cast by two, 67,614,098 would equal 50%. Anything more than that would be the majority of the popular vote, and would elect the president. Since there were more than just two candidates in the race for President, it would be very possible for no one candidate to receive more than half of the cast votes, so whomever receives the most votes, would be considered to have received the majority of all cast votes.

If the Nov 8th. Presidential election was one, large, national election, then the number of popular votes could very easily be accumulated by winning only the four most populated states, California, Texas, New York, and Florida. The total number of voters in just those four states alone, total around 100,578,929. But remember the concept of, "every vote should count?" If a candidate only needed to win four or five of the most populated states, how much of a voice would the lesser populated states have in the overall election? They would be rendered totally insignificant.

The Presidential election, is, in fact, fifty-one completely separate, and totally independent elections. There is a "Presidential election" in each of the fifty states, plus one more in the District of Columbia. Simple majority rules in each of those individual elections, and whichever candidate wins each state election, dictates how the ELECTORS in that state must vote.  The people do not directly elect the President of the United States. They never have, and hopefully, never will. Each state receives a number of ELECTORS determined by the total number of representatives it has in both houses of Congress. For example, if a state has 5 representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives, and 2 senators in the U.S. Senate, that state will carry 7 electoral votes in the Electoral College. With our current fifty states, there are a total of 538 electoral votes. When the Electoral College convenes, it takes a simple majority, (269 + 1 = 270 electoral votes) to win the Presidency. In order to win enough electoral votes to become President, a candidate must win a majority of the STATES. Remember the concept of every vote counting? If a simple majority win of the popular votes in the 4 most populated states were all that were needed to elect the President, then all the remaining votes in the remaining 46 states would be rendered insignificant.

This system of electing the President was established by our Founding Fathers, in our U.S. Constitution. It has once again come under scrutiny, by those who say it should be abolished. To do so would require a Constitutional amendment.

What do you think?

(Federalist Paper 68 and Anti-Federalist Paper 68 both deal with how we elect the President.) 

This is the Electoral College map for the 2016 Presidential election. The Democratic nominee may have won more popular votes in many fewer states, but note how many more STATES the Republican candidate won! If the popular vote directly elected the President, all of the votes in those smaller, less populated states would have been rendered irrelevant.

Now look at the all of the states by COUNTIES won by each candidate. If the popular vote alone (from just the most populated COUNTIES) directly elected the President, note how many MORE votes from the less populated counties would be rendered irrelevant.

The Electoral College ensures that in order to win the presidency, the winning candidate must win a majority of the STATES, not the popular vote in just the most populated counties and cities.
Current Events / Re: Affordable Care Act
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on November 20, 2016, 06:01:08 PM »
Politics In General / Re: Now hiring!
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on November 09, 2016, 01:35:49 PM »


Politics In General / Now hiring!
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on November 01, 2016, 02:57:04 PM »
The United States Of America is currently taking job applications for position of President!

There are four job applicants, but only two of them have any chance of actually being selected for the job.

Donald Trump, in his lifetime, has created tens of thousands of jobs, and employed tens of thousands of people. How does a person get to work for Donald Trump? They have to apply for, and be interviewed by either Donald, his Board of Directors, or perhaps he created a Human Resources Department to do the hiring. Then the job applicant has to convince those who make the decision, that he is qualified to execute the requirements of the job. After hearing from all the available job applicants, a selection is made, and one of the applicants is hired. (We all know who does the firing, don't we?  "You're Fired!!!")

Perhaps, for probably the first time in his life, Donald Trump is applying for a job from someone else.  To whom is he applying? What are the first three words of the Constitution? "We The People!" We The People get to make the final decision of who gets "hired" for the job. We will make our final decision and choice by November 8th.

So, let's put aside all the mud slinging and personal character assassination, (from both sides) and focus on the important issues we should keep in mind when evaluating the resumes of the two job applicants.
  • Which of the two job applicants will nominate justices to the Supreme Court who will uphold and support the Constitution?
  • Which of the two job applicants will secure our borders?
  • Which of the two job applicants will end the Syrian refugee program and keep radical Islam terrorists OUT of our country?
  • Which of the two job applicants will end "Common Core" and return education back to the States?
  • Which of the two job applicants will put our coal miners back to work?
  • Which of the two job applicants will renegotiate better trade deals with other countries?
  • Which of the two job applicants will rebuild our military?
  • Which of the two job applicants will secure and preserve our Second Amendment?
  • Which of the two job applicants will repeal and replace obamacare?
  • Which of the two job applicants will do a better job of stimulating our economy?
  • Which of the two job applicants will take care of our veterans?
  • Which of the two job applicants will support our Law Enforcement Officers?
Do I need to continue? To all the "Never Trumpers" out there, I ask, how about "Never hillary"? I ask that you put aside all the reasons you don't "like" Trump's personality, or whatever reason you don't "like" him, and just focus the issues that will directly affect the direction of our country. It would be one thing if we could separate ourselves from the liberals, and let them do their thing, and we conservatives could do ours. Sadly, it doesn't work that way. We're all in the same boat, and if it sinks, we all go down together. We have to do whatever we can to "Save the Ship!"

How many of you have seen Hailey's Comet? It only comes around once every 75 or 76 years, and if you miss it, too bad. You will most likely never get to see it again in your lifetime. Donald Trump and his offer to "Make America Great Again'" is like Hailey's Comet to America. It will only come around once in our lifetime, and if we don't take advantage of it this time around, we'll not likely see another chance within our lifetimes. Let's not blow it!

John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." I believe we are a silent majority, who are moral and religious. It is time for the silent majority to speak up and scream from the rooftops (with our ballots) and make our voices heard! It is time to awaken the sleeping giant! We need to raise the roofs off of the voting booths through our ballots! We need to create vibrations at the ballot box that will show up on the Richter scale! 

We each need to make our own personal decisions, and overwhelmingly hire the job applicant whom we believe can (1)receive enough support to actually be hired for the job, so they can (2)do their best to secure and protect America's best interests. Use your own judgement to evaluate all of the job applicants, make your decision, and ensure that your voice is heard by voicing it through your ballot by November 8th!

God Bless America!!!

Politics In General / Can a private citizen make demands on the FBI?
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on October 30, 2016, 10:34:00 AM »
10 days before election day, the FBI announced that they are reopening the investigation concerning the democratic party nominee, Hillary Clinton.

At this point both party candidates are PRIVATE CITIZENS. Neither holds any current government position. How then, does the democratic party nominee DEMAND that the FBI release everything they have in this investigation? Since when does a PRIVATE CITIZEN demand anything from the FBI? Talk about "unprecedented!"

They want "full disclosure and transparency," they say.  If they want full disclosure and transparency, how about disclosing the real content of the conversation between the democratic party candidate's husband and the Attorney General's private meeting on her airplane on the tarmac? Do they actually expect the American people to really believe that they only talked about their "grandchildren?"  Is there anyone who actually believes that? How stupid do they actually believe we, the American people are?

Not having access to what the FBI now has, is it reasonable to assume that the very fact that they re-opened the investigation 10 days before election day suggests that they might have some very important information?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10