I Have No Problem With Republicans Winning Elections And Not Getting More Votes Than the Opposition

If the GOP never gets more than 45% of the popular vote in the next 10 presidential elections and still wins the presidency by winning the electoral college I have no problem with it.

Naturally more people will vote for Democrats as long as Democrats support giving more free stuff to the people.

And all of you here know full well that the Democrats do indeed do that.

You're not fooling anyone, you know.

So do Republicans. They just support giving more free stuff to the other people.

Perhaps. People who are actually useful and productive.

What are you talking about?

No. This statement proves you really don't actually think.

Are you denying that Republicans prefer giving stuff to wealthier people?

I would like to see rules rewritten but I do not see that happening.

Why? Do you have any evidence or indications that governance in the United States would improve?

I'm denying that these two statements mean the same thing.

"Republicans prefer giving stuff to People who are actually useful and productive." =/= "Republicans prefer giving stuff to wealthier people"

At least for house districts, yes, there is a ton of evidence that competitive districts result in better governance compared to the hyper partisan gerrymanered districts.

Really? Currently every two years only about 40-50 U.S. House Seats are truly competitive.

You really think having knife fights in 435 House districts EVERY two years (with massive inflows of money necessary for that as well) to be good for the country?

Time to get out the Dayton translator again...

A failed casino owner and reality TV star is useful and productive...how?

If Puck from season 2 of "The Real World", opened a casino, and it flopped, the only difference between him and Trump would be Trump wears a suit.
So...that's your moral standard for useful human beings?
Fashion?
Yeah, that's about right.
That's about as shallow and empty as I've ever considered your thinking processes to be.
No surprises there at all.

IIRC, Donald Trump did employ a substantial number of people and did increase the value of many properties.

So yeah, that is "productive and useful".

Though my "productive and useful" comment did not apply to Donald Trump personally.

I don't know about Jenee, but I'm denying the idea that wealthier automatically equals "more productive and useful."

In many cases it's the classic "born on third base and thought he hit a triple." Combined with exploiting the productivity of the working class and pocketing all the gains for themselves.

I've read that the vast majority of the wealthy people in the United States DID NOT inherit a significant portion of their wealth.

I'll check for a link.

Safe districts push candidates to the extremes. When the November election is a foregone conclusion, the fight moves to the primary, where more of the voters are party die-hards. Therefore, the competition becomes to see who has the greatest ideological purity. And while in office, their main worry is that if they're seen as working too closely with the other side, they'll get a primary challenger, while toeing the party line and sticking to established ideology is much safer.

In competitive districts, candidates will naturally move to the center and will be less afraid to seek solutions independent of a pre-established ideology.

That's exactly what I was denying.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49167533

Discuss after reading if you wish.

http://inequality.org/selfmade-myth-hallucinating-rich/

Those “born on first base” — in upper-class families, with inheritances up to $1 million — make up 22 percent of the 400. On “second base,” households wealthy enough to run a business big enough to generate inheritances over $1 million, the new UFE study found another 11.5 percent.

On “third base,” with inherited wealth over $50 million, sit 7 percent of America’s 400 richest. Last but not least, the “born on home plate” crowd. These high-rollers, 21.25 percent of the total Forbes list, all inherited enough to “earn” their way into top 400 status.

Maybe wealthier doesn't equal more productive and useful. However, somewhere along the line that person's family earned the $$ that was passed down. Don't we all want to leave something for our kids?

Then there's the issue of how they increased their wealth. Did they do it, like Bill Gates (who's the son of a wealthy lawyer), by starting a company and selling a product? Or did they do it like John Paulson with things like Credit Default Swaps, or George Soros and currency speculation, which don't actually add any value to the economy? According to at least one journalist who covers the global financial markets, most of the money in the markets is spent on things which don't actually add value to the economy, it just swirls around in the markets.

Sure. But why should government policy be designed to give them as many extra advantages as possible and keep everyone else down?

Are they doing anything that is actually illegal? If so, that's a problem.

Depends what your definition of a crime is.
If suddenly The Purge becomes a thing, and I kill you on Purge night, it may have been legal, but it was still murder, and still wrong.
Because bankers got a bunch of dirty shit that used to be illegal legalized doesn't make it kosher.


And if you wanna dig your feet in, and play the "legal is legal is legal", card, then you don't get to cry about legal weed states, Obamacare, or Roe V Wade.

I've never denied that any of those were "legal".

Just that they were wrong.

Murder is wrong? I didn't think you losers actually had a sense of morality. Shocking!

Ditto.

And when you fellas come up with something better than "cuz Jesus", "cuz darkies", or "invisible homo penises are after my bunghole! ", someone might just listen.