calfoxwc

Thoughts - offhand, of course. The Founding Fathers were brilliant - they lived in those times, and their complex solution, ironed out by debate, was our Constitution and Bill of Rights. In Congress, the House has reps per census. (hence the left wanting illegals to be counted, giving them a giant advantage). However, in the Senate, every single state, no matter how populated, has only two Senators. I bring that up because there's a brilliant balance. State's representation and State's population representation by count. Our government, brilliantly, is set up in terms of checks and balances in terms of power. Therefore, establishing the checks and balances brilliance of the Founding Fathers, here is more reasoning, from ************************************ https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/faq "CA - 8,753,788 Democratic votes cast vs 4,483,810 Republican votes cast = 55 Democratic electors PA - 2,926,441 Democratic votes cast vs 2,970,733 Republican votes cast = 20 Republican electors TX - 3,877,868 Democratic votes cast vs 4,685,047 Republican votes cast = 38 Republican electors Total - 15,658,117 Democratic votes cast vs 12,139,590 Republican votes cast for the national popular vote, but 55 Democratic electors vs 58 Republican electors appointed based on each State's popular vote." ************************************* For arguments sake, let's guess that maybe the reps got 11? delegates, in California. and the same for PA - we'll say a split - 10 rep delegates and 10 dem delegates. and for TX - let's just guess 25 rep delegates and 13 dem delegates. IF that were to be the way it was, you would have totals of Rep delegates at 46, and Dem delegates at 67. Completely out of whack from what the actual totals were: 55 Democratic electors vs 58 Republican electors appointed based on each State's popular vote." of course, if I gave the Reps more of a split vote, in California, an extra 11 votes, to 22 total, then it would be REP Delegates 57, and DEM Delegates only 56. But California is very heavily democratic, I just think that the first example is more correct. Anyways, in the long run, we already have very narrow voter results for Presidential elections. and all the controversy and angst and lawsuits and nitpicking on questionable voter rolls, and Obamao trying to send out voter ballots LATE to our troops and trying to keep the ones back later not counted, the lawsuit in Florida between Bush and Gorish, question (george soros funded) voting machines...... So, in conclusion, our current system works very, very well. Not perfect, but the American people have seen 1 term of a disaster president, Jimmy Carter, then eight years of Ronald Reagan. Then 4 years of Bush H, and then eight years of Bill Clinton. THEN, eight years of Bush W., and then eight years of ObaMao. and of course, ....eight? years of Trump. Notice, that as I see it, the Great Ship America keeps turning "right" and "left" to correct it's long term direction, to keep on course. The current system really does work for the American people. I just think that tinkering with the Electoral College as you mentioned as a possiblity (actually good question), might very well lend itself to benefiting the left only, because of the dramatic affect of the possibility of giving all illegals the right to vote. They don't know our Constitution/Bill of Rights, they ...often don't know English, they are ...often totally dependent on our government to survive...and our taxes are already "too damn high". So, as the article states, it is actually up to the states. But I think most states won't buy into it, for reasons I have stated that are my own, and the facts laid out in the excellent article. But it is an interesting question, and an interesting thoughtful exercise. But it seems after taking a long look at it, that it would be a change that would make every election ALSO close and challenged every presidential election. Which brings me to one more very important point - *glaringly important* fact in the article: *************************************** What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes? If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the Presidential election leaves the Electoral College process and moves to Congress. The House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote and it is up to the individual States to determine how to vote. (Since the District of Columbia is not a State, it has no State delegation in the House and cannot vote). A candidate must receive at least 26 votes (a majority of the States) to be elected. The Senate elects the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator casts one vote for Vice President. (Since the District of Columbia is has no Senators and is not represented in the vote). A candidate must receive at least 51 votes (a majority of Senators) to be elected. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House. ********************************************************* Pretty cool to find THAT out. I never knew. I'll pass on the Congress thing. As it stands, the HOuse is controlled by a corrupt dem majority, and for example, if Pres Trump, with your suggested change, only ended up with 268 votes, instead of the requred 270, the HOUSE DEMOCRATS would get to choose the president between Sanders, Buttplug, and Warren? Let the way it is stand, imho, because we don't need THAT fiasco every single 4 years! The Founding Fathers were truly brilliant. My cowboy coffee is done.

and...it was just a few weeks ago, I figured out how to see the meme above, instead of a list of numbers and dashes. I have to right click and select "view image" and THEN it comes up. !

wow. how about, many home schoolers ARE teachers with degrees? or, how do you figure "lacking skills" ? How do you assume "highly politicized" ? How do you figure "highly religious" ? and the curriculum is state mandated. home-schooled kids have to pass the same mandated proficiency tests as public schools. home schooled kids don't ever get bullied, have to avoid fights, have to be ridiculed for disabilities.... and, the kids I have known in homeschooling, have big get-togethers with other homeschooled kids at social events, and they still socialize with kids in their neighborhood who do go to public schools... it's the public schools that have become liberal indoctrination environments far too many places where bullying is also a norm. Home-schooling can also use the same textbooks, and that is iffy if they do. But listen to OBF's response, It will be more eloquent - his Wife home-schools.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=browns+news&pc=MOZI&form=MOZTSB Browns hire former Broncos QB coach T.C. McCartney as offensive assistant, source says

Is this "Cal has a 4 yr artificial knee and never played sports" joke? dammit. LOL

too many liberal college students think their loans will be paid off by the dems....so why bother?

yep. Exactly put. How he got "Lt. Col" I have NO freaking idea. Although, I met a knew a rabid corrupt msgt back in the day, and the same in a captain....

I meant that people are fewer in rural areas and wouldn't have a chance of being taken seriously. I suppose candidates would only campaign in the cities - always more delegates to be gotten.

homeschooling seems so excellent - some kids in our extended family have always been home schooled - some friends too - and in Christian private schools - makes the public schools seem worrisome.

I want free Bob Evans biscuits and gravy. any time I go there. delivered to my door on Sat and Sun mornings. and fresh frog legs for dinner before Browns games next fall.... lol

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-idUSKBN20003J American dies of coronavirus in China; five Britons infected in French Alps

not good: forget 34,900.... Coronavirus "whistleblower" nurse says China has 90,000 sick https://nypost.com/2020/01/26/coronavirus... Jan 26, 2020 · The coronavirus now has a whistleblower - a nurse in Wuhan who insists in a shocking online video that close to 90,000 people in China have the …

Wuhan Rounds Up the Infected as Death Toll in China Jumps ... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/world/asia/coronavirus-china.html 2 days ago · There are also more than 200 cases of infection outside China. Coronavirus Map: Tracking the Spread of the Outbreak The virus has sickened more than 34,900 people in China …

just completely wrong. I've shown it to be. And I never even mentioned that I was selected to be a part of a huge Inspector General Readiness Task Force - an assignment that lasted several weeks. I typed up readiness reports, higher up reports - had to have my usual security clearance upped ahead of time - (never knew it til I was part of it) - referring to military strategy and readiness/support studies. I was in SAC.

btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then, except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2017/01/23/barack-obama-military-administration/ Obama has done lasting damage to the military "As the Trump transition team looks to roll back Barack Obama’s second-term tsunami of executive orders and regulations, and Republican leaders in Congress prepare to repeal Obamacare, the outgoing president’s legacy seems to shrink daily. But one effect of eight years of Obama won’t soon vanish: He’s done more damage to American military power than his successor can repair. It’s not simply that Obama tried to end U.S. involvement in the Middle East by unilaterally withdrawing from Iraq, conducting a phony surge in Afghanistan, and failing to respond to the civil war in Syria. It’s not just that Obama did little beyond telling Vladimir Putin to “cut it out” after Russia annexed Crimea and after Putin otherwise exploited whatever opportunity arose to unravel the post–Cold War peace of Europe, or that Obama neglected to back up the promise of a “Pacific pivot” as the Chinese dredged their way (island-making instead of island-hopping) across the South China Sea. Retreats can be reversed, even if the price of victory rises when it has to be won twice (or three or four times, in the case of Iraq)." ******************************************************** "The consistency of the Obama disarmament is reflected in defense-spending arithmetic — federal budgets are long-term strategy. There are several ways to reckon this. The simplest is to compare the current five-year defense plan with the five-year defense plan Obama inherited from the Bush administration. By that comparison, the Pentagon has lost more than $250 billion in purchasing power. While that’s a pretty big number, it doesn’t begin to tell the whole tale, because it looks at the problem only in five-year increments. Obama has always had a longer-term outlook. " ************************************************************ "In 2009, during his first year in office, Obama directed then–defense secretary Robert Gates to cut about $300 billion from Pentagon programs, which had the effect of eliminating several of the major weapons-acquisitions projects that had survived Donald Rumsfeld’s attempt to “transform” the force by “skipping a generation of weapons systems.” The poster child for this round of cuts was the F-22 fighter. It was the first substantial attempt to deploy stealth and other technologies meant to ensure American air superiority for decades to come. Gates terminated the F-22 at just 187 planes instead of the 750 originally planned by the Air Force. " *************************************************** "A second, smaller set of reductions came the following year. Gates, seeing which way the wind was blowing, sought to get ahead of the White House by offering $80 billion worth of “reforms” and other changes on the condition that the administration shift the spending to other defense investments. Obama gratefully took the windfall — and more — to pay for the one-time cost of his Afghanistan surge and other, non-defense priorities. Gates got played." ************************************************ (even worse, Tiam:) "But not as badly as he did in 2011. In April of that year, when a new tea-party coalition was flexing its muscles in the House of Representatives, Obama decided on another $400 billion in defense reductions. He did not inform Gates of the intended cuts before delivering the speech in which he announced them. Gates resigned. But the speech was a brilliant political gambit that gave the White House the initiative by framing the terms for the subsequent negotiations that led to the Budget Control Act (BCA). That law achieved two Democratic priorities: It jettisoned any attempt to limit federal spending in entitlement programs, and it capped defense spending for a decade. It’s hard to fully estimate the effect of these reductions; there have been two one-time exceptions to the defense-spending caps, but they were very small, approximately $30 billion over two budget years. A good guess, though, is that long-term spending on defense programs has been reduced by close to $1 trillion in fiscal years 2009 to 2023." ******************************************************************************* "A subtler but more profound effect of the BCA was to make the Republican congressional leadership a party to the Obama military drawdown. This inspired the small-government, libertarian Freedom Caucus in the House to take former speaker John Boehner hostage repeatedly, such as when it led the charge to shut down the government in 2013, a move that probably contributed to Boehner’s eventual resignation. Boehner was no defense-spending enthusiast (Senator Mitch McConnell hasn’t been, either, since Republicans took back the Senate), but the BCA favored a more extreme course and had assumed a totem-like status for younger Republicans, who became the Obama White House’s unlikely bedfellows on the issue." ***************************************************************************** "The BCA’s “sequestration” provision further limited Pentagon accounts. It stipulated that if Congress failed to adhere to the specified annual spending caps, or if it failed to pass appropriations bills before the fiscal year began, automatic cuts to military spending would kick in. Sequestration reinforced the far-left–far-right alliance and meant that extremists could simply withhold their support for any budget deal and follow their own priorities, regardless of their negative impact on the military. With entitlements protected, the Obama administration and out-of-power Democrats on Capitol Hill could sit back and watch Republicans stake out positions that were popular in their districts but that made compromise and governing impossible. Then, at election time, Democrats would simply aim to beat a “do-nothing Congress.” ************************************************************************** "A final budget whammy has completed the perfect financial storm for the armed forces: the continued reliance on extraordinary “supplemental” appropriations for “overseas contingency operations.” Reasonably enough, the Bush administration argued that these appropriations were necessary to pay for unanticipated war costs. But as the situation in Iraq degenerated, the Bush team found itself boxed in. When it at last reversed course and embraced a counterinsurgency strategy and the idea of a surge of troops to carry it out, it found itself forced to ask not only for extra money for gas, beans, and bullets but also for the funds to increase the size of the military and particularly the active-duty Army, which it had been in the process of shrinking." *********************************************************************** "The practice of supplemental appropriations has carried over through the Obama years, and though it has masked some of the worst consequences of the defense-budget cuts, it has also used limited resources inefficiently. More money is good, but planned-for money is much better. The military has been fighting the same war over and over. In a reasonable world, funding could be planned in advance and would not need to be justified on an “emergency” basis. Instead, for political reasons, we are financing the war one year — or less — at a time. Thus, 15 years after 9/11 and after eight years of Obama, the military is something like a racehorse — once sleek, powerful, and fit — put too long to the plow and desperately in need of rest, recovery, and refitting. The size of the force (the Army in particular) has ballooned and shrunk like a fad dieter. On September 11, 2001, we had about 485,000 soldiers in uniform. Donald Rumsfeld approved an additional 30,000 — not to fight the war, but to undertake a “transformational” redesign of the military. In other words, the service grew bigger in preparation for getting smaller. Of course, this too was paid for with supplemental funding. This contraption limped along through 2006 and into 2007, when President Bush agreed to establish a crash program to get to 560,000 troops in a timely way. Obama has reduced the Army total to about 475,000 today, and it’s on a slope to 450,000 or fewer. The Marines have suffered a similar personnel problem, while the Navy and the Air Force, by nature more-technological services, have shed ships and planes without receiving replacements. For example, the Defense Department built a facility to manufacture 300 F-35 fighters a year, intending to replace the current lightweight fighters in the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. But in recent years, production of the F-35 has rarely exceeded one-tenth of that capacity. The smaller force is also a much less ready force. During the Cold War, the units of the Army and Air Force were always about 90 percent ready in terms of personnel, equipment, and training. The sea services, reflecting the predictable maintenance cycle of ships, could anticipate deployment schedules years in advance. Since 9/11, the entire military has been subjected to a just-in-time, by-the-seat-of-the-pants approach necessitated by a surfeit of missions and a lack of resources of all kinds. The result is that units, when not deployed, are only about 60 percent ready or less. This also means that the military’s ability to do anything more challenging than routine operations, such as keeping sea lanes open, is severely limited. It is no coincidence that in his 2012 “defense guidance,” Obama lowered the standard by which we determine the optimal size of our forces. Since the years prior to World War II, and as befits a global power, we have maintained the capacity to conduct two large-scale campaigns at once. Obama lowered the bar to just one war at a time." ********************************************************** "Finally, the Obama years have seen a degeneration in civil–military relations. It’s not simply that Obama and his White House team have squabbled with their field commanders, though there’s been plenty of that. Far worse is the social distance that’s arisen between soldiers and the rest of us. Recently, YouGov and the Hoover Institution sponsored the first large-scale survey of public attitudes on military affairs since 9/11. The most startling statistic was that nearly 80 percent of Americans, regardless of party, ideology, wealth, or any other demographic attribute, regard military service of any sort — not just combat — as dehumanizing and psychologically damaging. This is partly a reflection of our increasingly narcissistic and therapeutic culture, but Obama has always been in sync with the times: He has turned heroes into victims. His will not be a martial legacy. – Mr. Donnelly is a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute and the director of its Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies."

Tiam - We MUST have a goal of being able to fight two wars simultaneously. The world is a far, far more dangerous place than ever before - NK is on the fringes of trying to get/extort money out of us again, or, to somehow go to war over S. Korea. China is maneuvering to establish a power base that would exclude us out of the Phillipines/Japanese areas/S. Korea presence - Russia is going to be getting very impatient with wanting to re-establish control over several Baltic states, and all of the Ukraine. China is establishing a presence in S. America. and, the Middle East is due for a war - with obaMao's help - the gigantic influx of cash and gold to a rogue dangerous terrorist government. 1.6 ? BILLION ? WTF ? Consider an article just from 2015: https://taskandpurpose.com/a-look-at-military-spending-under-the-obama-administration Keeping in mind that obaMao's presidency started in 2009: "In 2010, national security spending made up 20.1% of the federal budget, but in 2015 it was roughly 15.9%. Over that same period, spending declined from 4.6% of gross domestic product to 3.3%." "Between the rise of the Islamic State, Russia’s proxy war in Ukraine, and tensions in the South China Sea, national security and military spending is shaping up to be a key issue in the 2016 presidential election. On Dec. 15, PolitiFact published a fact sheet answering five common questions concerning military spending. The article, written by Louis Jacobson and Amy Sherman, looks at the state of the defense budget, America’s nuclear arsenal, Navy fleet size, Army manpower cuts, and equipment, and ranks the accuracy of statements made by leading Republican presidential candidates and the Obama administration in these areas." ********************************** "Defense spending National security spending includes the Pentagon’s budget as well as spending by other agencies, like the Department of Energy’s work on nuclear weapons. On the whole, spending increased in 2010 and 2011, but decreased every year for four straight years by a cumulative 15%, write Jacobson and Sherman. In 2010, national security spending made up 20.1% of the federal budget, but in 2015 it was roughly 15.9%. Over that same period, spending declined from 4.6% of gross domestic product to 3.3%. The reason for this is two-fold. The Obama administration's decision to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan caused defense spending to drop. The second reason has to do with sequestration, which refers to the automatic across-the-board cuts to both military and nonmilitary spending that was originally designed to force bipartisan negotiations in Congress. It didn’t work and when negotiators failed to strike a deal in 2011 the cuts went into effect in 2013." ************************************** "Army force strength and Navy fleet size The Army had roughly 570,000 soldiers in 2012, but reductions over the years have reduced that size to roughly 490,000. The Army announced in July that it intends to cut its force size down by an additional 40,000 soldiers by fiscal year 2018. The cuts are expected to save roughly $7 billion. The U.S. Navy’s fleet size peaked during World War II when it had 6,768 ships under its command. Afterward, the number dwindled to where it is today, with 272 active ships. The Navy’s goal is to expand its fleet size to 308 ships. Given the current shipbuilding schedule, that goal won’t be met until 2022, and it depends heavily on repealing sequestration." *****************************************

on a rampage. Even the people behind the scenes, backstage, are enraged. McCain was concerned - and kept quiet. egad. https://www.theblaze.com/news/the-views-joy-behar-goes-on-bizarre-rant-after-trump-acquittal-evokes-fear-in-meghan-mccain

lol. for unearthing traitors that should be fired. lol https://www.theblaze.com/news/donald-trump-jr-thanks-adam-schiff-for-unearthing-who-all-needed-to-be-fired-from-trump-administration

granted. That we might ever get to a point where we would need that RPG launcher, etc...is pretty silly. But it isn't just one guy with a 12 gauge vs our entire army. The lesson learned by the Founding Fathers was, six or seven, two or three British soldiers could just start firing at settlers... and did, if provoked. Because the settlers didn't have guns. Or, so the British thought. They hid them. But the tyranny they suffered could happen again one day, especially if we were all dis-armed. Mexico, Britain - live in fear because they have been disarmed. Nobody thinks the cartels don't have the latest, most dangerous weapons. Meanwhile, violent crime is freaking everywhere. that doesn't fly when America has our 2nd Amendment. But in the scenario where the Constitution is suspended for "climate change" excuses, that is when I'd like to legally own an RPG. Just sayin. Red Dawn is only a movie. The reality is, someday, it could happen to a lesser degree. with democrat socialist sombeitches.

Thank you. I'll have to think about that one. Offhand, it would make a bit of sense, except I think that big cities are definately in the grasp of the welfare democrats/socialists. And states that don't have most of their population in cities, would lose out every single time. Cities would always rule. We need the entire state to vote and decide. But I take your point, and I'll think on it.

I'm tired of this garbage. All hell is going to break loose when they try that on a national scale.

socialist turds.

read it again - it was the guy I rented my room from who had it. He'd been stationed in Alaska, and somehow kept it. I didn't know you were a veteran ! That is COLD duty.