Jump to content
270soft Forum

jvikings1

Steering Council Member
  • Content Count

    3,299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About jvikings1

  • Rank
    Political Guru
  • Birthday June 22

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    KY, USA
  • Interests
    YAF,
    YAL,
    College Republicans,
    Young Republicans

Recent Profile Visitors

3,150 profile views
  1. On the face of things, I would agree with you. He has played more of the political game; however, he has stayed consistent on the key issues despite his play (that's what separates him from Cruz). Ron would certainly not defend Trump as much as Rand; though, Rand has more potential to do more within the system because of his game.
  2. Agreed. This is what sunk Republicans in 2012. They (as in Romney) tried to run against Obama rather than on why they were the better option. It's also why so many Republicans who have tried to copy Trump have done so poorly. You can't make yourself out to be something you are not.
  3. While a voter id might not do a whole lot to prevent fraud (especially with mail-in balloting being expanded), it does add to the legitimacy of the electoral process. As for a poll tax, if a voter id is given to every person who doesn't have a qualifying id with no charge, then that point is moot. It also makes your 2nd and 3rd points moot as well. Though it is worth noting how many things already require an id (which many people are already participating in), so most will already have a valid form of identification.
  4. Well, I am in favor of greater restrictions on voting for everyone (not just 18-20 year olds). The ignorant voter is a threat to liberty and a pawn of those in power. Much like the Founders, I do not trust unchecked democracy. Correct. In fact I only recently turned 21.
  5. Having a committee of legal experts chose judges seems good on the surface, but they would almost certainly fall into the same partisan differences that already plague the current process.
  6. The narrative that the EC was largely a product of the slave system is not an accurate one. While it could have played a role in it being instituted, there were large matters that had more influence over the matter.
  7. If California wants to go, I'd gladly let them. In that case, I'd expect some business to shift out of California and into other places in the US (lessening the blow that would occur).
  8. It seems like former politicians who have tried to make a comeback (even in positions they previously filled) haven't been doing very well recently. I wonder if the change mentality hurts them even more than incumbents.
  9. To claim one purpose of the EC would not be accurate. Another major aim of the EC was to give individual states a voice in the Presidential election (to help appease the fears of smaller states who didn't want to be lorded over by the large states). Yes, some of the reasons for the EC have been eroded over the years (in large part due to the expanding ability for people to vote), but there are still others that remain (the large state-small state divide will always be a factor).
  10. If Cruz somehow became majority leader, then I could see it. His voting tendencies under Trump show that he'll make politically convenient votes. Rand, not so much. Granted, he will never become majority leader because the Republican leadership despises him (mainly because he exposes leadership for their true colors). His record actually proves that he'll make unpopular votes and decisions regardless of the consequences (much like Thomas Massie in the House). But, McConnell makes concessions because he is actually a big government Republican. He campaigns on conservative issues to get elected and will make conservative votes as eye candy for the voters, but he will use every opportunity behind the scenes to expand the scope of government. His principle is keeping and expanding power, not on holding the line on conservative causes.
  11. Maybe on the surface of things it doesn't appear that way, but it becomes more apparent when you peal away the layers. And it may not be literally 10 years, but the point it Republican leadership tends to follow a little ways behind the Democrats on issues. Take Obamacare for instance. Republicans railed against it when it was passed and constantly voted to repeal when Obama was President. But when they actually had the opportunity to do a repeal, it faltered because the party bosses didn't have the political will to go through with a repeal (because they really didn't want it). They also had a previous opportunity to avoid funding many of Obamacare's provisions and ended up caving on the issue. It, again, was the party bosses who signaled the ok to go ahead with funding it. Take the budget as another example. Republican leadership has been funding Democratic priorities for years. As long as they get what they want in the budget (usually more defense and corporate welfare spending), they will gladly give the Democrats what they want as well. Planned Parenthood funding is an excellent example. Republican leaders claim to be pro-life but vote for PP funding in every budget they pass. This also goes to show that the narrative of gridlock and no bipartisanship is not an accurate one and that the Establishment in both parties aren't really that far apart on issues.
  12. Ummmmm... no. It just reinforces the idea that states get to chose how they assign their electors. If they wish to bind them, they are allowed to do so. This decision just upholds what has already been practiced.
  13. I'll try and make some of the more broad ones more specific as time permits
  14. Lol, yes. Stupid spell check Ya, this one I am not totally sold on yet. But, I think I'd be more in favor than opposed. Though it would have to be narrowly tailored. They are supposed to be. While my non-delegation amendment would solve much of the problems, I feel like Congressional oversight could be more specific. State funded primaries is an act of the state subsidizing political parties. Party registration is another example. This (along with the subsidization of political groups [ie. Planned Parenthood] and candidates) should be banned. For sure. I just don't have time to put a detailed list of judicial reforms that I'd like to see
  15. I was able to make Hillary win in 3 moves. Give Lake County, IL to Wisconsin. Give Lucas County, OH to Michigan. Give Camden County, NJ to Pennsylvania.
×
×
  • Create New...