Trains.com

Election Day Locked

5143 views
48 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,139 posts
Posted by Gramp on Wednesday, November 9, 2016 10:15 PM

Glad for the electoral college.  Otherwise, the top metro areas would rule everybody else.

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Thursday, November 10, 2016 12:06 AM

Gramp

Glad for the electoral college.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Thursday, November 10, 2016 6:12 AM

Gramp

Glad for the electoral college.  Otherwise, the top metro areas would rule everybody else.

 

Of course, that would also mean that everybody's vote counts equally. We can't have that, can we?

Tom

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Thursday, November 10, 2016 6:17 AM

Gramp

Glad for the electoral college.  Otherwise, the top metro areas would rule everybody else.

 

How dare we have a government run by the people...

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, November 10, 2016 6:35 AM

ACY
Of course, that would also mean that everybody's vote counts equally. We can't have that, can we?

While I agree in principle, that four million vote margin would render the votes of some states like those on the northern plains irrelevant.  Considering the diametric difference in the philosophies of North Dakota and Los Angeles, well, you get my drift.

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • From: Flint or Grand Rapids, Mi or Elkhart, It Depends on the day
  • 573 posts
Posted by BOB WITHORN on Thursday, November 10, 2016 6:46 AM

[quote user="tree68"]

 

 
ACY
Of course, that would also mean that everybody's vote counts equally. We can't have that, can we?

 

While I agree in principle, that four million vote margin would render the votes of some states like those on the northern plains irrelevant.  Considering the diametric difference in the philosophies of North Dakota and Los Angeles, well, you get my drift.

 

Exactly TREE.

The electorial college is not something new. We are not suddenly doing something unfair. It was the 12 Amendment to the Constitution in June 1804. It allows smaller states to have a say in the elections.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Thursday, November 10, 2016 6:51 AM

BOB WITHORN
The electorial college is not something new. We are not suddenly doing something unfair. It was the 12 Amendment to the Constitution in June 1804. It allows smaller states to have a say in the elections.

It also isn't 1804 anymore.  While the electoral college had its place at one time, I would argue those times have come and gone.

Next can we get the primaries all on the same day for 50 states?  Letting Iowa and New Hampshire decide the candidates is pure BS.

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, November 10, 2016 7:06 AM

The Electoral College was with us since the Constitution.  All the 12th Amendment did was have the President and VP run as a team, with distinct and separate votes for each office.  It prevented the problems of 1796 and 1800.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    February 2016
  • From: Texas
  • 1,552 posts
Posted by PJS1 on Thursday, November 10, 2016 8:50 AM

"I expect 6-7% growth rates within six months."

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Table 2-3, Key Inputs in CBO's Projections of Potential GDP, the average annual GDP growth rate from 1950 to 2015 was 3.2 percent.  The average annual growth rate was 2.5 percent from 2002 to 2007 and 1.5 percent from 2008 to 2015.

As of May 2016 CBO was projecting an annual GDP growth rate of 1.7 percent from 2016 to 2020 and 2 percent from 2021 to 2026.  

The CBO’s rates are after adjustment for inflation and represent the real growth in the economy as opposed to the nominal growth.

Although the President of the United States can influence legislation to help stimulate economic growth, a growth rate of 6 to 7 percent does not appear doable in the near future. 

Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII

RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Thursday, November 10, 2016 9:06 AM

tree68
I'm 6'5". I fit better in trucks. Besides, the back of my truck has been referred to as "Home Depot." I like to have "stuff" with me.

I'm working now on the right version of a hybrid diesel truck.  Ford built a rather good parallel-hybrid Excursion (that apparently suffered only from the problem with all Excursions that it wasn't front seat, back seat, eight-foot bed that we were waiting the 20 years for) and there are significant things that a properly-built electric motor pair can do for diesel engine flexibility, economy, and critical measures of pollution.  While retaining high effective torque.

In the '70s we modified a Lehman-Peterson limousine with a Karman transmission and sleeved-down diesel Rabbit engine.  There is no reason why a 7800lb vehicle can't make over 60mpg sustained cruise, without costing much more than ... well, than the overpriced agio you pay for 3/4-ton cowboy Cadillacs right now.  Expect them to hold their resale value longer, and be easier to maintain in full running condition, too.

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:00 AM

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:42 AM

The original framers didn't want "parliment" to select the president, and since counting individual ballots was not a good option in the 1700's, they set up a system where the people elect representatives whose specific task is to select the president.  We elect representatives to create our legislation, same process was replicated to choose a president.

Is that method outdated today?  Maybe.  From a technology standpoint we could count actual votes fairly quickly.  On the other hand, its pretty tough to "hack" 400+ people.  The electoral college is in one way the ultimate backstop against nefarious interference.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:47 AM

Euclid
I expect 6-7% growth rates within six months.

Do you live in one of those states that just legalized pot?  You seem to have enhanced optimism.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, November 10, 2016 11:14 AM

dehusman
 
Euclid
I expect 6-7% growth rates within six months.

 

Do you live in one of those states that just legalized pot?  You seem to have enhanced optimism.

I don’t buy the nonsense of 1-2% being the new norm.  We need at least 5% to provide jobs for everybody who wants one.

A president can influence the stimulation of economic growth, but can also influence the repression of economic growth.  In my opinion, we have just switched from the latter to the former (in the extremes of each), so that is a double reason to expect dramatic growth.      

 

 

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Thursday, November 10, 2016 11:19 AM

   Trevor Noah pulled up this tweet from Donald Trump from 6 Nov 2012 at 8:45 PM:

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 1,180 posts
Posted by ROBERT WILLISON on Thursday, November 10, 2016 11:37 AM

It can't see lot of shift back to coal from natural gas. Oddly enough in Ohio, first energy is asking the the state of Ohio to RERegulate It's business. It's coal fired and nuclear plant so it can raise its rates to cover the cost of operating these inefficient plants. These plant can not compete against effiecent gas fired plants. If the state will not return to regulating the energy prices, first energy plans to sell or close the plants and become only a distributer of power, buying it on the open market, costing 3200 jobs.

I think you will the same issues when you try to force manufacturers to close overseas operations. One thing is true, sad as it is that we depend on foreign sources for low cost goods.  If this happens get ready for higher prices for a unintended consequence. Just like in Ohio with the on going coal vs natural gas issues.

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Thursday, November 10, 2016 11:46 AM

What a great country! 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, November 10, 2016 2:09 PM

JPS1
Although the President of the United States can influence legislation to help stimulate economic growth, a growth rate of 6 to 7 percent does not appear doable in the near future. 

Just campaign hype with near zero chance of happening, much like "a chicken in every pot."  A growth rate of 6-7% within a year or two might well cause hyperinflation.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, November 10, 2016 2:49 PM

schlimm
 
JPS1
Although the President of the United States can influence legislation to help stimulate economic growth, a growth rate of 6 to 7 percent does not appear doable in the near future. 

 

Just campaign hype with near zero chance of happening, much like "a chicken in every pot."  A growth rate of 6-7% within a year or two might well cause hyperinflation.

 

It certainly had zero chance of happening during the last eight years.  There are a lot of people who want to go back to work.  The right policies can make it happen. 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy