The electoral college does give rural citizens a slight advantage in terms of representation, not nearly as severe as Japans prefecture system, but an advantage none the less. It does seem to run in the face of the idea that all men are created equal though I guess it doesn't logically follow that being created equally means being represented equally.

Just the same it is part of our countries decision making process and if you respect the people you have to respect this, though it is to be sure one of the most controversial aspects of our electoral system.

There are probably several hundred political parties in the United States, but the odds of anybody other than Democrat or Republican getting elected are near zero.

Since our system is such that if your initial vote isn't a winner you don't get a 2nd chance to pick someone else, a vote for one of the minor parties is usually a vote thrown away.

Consequently most times people don't vote for minor parties, so there is a positive feedback loop that exists there.

Myself, if I don't feel the stakes are particularly high, then I will often vote for a third party because it's my personal belief that voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil.

But in the case of Hillary Clinton, she was too evil for me to not vote for the lesser evil that had a credible chance at defeating her. And honestly, Trump has vastly exceeded my expectations, enough so that I will vote for him again.

Well it's not my desire to brainwash anyone, it is my desire to UNbrainwash them, get people talking to each other directly through media that people in power do NOT control.

And I know when I criticize anything Jews / Israel does that is going to trigger some people, especially after WWII, so I want to make a few things clear about that.

First is I don't see all Jews as evil, but I do feel those who follow the Talmud, as opposed to those who follow to Torah or Tanakh, and you can't follow both because they are diametrically opposed, the Talmud is very bad ethics codified.

But I know, I, a single person aren't going to convince anybody of anything politically, what I do hope to do is get more people discussing on platforms like this where open honest discussions are possible because I believe if we get enough people away from the mainstream media we will arrive at truth and at better ways of doing things.

Right now there is a big push by the United Nations and many countries that buy into it for something they refer to as Agenda 21. It is a plan THEY believe is necessary to bring mankind into a state of equilibrium with our environment which involves killing more than 90% of the human population and forcing the remaining 10% or less into 3% of the Earth's land living in what is essentially squalor and utterly isolated from nature because they believe we can't possibly interact with nature and not destroy it, but I believe there are many examples of man living with nature in ways that are not destructive.

Part of the UN thinking is that the only way to meet our energy needs is to dramatically reduce them, as opposed to finding clean environmentally friendly methods of creating the energy we need now and actually affording even higher consumption rates.

They further do not believe that, even if our energy needs are met, that our material needs for other things can sustain our population, thus their perceived need to kill 90+% of the Earth's population.

But if we have cheap energy then many things which aren't currently recyclable because the energy needs to recycle them are too high, become practical to recycle.

And if we have cheap energy we also have access to space, and in space is an abundance of raw materials. Rare earth's, Gold, Platinum, other heavy elements that sink to the Earth's core and are relatively inaccessible to use except in very small amounts brought up from the core in volcanic activity, are plentiful in asteroids because those bodies are not large enough to have gravitationally separated and are thus available for the taking on the surface.

As energy goes, solar has become 1/10th the cost of fossil fuels, wind 1/5th, in my State (Washington), ALL of our electricity needs are met by renewable needs, and our forests sink more carbon dioxide than our transportation emits. And we are neither the best site for wind or solar. With these methods both are intermittent and grid people make it sound like this can't be solved, but wind peaks at night, solar during the day, and if we move our transportation infrastructure to electric those batteries online can act as buffers.

Current lithium ion battery technology requires cobalt, and it is mostly mined by slaves or youth and this is not good, but Tesla has invented a cobaltless battery that has higher energy density, MUCH higher power density, and much higher cycle life, and these batteries will enable million mile cars, and battery storage of grid energy to be practical and environmentally friendly and the carbon electrodes used in these cells CAN be re-used, and carbon and lithium are both extremely abundant. There are people who try to say that lithium deposits are limited and this is true but we can make as much lithium deposits as we want. Lithium deposits are simply dried seas where the water has evaporated and the sea salts have deposited in layers, one just mines the lithium salt layers, separate the lithium from chloride or fluoride ions with electrolysis, and that's how we get our lithium, but if we use up these natural deposits all we have to do is put sea water in ponds and let it dry and we got more, the amount of lithium in the oceans is for all practical purposes unlimited. Also, water desalinization results in a high salt content waste water stream, perfect for putting into these ponds to collect lithium from.

I could name many other technological solutions to our environmental problems and other solutions aren't technological they do require changes in some of our habits, provide critters with ways of getting over or under freeways so they can get around their environment without being struck by vehicles for example.

Our water usage is also an issue but again if we have energy, then that becomes a non-issue, we can desalinate all that we need.

And there are two essentially infinite energy sources we could develop, one is hydrogen fusion, and two recent developments make it extremely likely we will have working reactors within the next decade. First, we have learned how to apply artificial intelligence to real time adjustments of the magnetic fields used in Tokamaks, the other is that we have recently developed a new super conductor that can withstand twice the field strength of ceramic superconductors AND can readily be wound into coils. Because the size of nuclear fusion reactor required for magnetic confinement scales with the cube of the magnetic field, a field doubling means reactors can be 1/8th their current size. And that means we can make them a lot cheaper and go through a lot more design iterations in a given amount of time.

And right now all fusion reactors are deuterium-tritium based, this fuel requires heavy shielding because it's operation produces fast moving neutrons and those neutrons need to be captured by a lithium blanket to bread tritium which does not exist in nature.

But cheap space access to the moon will give us abundant helium3, an alternate aneutronic fuel, the products of helium three fusion are all charged particles, and these can be used to generate electricity directly with no thermal conversion resulting in very high efficiency with no neutron problems.

And this is one technology, another is a type of reactor known as a molten salt reactor. These reactors burn up all the actinides so they create no long term waste. Further, they are self-regulating and fail safe even with the complete lack of active cooling. And lastly they can burn up existing long term waste, and just the existing waste could power the Earth for the next 10,000 years.

We should be building these, energy need aside, to NOT leave a radioactive legacy for our descendants. Now in addition to the waste giving us 10,000 years of electricity consider that only .7% of natural Uranium created the fuel that created this waste and with light water reactors only this .7% that is U235 can be used, but these reactors can breed the U238 and can breed thorium into fissionable fuel and we have 3x as much Thorium in the Earth's crust as Uranium. In fact we get enough Thorium in trailings of mining for other elements to meet the worlds energy needs.

At any rate, let me suffice it to say that on a technological level, I do not believe there is any environmental problem we can not solve without killing 90% of human beings and without us all having to live in abject poverty.

As I stated previously, I don't expect to convince everyone of my political views, but I do hope to get more people involved in the conversation.