PDA

View Full Version : GOP Can't Win Honestly; Time to Cheat


Rohirrim
01-25-2013, 09:09 AM
But here’s another way you might not have heard: Some Republicans are looking to change the Electoral College system in battleground states that Democrats have won in the last two cycles. As the Washington Post reports, Republicans in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia -- all controlled at the state level (in some form or fashion) by the GOP -- have proposed awarding their Electoral College votes by congressional district instead of the winner-take-all approach used by every state except for two (Maine and Nebraska). “No state is moving quicker than Virginia, where state senators are likely to vote on the plan as soon as next week,” the Post says.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/25/16696689-first-thoughts-changing-the-rules-not-the-party?lite

I guess the Republicans haven't picked up on the concept of a democracy, where sometimes you lose and have to respond to the will of the people and change your message, and methods, to win elections. The Republicans are just going to bypass all that "democracy" crap and simply figure out a way to steal what they want (just like they control the House not because they won it fair and square in elections, but because they gerrymandered the **** out the country so that nobody else has a chance). Oh, they also refuse to alter the filibuster rules in the Senate.

Why bother even holding elections?

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 09:18 AM
But here’s another way you might not have heard: Some Republicans are looking to change the Electoral College system in battleground states that Democrats have won in the last two cycles. As the Washington Post reports, Republicans in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia -- all controlled at the state level (in some form or fashion) by the GOP -- have proposed awarding their Electoral College votes by congressional district instead of the winner-take-all approach used by every state except for two (Maine and Nebraska). “No state is moving quicker than Virginia, where state senators are likely to vote on the plan as soon as next week,” the Post says.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/25/16696689-first-thoughts-changing-the-rules-not-the-party?lite

I guess the Republicans haven't picked up on the concept of a democracy, where sometimes you lose and have to respond to the will of the people and change your message, and methods, to win elections. The Republicans are just going to bypass all that "democracy" crap and simply figure out a way to steal what they want (just like they control the House not because they won it fair and square in elections, but because they gerrymandered the **** out the country so that nobody else has a chance). Oh, they also refuse to alter the filibuster rules in the Senate.

Why bother even holding elections?

So whether Republicans try to change rules in one case or refuse to alter existing rules in another, they're "cheating" either way.

Who knew? LOL

cutthemdown
01-25-2013, 09:26 AM
If it's illegal or unconstitutional the courts will take care of it. If not then its just political gamesmanship which is only cheating when your on the other side of it.

Oh and Obama just got smacked down by the federal appeals courts. His so called recess appointments bypassing Senate confirmation have been ruled unconstitutional. So does that make him a cheater?

Rohirrim
01-25-2013, 09:27 AM
So whether Republicans try to change rules in one case or refuse to alter existing rules in another, they're "cheating" either way.

Who knew? LOL

Both have the same effect: Giving a minority the power to win what they did not earn and both ignoring the will of the people.

Pony Boy
01-25-2013, 09:28 AM
[I]I guess the Republicans haven't picked up on the concept of a democracy, where sometimes you lose and have to respond to the will of the people and change your message, and methods, to win elections. The Republicans are just going to bypass all that "democracy" crap and simply figure out a way to steal what they want (just like they control the House not because they won it fair and square in elections, but because they gerrymandered the **** out the country so that nobody else has a chance). Oh, they also refuse to alter the filibuster rules in the Senate.

Why bother even holding elections?

When did we become a democracy? I think the original framers of the Constitution intended this contry to be a Republic?

B-Large
01-25-2013, 09:29 AM
No reason to change the message or move to a move Libertarian flavor in the former party of small Government.... to many reasons keep doing what they've been doing. Liberal Media Bias, Liberally Biased Public Education, Liberal Brainwashing Universities, Indonctrination of the "Takers"..... the list goes on and on, its the excuses and accusations that keep the Republicans losing elections.... Its to bad, they continue to lose public support and will back themselves into a corner... sad to see, from a former Republican voter.

cutthemdown
01-25-2013, 09:37 AM
I hate the winner take all electoral college anyways. IMO its BS. The 30-40% of calif who make most of the money in this state over ruled by the takers and welfare queens.

CA so ****ed up now. Brown raised taxes so high on millionaires they are leaving the state in droves. Even Phil Mickelson saying he is out of here. It would be smart to change it IMO.

B-Large
01-25-2013, 09:43 AM
I hate the winner take all electoral college anyways. IMO its BS. The 30-40% of calif who make most of the money in this state over ruled by the takers and welfare queens.

CA so ****ed up now. Brown raised taxes so high on millionaires they are leaving the state in droves. Even Phil Mickelson saying he is out of here. It would be smart to change it IMO.

Its great- Alot of Californians move to Denver, real estate prices go up and my properties make more money.

Rohirrim
01-25-2013, 09:46 AM
I hate the winner take all electoral college anyways. IMO its BS. The 30-40% of calif who make most of the money in this state over ruled by the takers and welfare queens.

CA so ****ed up now. Brown raised taxes so high on millionaires they are leaving the state in droves. Even Phil Mickelson saying he is out of here. It would be smart to change it IMO.

Phil Mickelson makes $50 million a year chasing a little white ball around a park. He should get down on his knees in gratitude every day instead of whining like a selfish little bitch.

B-Large
01-25-2013, 09:49 AM
Phil Mickelson makes $50 million a year chasing a little white ball around a park. He should get down on his knees in gratitude every day instead of whining like a selfish little b****.

yeah, but he has to feed his family ::)

Fedaykin
01-25-2013, 09:59 AM
When did we become a democracy? I think the original framers of the Constitution intended this contry to be a Republic?

Yep, a republic in which the framing document specifies that the chief executive is elected not by the people, but by the states, hence the concept of each state casting all or nothing votes.

W*GS
01-25-2013, 10:17 AM
Didja also see how the GOP in Virginia redrew the state senate districts there to make them more favorable to the GOP?

More dirty tricks ****.

peacepipe
01-25-2013, 10:32 AM
If it's illegal or unconstitutional the courts will take care of it. If not then its just political gamesmanship which is only cheating when your on the other side of it.

Oh and Obama just got smacked down by the federal appeals courts. His so called recess appointments bypassing Senate confirmation have been ruled unconstitutional. So does that make him a cheater?

There were some fed courts that ruled against obamacare & how did that turn out.
Rigging an election where the minority is deciding the end result is wrong.

Arkie
01-25-2013, 10:42 AM
All electoral votes should be awarded to districts to more accurately reflect the will of the people.

DenverBrit
01-25-2013, 10:42 AM
When did we become a democracy? I think the original framers of the Constitution intended this contry to be a Republic?

They did, but like many forms of government, it has 'evolved' into something else.

A Representative Democracy, a Democratic Republic? Republic has been used by many countries, and not necessarily accurately.

People's Republic of China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Republic of Texas, Dominican Republic, Kyrgyz Republic, Banana Republic, The Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Whatever the US has morphed into, it's election process needs an overhaul, as do both houses.

The system is 'broken.'

peacepipe
01-25-2013, 10:48 AM
All electoral votes should be awarded to districts to more accurately reflect the will of the people.

BS,will of the people is decided by the majority,not by a minority simply because they are more spread out.

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 10:52 AM
Both have the same effect: Giving a minority the power to win what they did not earn and both ignoring the will of the people.

Funny that you've never called it "cheating" in Red Nebraska. But some other reliably blue states start looking into it and now it's a crime against humanity.

I'm not a fan of it myself, but it's a State thing. To each his own.

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 10:55 AM
Phil Mickelson makes $50 million a year chasing a little white ball around a park. He should get down on his knees in gratitude every day instead of whining like a selfish little b****.

On his knees before his Government. Just like Gaia intended. AMIRITE? :)

Fedaykin
01-25-2013, 10:55 AM
All electoral votes should be awarded to districts to more accurately reflect the will of the people.

So, ignore the intent of the founders?

El Minion
01-25-2013, 10:59 AM
yeah, but he has to feed his family ::)

Latrell "I have a family to feed" Sprewell feels Phil Mickelson pain.

http://losthatsportsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/sprewell.jpg

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 10:59 AM
BS,will of the people is decided by the majority,not by a minority simply because they are more spread out.

Do you know why we have both a Senate and House of Representatives?

DenverBrit
01-25-2013, 11:04 AM
So, ignore the intent of the founders?

It's a selective process.

'Ignoring' works for 'separation of church and state,' but it is by the book for the second amendment.

Obushma
01-25-2013, 11:43 AM
So, ignore the intent of the founders?

No, i'm sure their intent was to drop bombs on women and children in the Middle East. Oh, they loved the idea of social security, medicare and medicaid as well. They would have definitely approved of NDAA as well, "guilty until proven innocent", the famous words of Washington.

Hilarious!

cutthemdown
01-25-2013, 12:01 PM
Do youthink gerrymandering to maximize votes is cheating?

Pony Boy
01-25-2013, 12:05 PM
BS,will of the people is decided by the majority,not by a minority simply because they are more spread out.

In a pure democracy a 51% majority would have total control of the 49% minority. This is why the original framers of the constitution were very careful to define our form of government as a republic, were the minority was still protected by the rule of law. The Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums to be decided by popular vote but are left to the wisdom of our elected representatives. This is where Obama is off base when he says, "the people have spoken" or given him a mandate to carry out his policies. The president must work within the framework of the constitution and through the elected representatives of congress.

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 12:08 PM
It's a selective process.

'Ignoring' works for 'separation of church and state,' but it is by the book for the second amendment.

You do realize only one of the two is actually written in the Constitution.

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 12:09 PM
Do youthink gerrymandering to maximize votes is cheating?

Yes, when it leads to Republicans winning elections instead of Democrats.

That's the only consistency you'll find here.

cutthemdown
01-25-2013, 12:12 PM
It's a selective process.

'Ignoring' works for 'separation of church and state,' but it is by the book for the second amendment.

The concept of seperation of church and state is John Locke and thought highly of by Thomas Jefferson. It was penned by Jefferson in some letter or article he wrote in a religious newspaper, or to a church something like that.

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 12:18 PM
Yep, a republic in which the framing document specifies that the chief executive is elected not by the people, but by the states, hence the concept of each state casting all or nothing votes.

Wrong answer. The Constitution gives the States the power to select Electors to the Electoral College in a process freely decided by each State's government. It makes no stipulation on who those electors should be or how they should vote.

It's impossible that the framers had in mind a winning-party-takes-all mandate since they had no parties in mind when they designed the Electoral College. Like most things, they intended to leave the details up to each state.

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 12:24 PM
The concept of seperation of church and state is John Locke and thought highly of by Thomas Jefferson. It was penned by Jefferson in some letter or article he wrote in a religious newspaper, or to a church something like that.

Ironically it was written to a Baptist Minister in the spirit that his Church was off limits to government meddling. The "Wall of Separation" was meant to protect the Church from the threat of Government more than to protect the Government from the Church. Exactly the opposite conclusion from what the modern progressive professional re-interpreters like to take away.

I always thought if I were a history teacher, I'd require all my students to read the Danbury Baptist letter so students could see the context as it was intended. There'd be more that a few people out there who would complain that reading that very same letter in public school was a violation of their modern SOCAS construction.

Long story short, they only want you to remember 5 words out of that letter.

DenverBrit
01-25-2013, 12:37 PM
You do realize only one of the two is actually written in the Constitution.

Of course, but I was responding to 'intent.'

My point was that one is loosely interpreted, whereas the other is by the book.

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 12:45 PM
Of course, but I was responding to 'intent.'

My point was that one is loosely interpreted, whereas the other is by the book.

You're saying an off-the-cuff line in a friendly letter should be as strictly interpreted as language that was written into and ratified as part of the Constitution? Should we do this with everything Jefferson wrote? That could get fun.

DenverBrit
01-25-2013, 12:47 PM
Ironically it was written to a Baptist Minister in the spirit that his Church was off limits to government meddling. The "Wall of Separation" was meant to protect the Church from the threat of Government more than to protect the Government from the Church. Exactly the opposite conclusion from what the modern progressive professional re-interpreters like to take away.

I always thought if I were a history teacher, I'd require all my students to read the Danbury Baptist letter so students could see the context as it was intended. There'd be more that a few people out there who would complain that reading that very same letter in public school was a violation of their modern SOCAS construction.

Long story short, they only want you to remember 5 words out of that letter.

This nicely illustrates my point.

The first amendment is 'loosely,' or incorrectly, interpreted, whereas the second amendment is by the book.

Separation of church and state is a concept based in the Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause was extended to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and prohibits laws dealing with the establishment of religion. Neither the state or federal government may enact laws which aid one or all religions, or give a preference to one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/separation-of-church-and-state/

DenverBrit
01-25-2013, 12:55 PM
You're saying an off-the-cuff line in a friendly letter should be as strictly interpreted as language that was written into and ratified as part of the Constitution? Should we do this with everything Jefferson wrote? That could get fun.

Did you read the supreme court interpretations I included?

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 12:56 PM
This nicely illustrates my point.

The first amendment is 'loosely,' or incorrectly, interpreted, whereas the second amendment is by the book.



[/URL] (http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/separation-of-church-and-state/)

It's not quite that simple. The wording of the actual ratified 1st Amendment is not 100% in line with the way many people like to interpret SOCAS. There are many who seek to use SOCAS as a means to banish the Church from the public square. But in the spirit of "Free exercise thereof" that's a much harder argument to make.

There's a large contingent out there who would rather just replace in the national conscience what the 1st Amendment actually says about freedom of religion with 5 words Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a letter.

Rohirrim
01-25-2013, 01:09 PM
Here's the part where Beavis is proved almost ridiculously wrong, so instead of admitting it, he pretends the argument was about something else. Ha!

DenverBrit
01-25-2013, 01:10 PM
It's not quite that simple. The wording of the actual ratified 1st Amendment is not 100% in line with the way many people like to interpret SOCAS. There are many who seek to use SOCAS as a means to banish the Church from the public square. But in the spirit of "Free exercise thereof" that's a much harder argument to make.

There's a large contingent out there who would rather just replace in the national conscience what the 1st Amendment actually says about freedom of religion with 5 words Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a letter.

My understanding has always been that the intent was 'freedom of and from religion, without bias.'

I understand that the religious right want to interpret it only as 'freedom of,' but according to the supreme court, that is not correct.

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 01:24 PM
Here's the part where Beavis is proved almost ridiculously wrong, so instead of admitting it, he pretends the argument was about something else. Ha!

I'm sorry did you make a point somewhere? I'm still waiting to hear how what's OK in Nebraska is cheating in Michigan. Or how upholding a 200 year old Senate tradition is cheating.

Please enlighten me.

frerottenextelway
01-25-2013, 01:24 PM
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-would-have-received-3-5th-of-popular

"....Obama would have received almost exactly 3/5 of the electoral vote compared to their actual population -- 30.7 percent of the electoral vote over 51 percent of the popular vote. The coincidence recalls one of American history's -- and especially Virginia's -- most infamous numbers, the three-fifths compromise that counted slaves as a fraction of a person when calculating a state's federal representation."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/01/this_is_a_big_big_deal.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Talking-Points-Memo+(Talking+Points+Memo%3A+by+Joshua+Micah+Marsh all)

"Another way of looking at this is that the new system makes the votes of whites count for much more than non-whites — which is a helpful thing if you’re overwhelmingly dependent on white votes in a country that is increasingly non-white."

I'm shocked that Cutt supports it!!!

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 01:33 PM
My understanding has always been that the intent was 'freedom of and from religion, without bias.'

I understand that the religious right want to interpret it only as 'freedom of,' but according to the supreme court, that is not correct.

I'm sorry, but are you arguing that the Supreme Court interpreted the Free Exercise clause out of the Constitution? I'm not sure what you're saying.

DenverBrit
01-25-2013, 01:57 PM
I'm sorry, but are you arguing that the Supreme Court interpreted the Free Exercise clause out of the Constitution? I'm not sure what you're saying.

I thought the rulings were self explanatory. What is it you don't understand?

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 02:06 PM
I thought the rulings were self explanatory. What is it you don't understand?

How does the "clause against establishment of religion by law" have any impact on the Free Exercise Clause?

DenverBrit
01-25-2013, 02:42 PM
How does the "clause against establishment of religion by law" have any impact on the Free Exercise Clause?


I'm not sure where your trying to go, so I'll simply restate what I have already commented on.
And if you are going to use Free Exercise, you must also include the Establishment Clause:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.


Your comment:
The "Wall of Separation" was meant to protect the Church from the threat of Government more than to protect the Government from the Church.


My later comment.
My understanding has always been that the intent was 'freedom of and from religion, without bias.'

A quote I used.
Neither the state or federal government may enact laws which aid one or all religions, or give a preference to one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion.

With or without the Supreme Court, it seems straightforward.

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 02:52 PM
I'm not sure where your trying to go, so I'll simply restate what I have already commented on.
And if you are going to use Free Exercise, you must also include the Establishment Clause:

With or without the Supreme Court, it seems straightforward.

I'm honestly not sure what we're even arguing. Guessing it might have to do with your mention of freedom "from" religion. And if it is, that's a non-starter.

Freedom of religion does not imply freedom from religion any more than freedom of speech means freedom FROM speech.

In a free society, you'll be constantly burdened with the opinions and beliefs of others, whether you agree with them or not.

ant1999e
01-25-2013, 03:05 PM
Both have the same effect: Giving a minority the power to win what they did not earn and both ignoring the will of the people.

Here's a newsflash, neither side gives a damn about the will of the people.

DenverBrit
01-25-2013, 03:11 PM
I'm honestly not sure what we're even arguing. Guessing it might have to do with your mention of freedom "from" religion. And if it is, that's a non-starter.

Freedom of religion does not imply freedom from religion any more than freedom of speech means freedom FROM speech.

In a free society, you'll be constantly burdened with the opinions and beliefs of others, whether you agree with them or not.

That's your opinion, mine is different. :)

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 03:34 PM
That's your opinion, mine is different. :)

In what way? Banishment of religious speech in public? Of religious text or symbols?

So far the Courts have carefully maintained that Religious speech enjoys the same protections afforded any other.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html#3

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. [ 2 ] Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, and the line between government-sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment's scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect."

W*GS
01-25-2013, 05:05 PM
In what way? Banishment of religious speech in public? Of religious text or symbols?

So far the Courts have carefully maintained that Religious speech enjoys the same protections afforded any other.

At this time, it has greater protections, particularly for Protestant Christian speech.

Arkie
01-25-2013, 06:43 PM
I'm still waiting to hear how what's OK in Nebraska is cheating in Michigan.

I am too.

DenverBrit
01-25-2013, 07:08 PM
In what way? Banishment of religious speech in public? Of religious text or symbols?

So far the Courts have carefully maintained that Religious speech enjoys the same protections afforded any other.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html#3

I don't care about any of those issues.

This is what we should all be concerned about, Santorum et al and their belief in social interference.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=31601&stc=1&d=1349879424

BroncoBeavis
01-25-2013, 08:13 PM
I don't care about any of those issues.

This is what we should all be concerned about, Santorum et al and their belief in social interference.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=31601&stc=1&d=1349879424

So your big concern is a guy that hasn't held office for 6 years?

DenverBrit
01-25-2013, 08:55 PM
So your big concern is a guy that hasn't held office for 6 years?

Yeah, that's it. ::)

Rohirrim
01-26-2013, 06:04 AM
Here's a newsflash, neither side gives a damn about the will of the people.

On some level that's true. They care more deeply about those who give them money, that's for sure. On the other hand, what the GOP is saying, by their actions, is that elections don't matter. Obama and Romney held a national argument on very specific issues for over a year. The people elected Obama by a wide margin. Now the GOP will do whatever it takes to block the implementation of any of those issues. What kind of governance is that? It only counts if we win?

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 06:57 AM
This is one of those LOL WTF threads

elsid13
01-26-2013, 07:18 AM
The Virginia State Senate proposal appears be dead on arrival. Both the Governor and two of the top Republican State Senator have come out against the plan. McDonnell been feeling the political pressure from Northern Virgina, and the two Republican are eying a run for the governorship next election are afraid of the money backlash if they go forward with this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/va-house-delays-action-on-redistricting-plan--again/2013/01/25/3b56a4a4-6711-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_story.html?hpid=z3

Arkie
01-26-2013, 09:49 AM
BS,will of the people is decided by the majority,not by a minority simply because they are more spread out.

I see the point you and Ro are making. (The GOP is focusing on states that would help them by gaining red districts in blue states.) But it would go both ways if all states awarded votes to districts. The black districts in the deep south would have their voices heard, as would the Hispanics in Texas. The will of the people should reflect the urban areas in red states everywhere, not just Omaha.

Fedaykin
01-26-2013, 10:37 AM
I see the point you and Ro are making. (The GOP is focusing on states that would help them by gaining red districts in blue states.) But it would go both ways if all states awarded votes to districts. The black districts in the deep south would have their voices heard, as would the Hispanics in Texas. The will of the people should reflect the urban areas in red states everywhere, not just Omaha.

Anytime you rely on arbitrary geographic separation, you will get gerrymandering. The current practice of all or nothing (going all the way back to the very first election under the Constitution) also has flaws, but at least it's congruent with the intent of the founders (that intent being that the states elect the president, not the people).

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-26-2013, 05:00 PM
The next four years will see the repukes searching for new ways to disenfranchise non-white voters who live outside the cracker belt.

peacepipe
01-26-2013, 05:09 PM
I see the point you and Ro are making. (The GOP is focusing on states that would help them by gaining red districts in blue states.) But it would go both ways if all states awarded votes to districts. The black districts in the deep south would have their voices heard, as would the Hispanics in Texas. The will of the people should reflect the urban areas in red states everywhere, not just Omaha.
The minority,as in population,shouldn't decide who gets elected. Going by district would do just that,if a state has 20 districts with 1 million in 8 districts & 1,000 living in the 12 remaining districts. You'd have a minority deciding the election. It's not right no matter how you slice it.

ZONA
01-27-2013, 12:16 AM
If you ask me, states can do what they want for the elections of their state governor, senators, representatives, etc.

But the Presidency, IMO, should be by popular vote of the people regardless of state. 1 person, 1 vote. Who ever wins the most votes is president. Say what you want but the Electoral College is stupid and inconsistent. 27 states have laws on the books that require electors to vote for their party's candidate even if they don't want to. 24 states have no such law. Of all the 400 and some electors, 100 of them are senators. Why should their vote count more then a hard working mother of 3 that has 2 jobs, or a retired vet who lost use of his legs from a war.

Rohirrim
01-27-2013, 06:53 AM
The minority,as in population,shouldn't decide who gets elected. Going by district would do just that,if a state has 20 districts with 1 million in 8 districts & 1,000 living in the 12 remaining districts. You'd have a minority deciding the election. It's not right no matter how you slice it.

Yep. It's just a trick to put the rural vote (which tends to go red) above the metropolitan vote (which tends to go the other way). The GOP got stuck in their "Southern Strategy" and now they want to figure out some scam to bail them out so they can stick with their backward dogma and yet still win elections.

Arkie
01-27-2013, 07:45 AM
The minority,as in population,shouldn't decide who gets elected. Going by district would do just that,if a state has 20 districts with 1 million in 8 districts & 1,000 living in the 12 remaining districts. You'd have a minority deciding the election. It's not right no matter how you slice it.

It wouldn't be that extreme. A state like that would have 3 electors and 1 would go to the state itself. That hypothetical state would go 2-1 to the majority. The will of the people have spoken, and we are still guarding one part of society against the the other part.

peacepipe
01-27-2013, 07:50 AM
It wouldn't be that extreme. A state like that would have 3 electors and 1 would go to the state itself. That hypothetical state would go 2-1 to the majority. The will of the people have spoken, and we are still guarding one part of society against the the other part.
Really,no one gets heard when the majority is ignored.

peacepipe
01-27-2013, 07:53 AM
It wouldn't be that extreme. A state like that would have 3 electors and 1 would go to the state itself. That hypothetical state would go 2-1 to the majority. The will of the people have spoken, and we are still guarding one part of society against the the other part.

It would be that extreme,because that is the actual intent of what they are trying to do.

Arkie
01-27-2013, 08:22 AM
It hasn't been that extreme in the two states that already do this. An electoral vote has strayed from the majority of those states only once, and I thought Obama deserved the one vote from Nebraska in 2008. Don't you?

Play2win
01-27-2013, 08:29 AM
How soon before whites become the new minority?

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 08:43 AM
States are too populous to do winner take all. I think it shouldn't be a 1 person/1 vote popular election as that requires everyone to vote but marginalizes them at the same time. It's just too large of a pool. If they did votes awarded by county, you'd have small enough groups that everyone would get represented. A large, populous county would obviously have more votes to cast than a smaller county but at least a smaller county would feel it worthwhile to vote. I've been a resident of Washington State since I turned 18 and it's never been worth it to even bother registering to vote. That can't be the intent of the process.

Also, I'm also in line to hear how an established practice in one state is an attempt at cheating in another. Funny how those responses are getting ignored.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 08:46 AM
How soon before whites become the new minority?

Which would you rather be - a passenger on the Mayflower or the captain of the Titanic?

People keep talking about minorities taking over the country but seeing as they can't, in many cases, effectively run their own communities - I don't really see them being ready to take the reigns of the country as a whole.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 08:47 AM
The next four years will see the repukes searching for new ways to disenfranchise non-white voters who live outside the cracker belt.

Is this stuff really acceptable? Is it time to embrace racial slurs just to shine light on the double standard?

peacepipe
01-27-2013, 09:02 AM
States are too populous to do winner take all. I think it shouldn't be a 1 person/1 vote popular election as that requires everyone to vote but marginalizes them at the same time. It's just too large of a pool. If they did votes awarded by county, you'd have small enough groups that everyone would get represented. A large, populous county would obviously have more votes to cast than a smaller county but at least a smaller county would feel it worthwhile to vote. I've been a resident of Washington State since I turned 18 and it's never been worth it to even bother registering to vote. That can't be the intent of the process.

Also, I'm also in line to hear how an established practice in one state is an attempt at cheating in another. Funny how those responses are getting ignored.
If you don't vote cause as you say it's not worth it then that's your problem.
What's going on here is that conservatives are realizing that they are becoming a minority in the country,and rather than changing with the times,they are trying to rig it so they can stay in power.

peacepipe
01-27-2013, 09:04 AM
Which would you rather be - a passenger on the Mayflower or the captain of the Titanic?

People keep talking about minorities taking over the country but seeing as they can't, in many cases, effectively run their own communities - I don't really see them being ready to take the reigns of the country as a whole.you've posted some pretty ignorant **** in the past,but this one takes the cake.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 09:16 AM
If you don't vote cause as you say it's not worth it then that's your problem.
What's going on here is that conservatives are realizing that they are becoming a minority in the country,and rather than changing with the times,they are trying to rig it so they can stay in power.

I guarantee you my vote would not sway the state of Washington into red territory.

The rest is just repeating what has been repeated numerous times through the thread. You just typed for no reason.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 09:16 AM
you've posted some pretty ignorant **** in the past,but this one takes the cake.

So you disagree? If the white men stepped aside tomorrow, the country would be perfectly fine?

peacepipe
01-27-2013, 09:23 AM
So you disagree? If the white men stepped aside tomorrow, the country would be perfectly fine?

The country would be just fine regardless of the color/ethnicity of its leaders. I disagree with the idea that color/ethnicity dictates one ability to lead.

elsid13
01-27-2013, 09:26 AM
I see the point you and Ro are making. (The GOP is focusing on states that would help them by gaining red districts in blue states.) But it would go both ways if all states awarded votes to districts. The black districts in the deep south would have their voices heard, as would the Hispanics in Texas. The will of the people should reflect the urban areas in red states everywhere, not just Omaha.

In theory you are correct, but the way the State Legislatures are "drawing" the congressional distracts, there is purpose attempt to disfranchise urban voters. See examples in Missouri (http://fox2now.com/2012/05/25/missouri-state-supreme-court-rules-against-redistricting-decision/) and Texas (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-28/politics/35492694_1_mexican-american-legislative-caucus-congressional-districts-texas-republican-leaders)

peacepipe
01-27-2013, 09:27 AM
So you disagree? If the white men stepped aside tomorrow, the country would be perfectly fine?

Didn't realize you were a nationalist.

Fedaykin
01-27-2013, 09:28 AM
So you disagree? If the white men stepped aside tomorrow, the country would be perfectly fine?

The inherent irony of this bald racism after your complaining about 'cracker belt" is... disturbing.

The darkies need "the white man" to take care of them eh?

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 09:32 AM
The country would be just fine regardless of the color/ethnicity of its leaders. I disagree with the idea that color/ethnicity dictates one ability to lead.

I never said they couldn't. Just said they aren't ready. Some surely are but as a whole, no, they aren't ready to lead the US yet.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 09:35 AM
The inherent irony of this bald racism after your complaining about 'cracker belt" is... disturbing.

The darkies need "the white man" to take care of them eh?

So you're saying you are ok with a double standard? Got it.

Fedaykin
01-27-2013, 09:36 AM
So you're saying you are ok with a double standard? Got it.

Not at all, just pointing out YOUR hypocrisy.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 09:41 AM
Not at all, just pointing out YOUR hypocrisy.

OK, take a guess at something for me. If I could research the demographics of those who successfully start up a company from scratch - dismiss the established companies where white men probably have an advantage in getting top positions. But, in just start up companies, would you expect the owners' races to match demographics?

Fedaykin
01-27-2013, 09:49 AM
In theory you are correct, but the way the State Legislatures are "drawing" the congressional distracts, there is purpose attempt to disfranchise urban voters. See examples in Missouri (http://fox2now.com/2012/05/25/missouri-state-supreme-court-rules-against-redistricting-decision/) and Texas (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-28/politics/35492694_1_mexican-american-legislative-caucus-congressional-districts-texas-republican-leaders)

All you have to do to see the problem with what's going on is to look at the track record of gerrymandering (by all) and how that has affected the representation of people in the House. Right now if congress was elected nationally in a general election, there would be a nearly perfect 50/50 split (all national polls show this), yet currently the GOP enjoys a 53/47 advantage, since they are in power and get to draw the congressional districts to their advantage. In other words, the Democrats need more than 50.01% of the vote to actually gain a simple majority in the house. And it's the same story no matter who is in control.

It's a problem I for one would not want to see extended any further than it already is. It does exactly what several here are claiming they want to avoid -- it disenfranchises voters -- except in this case the disenfranchisement is based on political power abuse instead of what state you happen to live in.

Instead of politicking, the GOP should be focusing on solving the problems that are contributing to their decline. Either find a way to convince people they are correct, or change their positions to actually reflect the will of the people.

That One Guy
01-27-2013, 09:55 AM
All you have to do to see the problem with what's going on is to look at the track record of gerrymandering (by all) and how that has affected the representation of people in the House. Right now if congress was elected nationally in a general election, there would be a nearly perfect 50/50 split (all national polls show this), yet currently the GOP enjoys a 53/47 advantage, since they are in power and get to draw the congressional districts to their advantage. In other words, the Democrats need more than 50.01% of the vote to actually gain a simple majority in the house. And it's the same story no matter who is in control.

It's a problem I for one would not want to see extended any further than it already is. It does exactly what several here are claiming they want to avoid -- it disenfranchises voters -- except in this case the disenfranchisement is based on political power abuse instead of what state you happen to live in.

Instead of politicking, the GOP should be focusing on solving the problems that are contributing to their decline. Either find a way to convince people they are correct, or change their positions to actually reflect the will of the people.

The only thing Rs need to wait for is the welfare lottery to explode in everyone's faces. Sure, you can lure people away by promising them the moon and the stars but it just doesn't work that way in the real world. Rs make their name on taking away from people and Ds make theirs on promising to give to people. Of course the Ds would be more popular.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-27-2013, 08:48 PM
Is this stuff really acceptable? Is it time to embrace racial slurs just to shine light on the double standard?

There you go pointing to slurs that don't exist.

But if right-wing crackpots like you were barred from bearing false witness and making sh*t up then your party would implode.

TonyR
01-28-2013, 11:56 AM
Since 1965, arguably the most important conservative politician after Ronald Reagan is Newt Gingrich. He achieved some remarkable, impressive things. But he practiced a style of politics that was quite different from Reagan’s. It was characterized by apocalyptic and incendiary rhetoric, anger, impatience, and revolutionary zeal. While his positions on issues were often conservative, Gingrich’s temperament and approach were not. Yet it is the Gingrich, not the Reagan, style that characterizes much of conservatism today. It would be better for conservatism, and better for America, to recapture some of the grace, generosity of spirit, and principled politics of America’s 40th president. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/wehner-future-of-conservatism/

Rohirrim
01-28-2013, 12:15 PM
Unfortunately, the Right has become hysterical.

cutthemdown
01-29-2013, 08:33 AM
We are a riot!