Tick, tick, tick, Texas

[OKTexas]

Why should a few people spread over a large area have more say than those in metro areas?

Not more, just equal if the lines are drawn by congressional districts. The metro areas have more congresscritters by land area.

How are they unequal? Why should land be a factor?

So I guess you think it is just fine that the metro areas could totally nullify the representation of the rural areas. I think all states should proportion electoral votes it would force candidates to campaign in every state not just 5-6 swing states, no district could be taken for granted.

 

[AmyNation]

Not more, just equal if the lines are drawn by congressional districts. The metro areas have more congresscritters by land area.

How are they unequal? Why should land be a factor?

So I guess you think it is just fine that the metro areas could totally nullify the representation of the rural areas. I think all states should proportion electoral votes it would force candidates to campaign in every state not just 5-6 swing states, no district could be taken for granted.

I'm a fan of 1 person, 1 vote and representation should be based on population equally. I don't think that 10 people who live on a ranch are more important than the 100 people who live in an apartment, or vise versa.

 

[OKTexas]

How are they unequal? Why should land be a factor?

So I guess you think it is just fine that the metro areas could totally nullify the representation of the rural areas. I think all states should proportion electoral votes it would force candidates to campaign in every state not just 5-6 swing states, no district could be taken for granted.

I'm a fan of 1 person, 1 vote and representation should be based on population equally. I don't think that 10 people who live on a ranch are more important than the 100 people who live in an apartment, or vise versa.

Proportional representation is based on congressional districts which have roughly equal populations so your 1 person 1 vote would not be effected. As it is right now the conservative districts in TX control the whole state, where in states like NY the liberals control the the state, this would just give every district equal representation regardless. It actually reflects the voters will more accurately than a winner take all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If our GOP reaches out sincerely to Hispanics (the immigration bill this summer is a good start), a good chance exists to keep Texas.

If not, despite what the political spear holders on the right want to huff and puff, the demographics are against the Repubicans.

Republicans have a chance to act responsibly

They will cave to their fringe and **** it up

If we do, it will limit our ability to compete at the national level for generations if not forever.

 

[GWV5903]

Carter changed the way Texans voted in 1980, prior to that it was firmly blue, no where close to red...

Since the Carter Experiment Texas has clearly been deep red...

I have been married to a true Mexican American for 23 of those 33 years, and rest assured, they have slowly moved over to the conservative side in her family, well educated, deeply religious and slowly but surely seeing the hypocrisy of the DNC...

 

[sitarro]

The vast majority of democratic reps are not calling for amnesty.

You do realize that they are Representatives of the Democrat Party which would make them Democrat Representatives.........kind of late in the game to rename the party isn't it?

 

[rightwinger]

Not more, just equal if the lines are drawn by congressional districts. The metro areas have more congresscritters by land area.

How are they unequal? Why should land be a factor?

So I guess you think it is just fine that the metro areas could totally nullify the representation of the rural areas. I think all states should proportion electoral votes it would force candidates to campaign in every state not just 5-6 swing states, no district could be taken for granted.

I think that people who live in rural counties should be able to vote on who runs those counties. They should not receive a disproptionate vote on who runs the country

 

[Foxfyre]

How are they unequal? Why should land be a factor?

So I guess you think it is just fine that the metro areas could totally nullify the representation of the rural areas. I think all states should proportion electoral votes it would force candidates to campaign in every state not just 5-6 swing states, no district could be taken for granted.

I'm a fan of 1 person, 1 vote and representation should be based on population equally. I don't think that 10 people who live on a ranch are more important than the 100 people who live in an apartment, or vise versa.

The problem, however, is one of common sense. Should the 100 people in the apartment, who pay no property taxes, be able to vote on how much in property taxes the 10 people on the ranch will pay?

Should 50% of Americans who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes be able to vote on how much taxes the other 50% will be required to pay? Or vote for people they know will keep their taxes at or close to zero while sticking it to others?

These are fundamental questions that we Americans must deal with. The blind partisans will hold to the one person, one vote principle and ignore the other questions. Folks in Texas are less likely to support policy and concepts that allows one group to literally enslave the other. And that is why Texas is thriving.

As GWV said, Hispanics are as smart and savvy as the next person and are quite capable of figuring things out, choosing freedom over big government, choosing individual liberties over the rights of some to have everybody else pay everthing while they get a free ride.

And I can't believe Americans of Hispanic heritage are incapable of seeing how bringing in millions more of poor, uneducated immigrants in the face of a shaky economy and high unemployment could be detrimental to everybody, including those immigrants.

 

[Katzndogz]

Republicans can up the ante. Promise that not only mexicans that come here illegally can get on public benefits, but all mexicans whether they have ever come here can get on public benefits.

 

[rightwinger]

So I guess you think it is just fine that the metro areas could totally nullify the representation of the rural areas. I think all states should proportion electoral votes it would force candidates to campaign in every state not just 5-6 swing states, no district could be taken for granted.

I'm a fan of 1 person, 1 vote and representation should be based on population equally. I don't think that 10 people who live on a ranch are more important than the 100 people who live in an apartment, or vise versa.

The problem, however, is one of common sense. Should the 100 people in the apartment, who pay no property taxes, be able to vote on how much in property taxes the 10 people on the ranch will pay?

Should 50% of Americans who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes be able to vote on how much taxes the other 50% will be required to pay? Or vote for people they know will keep their taxes at or close to zero while sticking it to others?

These are fundamental questions that we Americans must deal with. The blind partisans will hold to the one person, one vote principle and ignore the other questions. Folks in Texas are less likely to support policy and concepts that allows one group to literally enslave the other. And that is why Texas is thriving.

As GWV said, Hispanics are as smart and savvy as the next person and are quite capable of figuring things out, choosing freedom over big government, choosing individual liberties over the rights of some to have everybody else pay everthing while they get a free ride.

And I can't believe Americans of Hispanic heritage are incapable of seeing how bringing in millions more of poor, uneducated immigrants in the face of a shaky economy and high unemployment could be detrimental to everybody, including those immigrants.

How much you pay in taxes has no bearing on the validity of your vote

The guy who lives under a bridge has the same right to vote as Bill Gates

 

[kwc57]

Those reasons right there are why it could happen.

And to call it "reform" is being generous. While it falls short of outright amnesty, it is a shortcut of which criminals are undeserving.

May as well call it what it really is... A voter registration drive for Democrats...

And just so we're clear, the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for their lack of appeal to the majority of minority voters...

But what do we gain if Republicans become just another name for Democrat in order to appeal to that majority of minority voters? We know that progressive liberalism is destroying the republic the Founders gave us, so if appealing to minorities is the key to getting elected, and the only way to do that is via the nanny state or projecting progressive liberalism, don't you think we're pretty well screwed?

No. We don't know that. That is you trying to slip in a crazy claim as though it were a known fact. Nutters do that all the time. It helps perpetuate your fantasy.

Well yeah, we do. Do yourself a favor and check for polyps while you have your head up your ass.

 

[kwc57]

If our GOP reaches out sincerely to Hispanics (the immigration bill this summer is a good start), a good chance exists to keep Texas.

If not, despite what the political spear holders on the right want to huff and puff, the demographics are against the Repubicans.

Republicans have a chance to act responsibly

They will cave to their fringe and **** it up

Like Democrats.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If our GOP reaches out sincerely to Hispanics (the immigration bill this summer is a good start), a good chance exists to keep Texas.

If not, despite what the political spear holders on the right want to huff and puff, the demographics are against the Repubicans.

Republicans have a chance to act responsibly

They will cave to their fringe and **** it up

Like Democrats.

They have not done that since the 1980s, so we may get lucky.

 

[kwc57]

I'm a fan of 1 person, 1 vote and representation should be based on population equally. I don't think that 10 people who live on a ranch are more important than the 100 people who live in an apartment, or vise versa.

The problem, however, is one of common sense. Should the 100 people in the apartment, who pay no property taxes, be able to vote on how much in property taxes the 10 people on the ranch will pay?

Should 50% of Americans who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes be able to vote on how much taxes the other 50% will be required to pay? Or vote for people they know will keep their taxes at or close to zero while sticking it to others?

These are fundamental questions that we Americans must deal with. The blind partisans will hold to the one person, one vote principle and ignore the other questions. Folks in Texas are less likely to support policy and concepts that allows one group to literally enslave the other. And that is why Texas is thriving.

As GWV said, Hispanics are as smart and savvy as the next person and are quite capable of figuring things out, choosing freedom over big government, choosing individual liberties over the rights of some to have everybody else pay everthing while they get a free ride.

And I can't believe Americans of Hispanic heritage are incapable of seeing how bringing in millions more of poor, uneducated immigrants in the face of a shaky economy and high unemployment could be detrimental to everybody, including those immigrants.

How much you pay in taxes has no bearing on the validity of your vote

The guy who lives under a bridge has the same right to vote as Bill Gates

Yeah........if he's registered to vote. I'm pretty sure you can't list "under the bridge" as your residence when registering. Which makes me wonder, when the Dems go out and register those folks, do they list 1600 Penn Ave as the person's residence?

 

[kwc57]

Republicans have a chance to act responsibly

They will cave to their fringe and **** it up

Like Democrats.

They have not done that since the 1980s, so we may get lucky.

Note to JakeFakey, if you look up "**** it up" in the dictionary, there is a picture of Obama.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm a fan of 1 person, 1 vote and representation should be based on population equally. I don't think that 10 people who live on a ranch are more important than the 100 people who live in an apartment, or vise versa.

The problem, however, is one of common sense. Should the 100 people in the apartment, who pay no property taxes, be able to vote on how much in property taxes the 10 people on the ranch will pay?

Should 50% of Americans who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes be able to vote on how much taxes the other 50% will be required to pay? Or vote for people they know will keep their taxes at or close to zero while sticking it to others?

These are fundamental questions that we Americans must deal with. The blind partisans will hold to the one person, one vote principle and ignore the other questions. Folks in Texas are less likely to support policy and concepts that allows one group to literally enslave the other. And that is why Texas is thriving.

As GWV said, Hispanics are as smart and savvy as the next person and are quite capable of figuring things out, choosing freedom over big government, choosing individual liberties over the rights of some to have everybody else pay everthing while they get a free ride.

And I can't believe Americans of Hispanic heritage are incapable of seeing how bringing in millions more of poor, uneducated immigrants in the face of a shaky economy and high unemployment could be detrimental to everybody, including those immigrants.

How much you pay in taxes has no bearing on the validity of your vote

The guy who lives under a bridge has the same right to vote as Bill Gates

And another point made goes sailing right over your head. . . .

 

[kwc57]

And in other news on declining political parties. Just how the hell was this story allowed to see the light of day?

Democratic strategist: Party 'in decline' - POLITICO.com

 

[rightwinger]

The problem, however, is one of common sense. Should the 100 people in the apartment, who pay no property taxes, be able to vote on how much in property taxes the 10 people on the ranch will pay?

Should 50% of Americans who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes be able to vote on how much taxes the other 50% will be required to pay? Or vote for people they know will keep their taxes at or close to zero while sticking it to others?

These are fundamental questions that we Americans must deal with. The blind partisans will hold to the one person, one vote principle and ignore the other questions. Folks in Texas are less likely to support policy and concepts that allows one group to literally enslave the other. And that is why Texas is thriving.

As GWV said, Hispanics are as smart and savvy as the next person and are quite capable of figuring things out, choosing freedom over big government, choosing individual liberties over the rights of some to have everybody else pay everthing while they get a free ride.

And I can't believe Americans of Hispanic heritage are incapable of seeing how bringing in millions more of poor, uneducated immigrants in the face of a shaky economy and high unemployment could be detrimental to everybody, including those immigrants.

How much you pay in taxes has no bearing on the validity of your vote

The guy who lives under a bridge has the same right to vote as Bill Gates

And another point made goes sailing right over your head. . . .

Actually, the point went over your head

Each person votes for the candidate who best serves his interests. The guy who lives under a bridge will vote for the candidate who will best serve his interests. The guy who owns a corporation will vote for the candidate who best serves his interests. Should a billionaire be allowed to vote for the guy who is going to award him a multi-million dollar contract?

Hispanics are clearly starting to show their political muscle. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant

 

[JakeStarkey]

Like Democrats.

They have not done that since the 1980s, so we may get lucky.

Note to JakeFakey, if you look up "**** it up" in the dictionary, there is a picture of Obama.

And of the far right reactionaries and social traditionalists.

 

[kwc57]

How much you pay in taxes has no bearing on the validity of your vote

The guy who lives under a bridge has the same right to vote as Bill Gates

And another point made goes sailing right over your head. . . .

Actually, the point went over your head

Each person votes for the candidate who best serves his interests. The guy who lives under a bridge will vote for the candidate who will best serve his interests. The guy who owns a corporation will vote for the candidate who best serves his interests. Should a billionaire be allowed to vote for the guy who is going to award him a multi-million dollar contract?

Hispanics are clearly starting to show their political muscle. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant

Democratic strategist: Party 'in decline' - POLITICO.com

"Millennials, born 1981 to 1994, and Generation X’ers, born 1965 to 1980, are voting Democratic, but a plurality identify themselves as independents — which makes them less reliable."

"Democrats cannot count on the same level of African-American turnout without Obama at the top of the ticket. Sosnik cites new analysis showing that in 2012 for the first time ever eligible black voters turned out a higher rate than whites."

"While Republicans have a serious Hispanic problem, Sosnik explains, “younger Hispanics feel less of an allegiance to the Democratic Party than their elders.” Only 50 percent of Hispanic voters aged 18-34 identify themselves as Democrats, according to Gallup, compared to 59 percent of Hispanic voters 55 or older."