Tick, tick, tick, Texas

[rightwinger]

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.

Actually, Democrats are doing quite well with that demograpic

 

[Foxfyre]

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

But you, a leftist, typically assigns the lowest possible status, ability, common sense, etc. to the Hispanic community. Yes, those who vote to be kept dependent and 'cared for' and accommodated by the federal government will vote for those who promise to do that for them. The point I was making, however, is that there are Hispanics who aren't so easily fooled, who aren't so gullible, who aren't so willing to give up their options, potential, liberties to the great gods of government.

I look for those like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to increase among Hispanic likely voters who won't be kept ignorant and useful idiots in perpetuity and will be able to figure out the emptiness of the leftist line of goods they are being sold.

 

[rightwinger]

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

But you, a leftist, typically assigns the lowest possible status, ability, common sense, etc. to the Hispanic community. Yes, those who vote to be kept dependent and 'cared for' and accommodated by the federal government will vote for those who promise to do that for them. The point I was making, however, is that there are Hispanics who aren't so easily fooled, who aren't so gullible, who aren't so willing to give up their options, potential, liberties to the great gods of government.

I look for those like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to increase among Hispanic likely voters who won't be kept ignorant and useful idiots in perpetuity and will be able to figure out the emptiness of the leftist line of goods they are being sold.

Yea...I've seen it all before

Those who vote against Conservative doctrine are either stupid or looking for a handout

 

[Foxfyre]

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

But you, a leftist, typically assigns the lowest possible status, ability, common sense, etc. to the Hispanic community. Yes, those who vote to be kept dependent and 'cared for' and accommodated by the federal government will vote for those who promise to do that for them. The point I was making, however, is that there are Hispanics who aren't so easily fooled, who aren't so gullible, who aren't so willing to give up their options, potential, liberties to the great gods of government.

I look for those like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to increase among Hispanic likely voters who won't be kept ignorant and useful idiots in perpetuity and will be able to figure out the emptiness of the leftist line of goods they are being sold.

Yea...I've seen it all before

Those who vote against Conservative doctrine are either stupid or looking for a handout

Yes and yes. They are stupid not from a lack of intelligence, but for being willing to compromise the future of their children and grandchildren in order to be provided with government freebies and dictates now. And they seem to be oblivious to a concept of a government that can give you what you want can just as easily take it away or force upon you what you don't want. Those who oppose Conservative 'doctrine' as you put it, are those who are oblivious to unintended negative consequences when they accept that which sounds noble, righteous, and compassionate and don't want to know how or if it is not.

 

[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 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

Since you evidently missed my previous answer, I'll post it again.

"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."

There is nothing disproportionate about it.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Since you evidently missed my previous answer, I'll post it again.

"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."

There is nothing disproportionate about it.

The electoral college can pretty well screw up the concept though. When you have huge populations concentrated in a few big states, those who seek total control only have to concetrate creating enough dependent people in those few big population concentrations and turn them blue to pretty well control the election. Through gerrymandering, they can ensure that any 'dangerous' demographics won't upset the apple cart for them.

What we need is a reform of the electoral college to allow everybody's voice to count and get away from the winner take all concept in most of the states. I don't advocate a straight popular vote, but would see it prudent to count it district by district. That would make gerrymandering much less profitable for either party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Republicans have a chance to act responsibly

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

Like Democrats.

Actually, Democrats are doing quite well with that demograpic

The far left is doing its darnedest to change that. The American public does not want socialized health care but does wnat reform of the awful health insurance mess both parties allowed to develop. The far left delayed the passage of ACA for over a year, the whiners.

 

[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 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

Since you evidently missed my previous answer, I'll post it again.

"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."

There is nothing disproportionate about it.

Congressional districts are gerrymandered to reflect he wants of whoever controls a states legislature. Those districts do not reflect the will of the people