Why Left Wingers HATE the Electoral College !!!

[JoeB131]

That is a blatantly racist point of view. You just threw out the well worn generalization that non-whites vote in lock step and always vote democrat.
You should ask you fellow libs why they oppose the EC.

1) NOt a lib.

2) Hispanics tend to vote Democratic. Sorry, the GOP has not gotten a majority of this voting block in any election as long as they've been keeping records.

Now the GOP could do the breathetakingly rational thing and try to work this group, instead of letting the MInutemen, Nativists and that asshole Tancredo dominate the discussion... but they won't.

I find it amusing when those who post left, talk left, agree with the left insist they are not liberal or progressive.

I love how Fools who don't like facts insist everyone who points them out is a lib.

Hispanics went for Obama by 69-31 last time. They went for Kerry 55-45 before that, after Bush bent over backwards to pander to them. It's a consitnuency the GOP is doing a very good job of alienating.

Facts aren't liberal or conservative. They are facts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The popular election of senators still meets the needs of the overwhelming numbers of Americans, and far rightist are dead wrong wanting to change it. They can't.

Bullshit.

James Madison Federalist No. 62:

"If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation…In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic."

.

Contumacious misunderstands Madison's words, which are discussing the proportionality of state sovereignty in terms of the number of its votes, NOT whether the state senate should elect the Senators.

 

[JoeB131]

1) NOt a lib.

2) Hispanics tend to vote Democratic. Sorry, the GOP has not gotten a majority of this voting block in any election as long as they've been keeping records.

Now the GOP could do the breathetakingly rational thing and try to work this group, instead of letting the MInutemen, Nativists and that asshole Tancredo dominate the discussion... but they won't.

How would Republicans "work" Hispanics, promise to open the flood gates to illegal immigration? Promise them bigger welfare checks?

The fact that you advise Republicans to "work" a minority group is instructive. It shows the Democrat mentality about these groups. They are pigeons to be "worked" rather than people who have goals and principles.

Hey, here's a good place to start.

Stop being hypocrites on the illegal alien issue.

Republicans like to bash the illegal, but the reality is, they want illegal labor. They want working folks to be just scared enough to put up with any abuse the wealthy impose on them.

You could solve the illegal problem in a heartbeat. Go after the rich assholes who hire them. Round up all the nannies at the playground, then when their parents come to pick up the kids, charge them with illegally hiring undocumented workers. Raid a factory, hit the employers up with huge fines.

Fact is, democracy IS about working groups. What's in it for me. You dont think these rich assholes give huge amounts of money to BOTH parties out of a sense of civic pride, do you? Nope. They are buying policy.

BUt we have the votes. Votes trump money.

 

[FA_Q2]

The popular election of senators still meets the needs of the overwhelming numbers of Americans, and far rightist are dead wrong wanting to change it. They can't.

Bullshit.

James Madison Federalist No. 62:

"If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation…In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic."

.

Contumacious misunderstands Madison's words, which are discussing the proportionality of state sovereignty in terms of the number of its votes, NOT whether the state senate should elect the Senators.

? Whether or not states should elect senators was clear when the constitution was written. The founders agreed that state legislators will elect senators. End of story. Later we changed that. Was that the correct decision? I don't really know. Watching politics today makes me think we might be better off if one part of Congress was further from fickle voters but it really is a moot point. It was changes and there is a snowballs chance in Satan's ass that it will ever change back.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't agree with...Let's stop right there. Because you do not agree, you declare an Obama win?

Nope. I think their analysis if flawed. Wisconsin hasn't gone Democratic in a presidential election since 1984. It won't this time. PA hasn't since 1988.

You insist Jeb Bush cheated. HUH? Tests were done on those dimpled chad voting card machines and the only way the result could be duplicated was to have at least three cards shoved into the machine. Also, the DNC went to court to block all absentee ballots from overseas military. Anyway the Gore Lieberman campaign wanted the issue to go to court. They lost. Lastly, the voting precincts involved in the controversy were ALL DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED.

Blah, blah, blah. Jeb Cheated. Deal with it. if there was a 100% recanvas of all the votes, if Jeb hadn't purged the voting roles, Gore would have won Florida. The fact a court stacked with Republicans found in Bush's favor just means the court was stacked.

Now, nothing against Bush, I thought he was a much better president than most people give him credit for. I think he's a better president than Obama. But he was the result of a flawed process.

Florida residents are very pissed off that their homes are worth at least 1/3rd less than they were 4 years ago. They are going to look for someone to blame.

But that bubble burst on Bush's watch, not Obama's. Also, the GOP Governor is massively unpopular. Final note- GOP turnout in Florida's primary was WAAAAAAAY down from 2008. No thrill for these candidates.

Virginia Indiana Ohio Wisconsin....All replaced democrat governors with republicans. Also, Wisconsin, Indiana and North Carolina ( went with Obama in 2008) have majority GOP legislatures.

All sort of meaningless. Kasich got slapped down by the voters on the union issue, Walker is probably going to get recalled. NC and IN might go back into the GOP Column, but Obama can probalby win without them. But if you have Romney as the nominee, all the Evangelicals in those states will probalby not be so keen to show up. I might also put Missouri in play if Romney is the nominee.

I give NV to The dems. Harry Reid is still there.
History shows that in periods with poor economies, the incumbent president does not pick up states. There are losses. This economy still sucks. Home sales are the drag. Until the federal government gets out of the housing business and allow the market to bottom out, that will not change. All these programs and offers from the government to help people with troubled mortgages are going to place a further drag on the economy. They will only prolong the inevitable. That is foreclosure or a short sale.
Oh, let us not forget the biggest elephant of all in the room. Four Dollar gasoline.

If you really think the Republicans are going to win on "We need for the your house to "bottom out" and you to lose even more money so the assholes can get richer", then you are kind of on the wrong side of history.

History shows that presidents do get re-elected when economies are on the mend, and this one is. The Dow is close to 13,000, unemployment is at the lowest level of Obama's term. But most important reason why Obama will win.

All the Republicans suck.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bullshit.

James Madison Federalist No. 62:

"If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation…In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic."

.

Contumacious misunderstands Madison's words, which are discussing the proportionality of state sovereignty in terms of the number of its votes, NOT whether the state senate should elect the Senators.

? Whether or not states should elect senators was clear when the constitution was written. The founders agreed that state legislators will elect senators. End of story. Later we changed that. Was that the correct decision? I don't really know. Watching politics today makes me think we might be better off if one part of Congress was further from fickle voters but it really is a moot point. It was changes and there is a snowballs chance in Satan's ass that it will ever change back.

Certainly not the end of story because that is not what Contumacious was arguing.

Yes, the 17th will remain in place.

 

[FA_Q2]

Contumacious misunderstands Madison's words, which are discussing the proportionality of state sovereignty in terms of the number of its votes, NOT whether the state senate should elect the Senators.

? Whether or not states should elect senators was clear when the constitution was written. The founders agreed that state legislators will elect senators. End of story. Later we changed that. Was that the correct decision? I don't really know. Watching politics today makes me think we might be better off if one part of Congress was further from fickle voters but it really is a moot point. It was changes and there is a snowballs chance in Satan's ass that it will ever change back.

Certainly not the end of story because that is not what Contumacious was arguing.

Yes, the 17th will remain in place.

Well, yes he was making that point. I was just saying that it can and will never happen so there is not much to that argument.

 

[Contumacious]

What do the "progressives" call those Americans who vote according to how much largesse will be extended to them?

.

Good Democrats.

yes, indeed....good parasites !!!!!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

I note you can't prove me wrong, but then again I don't expect you to...

Proving straw men "wrong" is a futile task. You erected a straw man precisely because you believed it sufficient to divert from the facts.

Elections are localized within a state. Votes in one state have zero relevance to votes in other states.

 

[Meister]

You don't agree with...Let's stop right there. Because you do not agree, you declare an Obama win?

Nope. I think their analysis if flawed. Wisconsin hasn't gone Democratic in a presidential election since 1984. It won't this time. PA hasn't since 1988.

You insist Jeb Bush cheated. HUH? Tests were done on those dimpled chad voting card machines and the only way the result could be duplicated was to have at least three cards shoved into the machine. Also, the DNC went to court to block all absentee ballots from overseas military. Anyway the Gore Lieberman campaign wanted the issue to go to court. They lost. Lastly, the voting precincts involved in the controversy were ALL DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED.

Blah, blah, blah. Jeb Cheated. Deal with it. if there was a 100% recanvas of all the votes, if Jeb hadn't purged the voting roles, Gore would have won Florida. The fact a court stacked with Republicans found in Bush's favor just means the court was stacked.

Now, nothing against Bush, I thought he was a much better president than most people give him credit for. I think he's a better president than Obama. But he was the result of a flawed process.



But that bubble burst on Bush's watch, not Obama's. Also, the GOP Governor is massively unpopular. Final note- GOP turnout in Florida's primary was WAAAAAAAY down from 2008. No thrill for these candidates.

Virginia Indiana Ohio Wisconsin....All replaced democrat governors with republicans. Also, Wisconsin, Indiana and North Carolina ( went with Obama in 2008) have majority GOP legislatures.

All sort of meaningless. Kasich got slapped down by the voters on the union issue, Walker is probably going to get recalled. NC and IN might go back into the GOP Column, but Obama can probalby win without them. But if you have Romney as the nominee, all the Evangelicals in those states will probalby not be so keen to show up. I might also put Missouri in play if Romney is the nominee.

I give NV to The dems. Harry Reid is still there.
History shows that in periods with poor economies, the incumbent president does not pick up states. There are losses. This economy still sucks. Home sales are the drag. Until the federal government gets out of the housing business and allow the market to bottom out, that will not change. All these programs and offers from the government to help people with troubled mortgages are going to place a further drag on the economy. They will only prolong the inevitable. That is foreclosure or a short sale.
Oh, let us not forget the biggest elephant of all in the room. Four Dollar gasoline.

If you really think the Republicans are going to win on "We need for the your house to "bottom out" and you to lose even more money so the assholes can get richer", then you are kind of on the wrong side of history.

History shows that presidents do get re-elected when economies are on the mend, and this one is. The Dow is close to 13,000, unemployment is at the lowest level of Obama's term. But most important reason why Obama will win.

All the Republicans suck.

There was no cheating, Joe. Gore did not want a state wide recount, he just wanted heavily domocrat precincts recounted. When the state wide recounts were done months after the election, it was found that Bush still won using different scenarios. The only scenario that Gore won was if all the hanging chads went to Gore....and that included the overvotes where more than one chad went to more than one selection for the pres. Those were never counted in the past and shouldn't be, that would BE cheating.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is not a question of "worth". The issue is representation. Each state MUST have representation in the electoral process. Therefore each state that has one House Rep gets one electoral vote plus one each for US Senate seats.
I do not understand where the problem is.
Theoretically a presidential candidate could win a majority of the States but lose the electoral AND popular vote.
A straight popular vote would never work.

Funny that he doesn't whine that one House member from Alaska represents 326,000 people while on from NY represents 620,000?

Perhaps it hasn't dawned on him?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I love how Fools who don't like facts insist everyone who points them out is a lib.

Comrade Joe, why do you assume people so stupid that they won't recognize you for what you are?

Hispanics went for Obama by 69-31 last time. They went for Kerry 55-45 before that, after Bush bent over backwards to pander to them. It's a consitnuency the GOP is doing a very good job of alienating.

Facts aren't liberal or conservative. They are facts.

Illegals vote democrat, which is why you want more illegals.

 

[Contumacious]

Americans Would Swap Electoral College for Popular Vote

Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.

–Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943

.

 

[jillian]

I love how Fools who don't like facts insist everyone who points them out is a lib.

Comrade Joe, why do you assume people so stupid that they won't recognize you for what you are?

Hispanics went for Obama by 69-31 last time. They went for Kerry 55-45 before that, after Bush bent over backwards to pander to them. It's a consitnuency the GOP is doing a very good job of alienating.

Facts aren't liberal or conservative. They are facts.

Illegals vote democrat, which is why you want more illegals.

illegals don't vote, idiota

 

[Uncensored2008]

illegals don't vote, idiota

Of course not - you just hand them cash on election day, with fake registrations and instructions on how to vote for Obama, out of kindness......

 

[JakeStarkey]

Comrade Uncensored, give us links to chapter and verse of what you claim.

 

[bripat9643]

How would Republicans "work" Hispanics, promise to open the flood gates to illegal immigration? Promise them bigger welfare checks?

The fact that you advise Republicans to "work" a minority group is instructive. It shows the Democrat mentality about these groups. They are pigeons to be "worked" rather than people who have goals and principles.

Hey, here's a good place to start.

Stop being hypocrites on the illegal alien issue.

Republicans like to bash the illegal, but the reality is, they want illegal labor. They want working folks to be just scared enough to put up with any abuse the wealthy impose on them.

Since Republicans don't want that, where's the hypocrisy? Perhaps if you quit making things up about what Republicans believe you wouldn't come off as a such a damn fool.

You could solve the illegal problem in a heartbeat. Go after the rich assholes who hire them. Round up all the nannies at the playground, then when their parents come to pick up the kids, charge them with illegally hiring undocumented workers. Raid a factory, hit the employers up with huge fines.

That's one solution, or we could just tighten up the border and actually send illegals back when they get picked up by the police and they don't have any papers.

Fact is, democracy IS about working groups. What's in it for me. You dont think these rich assholes give huge amounts of money to BOTH parties out of a sense of civic pride, do you? Nope. They are buying policy.

What they are buying is protection from persecution by politicians shaking them down for campaign donations.

How did a question about what Republicans should do to appeal to Hispanics get turned into a tirade about the evil rich?

BUt we have the votes. Votes trump money.

Then why are turds like you constantly whining about how the evil rich can buy elections?

You claim to be a conservative, but everything you post indicates you're a boot licking libturd.

 

[Contumacious]

recently Romney blasted Obama for passing the health care bill with conflcts with some policies of the Catholic church.

today the White House released a press statement saying that Romney passed the same thing in Massachusetts

Mitt Romney: Champion of Big Government

by Carla Howell

The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003.

When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took "off budget." (Romney never reminds us of this fact.)

.

 

[bripat9643]

Illegals vote democrat, which is why you want more illegals.

illegals don't vote, idiota

Yes they do, dingbat.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes they do, dingbat.

Jillian is a moonbat.

Well, maybe a dingbat too...

{“The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 28.2 percent of Hispanic voters in the 2008 election were immigrants,” according to Steven Camarota of Center for Immigration Studies

In the midst of his whirlwind nationwide campaign to salvage Democrat control of both houses of the U.S. Congress, President Barack Obama appeared at a political event for Latinos — including, legal and illegal aliens — and said:}

Voter Fraud: Illegal Alien Voters Ignored by Justice Department

Jillian is in fact stupid, but in this she is just being a partisan drone.