|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 24 2012 11:18 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 11:13 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 11:03 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 10:59 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 10:55 Swazi Spring wrote:
America is a federation, not a unitary state. The president should represent all of the states equally. How would you feel if the leaders of the EU only cared about Germany? Wrong. If this were true, Federal law would not supersede state law..it would be the reverse. America has not been a confederation since the decade after the Revolutionary war ended. Where did I say America was a confederacy? Either way, America's president does represent all Americans equally, as all federal laws and regulations affect all Americans equally. The Federal legislative, judicial, and executive powers cannot enact statutes that affect only one part of the country, which is by design of the constitution. As other people here said, the president leads the STATES. It's bad enough the lefties passed the 17th Amendment, a "popular vote" would put the final nail in the coffin for federalism in America.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the power of the federal government is given by the people and not the states. I happen to agree with this interpretation of the Constitution.
|
On October 24 2012 11:02 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 10:58 BlueBird. wrote:On October 24 2012 10:57 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 10:50 Swazi Spring wrote:
We need to replace the electoral college with a 1 state = 1 vote system.
Sadly the liberals would probably ragequit and not allow such an amendment to pass. Actually if you watched the debate between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly, its the republican party who generally shies away from the popular vote. When it came up to the two of them, Stewart (an obvious liberal) lauded the idea, and O'Reilly (clearly an elephant) said it would be a horrible decision to remove the electoral college. Its really no surprise, as more than two percent more of registered voter are registered as democrats over republicans, which would obviously give a benefit to the Democratic party in an election. 1 state 1 vote is not a popular vote at all, it would be very very far from it Not necessarily, it would be up to each individual state as to how they would vote. One state might have their legislature pick who they want to vote for, another might have a popular vote to decide.
I'll give you some advice: trying to argue 1 state 1 vote is not going to end well for you.
Most of you are missing the point of the 3rd debate. Romney went large, Obama small. He had to come across as more of a Reagan than Bush (W), i.e. dovish over hawkish. He had to demonstrate knowledge of the middle east and other regions like China, which the incumbent generally has an advantage on, and I think he did. So he let Obama get in a few zingers about bayonets and whatnot, but no one is going to care about it. Foreign policy in general is not high in people's agenda, the economy is, which Romney also tied back to extensively.
Interestingly he did not go after the Libya scandal, probably because he knew Obama would have some retort involving the Rose Garden speech, so why get into it? Anyone who has been following it knows the administration has tried to cover it up. Ultimately I thought Romney looked the more presidential, while Obama did have his moments he went on the attack far too often and came across petty. Case in point, "while I was putting sanctions on Iran you were investing in a company outsourcing jobs to China who financed Iran." How low can you go, seriously.
|
On October 24 2012 11:22 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 11:18 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 11:13 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 11:03 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 10:59 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 10:55 Swazi Spring wrote:
America is a federation, not a unitary state. The president should represent all of the states equally. How would you feel if the leaders of the EU only cared about Germany? Wrong. If this were true, Federal law would not supersede state law..it would be the reverse. America has not been a confederation since the decade after the Revolutionary war ended. Where did I say America was a confederacy? Either way, America's president does represent all Americans equally, as all federal laws and regulations affect all Americans equally. The Federal legislative, judicial, and executive powers cannot enact statutes that affect only one part of the country, which is by design of the constitution. As other people here said, the president leads the STATES. It's bad enough the lefties passed the 17th Amendment, a "popular vote" would put the final nail in the coffin for federalism in America. The Supreme Court has ruled that the power of the federal government is given by the people and not the states. I happen to agree with this interpretation of the Constitution.
Can you please name the case in which they said that?
|
On October 24 2012 11:24 Poorlilrich wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 11:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 10:58 BlueBird. wrote:On October 24 2012 10:57 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 10:50 Swazi Spring wrote:
We need to replace the electoral college with a 1 state = 1 vote system.
Sadly the liberals would probably ragequit and not allow such an amendment to pass. Actually if you watched the debate between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly, its the republican party who generally shies away from the popular vote. When it came up to the two of them, Stewart (an obvious liberal) lauded the idea, and O'Reilly (clearly an elephant) said it would be a horrible decision to remove the electoral college. Its really no surprise, as more than two percent more of registered voter are registered as democrats over republicans, which would obviously give a benefit to the Democratic party in an election. 1 state 1 vote is not a popular vote at all, it would be very very far from it Not necessarily, it would be up to each individual state as to how they would vote. One state might have their legislature pick who they want to vote for, another might have a popular vote to decide. I'll give you some advice: trying to argue 1 state 1 vote is not going to end well for you.
It's common sense, but some people are just uneducated and think "more democratic = automatically better."
|
On October 24 2012 11:11 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 11:10 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 24 2012 10:58 Swazi Spring wrote:
Jill Stein: "I want to get rid of our national debt! I also want to transform America into a completely socialist state, give away 'free' college, give away 'free' healthcare, and wage a war on climate change!"
I don't think she understands how economics work. Denmark seems to be doing really well with their free healthcare and free education and I also hear those Europeans care very much about their enviroment. Why has their society not collapsed? And please tell me you are not an economics student. Europe is falling apart, though cradle to grave socialism is only a small part of the reason why. As Gary Johnson said in the debate: "'Free' comes at a cost."
Europe isn't falling apart. The Eurozone is in trouble, but that's got nothing to do with socialism. That's what happens when you have a single currency, losing exchange rates as an adjustment mechanism, without a single fiscal authority and banking union or your own central bank, and you get hit by a massive shock such as the GFC and the bursting of a giant housing bubble.
If it's all about socialism, why isn't Germany or Sweden falling apart? They have larger welfare states than Spain and Greece. Why isn't Australia falling apart?
What's the economic reasoning that leads from Socialism to the Eurozone crisis?
|
On October 24 2012 11:18 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 11:13 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 11:03 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 10:59 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 10:55 Swazi Spring wrote:
America is a federation, not a unitary state. The president should represent all of the states equally. How would you feel if the leaders of the EU only cared about Germany? Wrong. If this were true, Federal law would not supersede state law..it would be the reverse. America has not been a confederation since the decade after the Revolutionary war ended. Where did I say America was a confederacy? Either way, America's president does represent all Americans equally, as all federal laws and regulations affect all Americans equally. The Federal legislative, judicial, and executive powers cannot enact statutes that affect only one part of the country, which is by design of the constitution. As other people here said, the president leads the STATES. It's bad enough the lefties passed the 17th Amendment, a "popular vote" would put the final nail in the coffin for federalism in America.
Oh other people said it?? IT MUST BE TRUE!!
But really, the President leads the Federal government, and Governors lead the State governments..If the president lead the states I seriously doubt that Wisconsin would have been passing a bill to end collective bargaining rights for Government employees, or that Ohio would have gotten so close to restricting the vote for constituents who were going to overwhelmingly vote for Obama...the President...
|
On October 24 2012 11:25 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 11:24 Poorlilrich wrote:On October 24 2012 11:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 10:58 BlueBird. wrote:On October 24 2012 10:57 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 10:50 Swazi Spring wrote:
We need to replace the electoral college with a 1 state = 1 vote system.
Sadly the liberals would probably ragequit and not allow such an amendment to pass. Actually if you watched the debate between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly, its the republican party who generally shies away from the popular vote. When it came up to the two of them, Stewart (an obvious liberal) lauded the idea, and O'Reilly (clearly an elephant) said it would be a horrible decision to remove the electoral college. Its really no surprise, as more than two percent more of registered voter are registered as democrats over republicans, which would obviously give a benefit to the Democratic party in an election. 1 state 1 vote is not a popular vote at all, it would be very very far from it Not necessarily, it would be up to each individual state as to how they would vote. One state might have their legislature pick who they want to vote for, another might have a popular vote to decide. I'll give you some advice: trying to argue 1 state 1 vote is not going to end well for you. It's common sense but some people are just uneducated and think "more democratic = automatically better."
wisest thing you've ever said, SS
|
On October 24 2012 11:25 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 11:24 Poorlilrich wrote:On October 24 2012 11:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 10:58 BlueBird. wrote:On October 24 2012 10:57 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 10:50 Swazi Spring wrote:
We need to replace the electoral college with a 1 state = 1 vote system.
Sadly the liberals would probably ragequit and not allow such an amendment to pass. Actually if you watched the debate between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly, its the republican party who generally shies away from the popular vote. When it came up to the two of them, Stewart (an obvious liberal) lauded the idea, and O'Reilly (clearly an elephant) said it would be a horrible decision to remove the electoral college. Its really no surprise, as more than two percent more of registered voter are registered as democrats over republicans, which would obviously give a benefit to the Democratic party in an election. 1 state 1 vote is not a popular vote at all, it would be very very far from it Not necessarily, it would be up to each individual state as to how they would vote. One state might have their legislature pick who they want to vote for, another might have a popular vote to decide. I'll give you some advice: trying to argue 1 state 1 vote is not going to end well for you. It's common sense but some people are just uneducated and think "more democratic = automatically better."
I am absolutely convinced you are trolling and trying to make conservatives look bad. There's just no way someone who has learned how to open a browser and find the address bar can have this kind of logic.
|
On October 24 2012 11:25 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 11:24 Poorlilrich wrote:On October 24 2012 11:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 10:58 BlueBird. wrote:On October 24 2012 10:57 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 10:50 Swazi Spring wrote:
We need to replace the electoral college with a 1 state = 1 vote system.
Sadly the liberals would probably ragequit and not allow such an amendment to pass. Actually if you watched the debate between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly, its the republican party who generally shies away from the popular vote. When it came up to the two of them, Stewart (an obvious liberal) lauded the idea, and O'Reilly (clearly an elephant) said it would be a horrible decision to remove the electoral college. Its really no surprise, as more than two percent more of registered voter are registered as democrats over republicans, which would obviously give a benefit to the Democratic party in an election. 1 state 1 vote is not a popular vote at all, it would be very very far from it Not necessarily, it would be up to each individual state as to how they would vote. One state might have their legislature pick who they want to vote for, another might have a popular vote to decide. I'll give you some advice: trying to argue 1 state 1 vote is not going to end well for you. It's common sense but some people are just uneducated and think "more democratic = automatically better."
LOL. 1 state 1 vote=common sense...and people who don't think so are uneducated?
This seriously just made my night. Thank you.
|
Wow that is a large crowd.
|
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
"End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
|
On October 24 2012 11:25 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 11:11 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 11:10 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 24 2012 10:58 Swazi Spring wrote:
Jill Stein: "I want to get rid of our national debt! I also want to transform America into a completely socialist state, give away 'free' college, give away 'free' healthcare, and wage a war on climate change!"
I don't think she understands how economics work. Denmark seems to be doing really well with their free healthcare and free education and I also hear those Europeans care very much about their enviroment. Why has their society not collapsed? And please tell me you are not an economics student. Europe is falling apart, though cradle to grave socialism is only a small part of the reason why. As Gary Johnson said in the debate: "'Free' comes at a cost." Europe isn't falling apart. The Eurozone is in trouble, but that's got nothing to do with socialism. That's what happens when you have a single currency, losing exchange rates as an adjustment mechanism, without a single fiscal authority and banking union or your own central bank, and you get hit by a massive shock such as the GFC and the bursting of a giant housing bubble. If it's all about socialism, by isn't Germany or Sweden falling apart? They have larger welfare states than Spain and Greece. Why isn't Australia falling apart? What's the economic reasoning that leads from Socialism to the Eurozone crisis?
Again the welfare state is only part of the problem. You said it yourself that having a single-currency that spans various culturally diverse regions is another part of it. I wasn't just referring to Europe's economic failure though, in general they are falling part at the seems. You're right that we have seen economic crisis after economic crisis in Europe, but we've also seen the rise of Islamic extremism, the rise of extreme nationalism, the loss of civil liberties, and the undemocratic EU growing stronger and stronger.
|
second debate to be held next Tuesday.
|
On October 24 2012 11:26 Survivor61316 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 11:18 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 11:13 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 11:03 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 10:59 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 10:55 Swazi Spring wrote:
America is a federation, not a unitary state. The president should represent all of the states equally. How would you feel if the leaders of the EU only cared about Germany? Wrong. If this were true, Federal law would not supersede state law..it would be the reverse. America has not been a confederation since the decade after the Revolutionary war ended. Where did I say America was a confederacy? Either way, America's president does represent all Americans equally, as all federal laws and regulations affect all Americans equally. The Federal legislative, judicial, and executive powers cannot enact statutes that affect only one part of the country, which is by design of the constitution. As other people here said, the president leads the STATES. It's bad enough the lefties passed the 17th Amendment, a "popular vote" would put the final nail in the coffin for federalism in America. Oh other people said it?? IT MUST BE TRUE!! But really, the President leads the Federal government, and Governors lead the State governments..If the president lead the states I seriously doubt that Wisconsin would have been passing a bill to end collective bargaining rights for Government employees, or that Ohio would have gotten so close to restricting the vote for constituents who were going to overwhelmingly vote for Obama...the President...
The president leads the coalition of states, yes.
|
On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote:
the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
|
On October 24 2012 11:25 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 11:24 Poorlilrich wrote:On October 24 2012 11:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 10:58 BlueBird. wrote:On October 24 2012 10:57 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 10:50 Swazi Spring wrote:
We need to replace the electoral college with a 1 state = 1 vote system.
Sadly the liberals would probably ragequit and not allow such an amendment to pass. Actually if you watched the debate between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly, its the republican party who generally shies away from the popular vote. When it came up to the two of them, Stewart (an obvious liberal) lauded the idea, and O'Reilly (clearly an elephant) said it would be a horrible decision to remove the electoral college. Its really no surprise, as more than two percent more of registered voter are registered as democrats over republicans, which would obviously give a benefit to the Democratic party in an election. 1 state 1 vote is not a popular vote at all, it would be very very far from it Not necessarily, it would be up to each individual state as to how they would vote. One state might have their legislature pick who they want to vote for, another might have a popular vote to decide. I'll give you some advice: trying to argue 1 state 1 vote is not going to end well for you. It's common sense, but some people are just uneducated and think "more democratic = automatically better."
The cognitive dissonance of not believing more democratic = better and supporting American exceptionalism is astounding to me. The whole idea of American exceptionalism is predicated on the value of democracy.
|
On October 24 2012 11:32 sam!zdat wrote:didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am wary of too much democracy.
|
On October 24 2012 11:30 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 11:26 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 11:18 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 11:13 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 11:03 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 10:59 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 10:55 Swazi Spring wrote:
America is a federation, not a unitary state. The president should represent all of the states equally. How would you feel if the leaders of the EU only cared about Germany? Wrong. If this were true, Federal law would not supersede state law..it would be the reverse. America has not been a confederation since the decade after the Revolutionary war ended. Where did I say America was a confederacy? Either way, America's president does represent all Americans equally, as all federal laws and regulations affect all Americans equally. The Federal legislative, judicial, and executive powers cannot enact statutes that affect only one part of the country, which is by design of the constitution. As other people here said, the president leads the STATES. It's bad enough the lefties passed the 17th Amendment, a "popular vote" would put the final nail in the coffin for federalism in America. Oh other people said it?? IT MUST BE TRUE!! But really, the President leads the Federal government, and Governors lead the State governments..If the president lead the states I seriously doubt that Wisconsin would have been passing a bill to end collective bargaining rights for Government employees, or that Ohio would have gotten so close to restricting the vote for constituents who were going to overwhelmingly vote for Obama...the President... The president leads the coalition of states, yes.
You can just keep saying that if you want, but its not true. The United States is a unified nation, and you have provided absolutely no evidence otherwise (except for saying that other people said it was true!). POTUS leads the Federal government, as is laid out in the constitution, and only concerns himself with the workings on going-ons of the Federal Government. We stopped being a loose knit group of individual states, and began to be a unified nation a long time ago.
|
|
|
So it looks like Romney has another Akin moment coming up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
