Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 116
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Limestone, TN
    Posts
    1,774
    vCash
    1500
    I don't like changing the EC in any way, dividing them up or going to straight popular vote. That is coming from a Republican.

    Gerrymandering is completely different. Politics have always been and always will be politicized. You can't get it out of politicization. Move it to the courts? They are political. Leave it to legislatures? It is political. Create a committee... It will be political.

    Letting the state legislature makes it more grassroots in that you have the politics down to the lowest level you can have and it be at the state level.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    vCash
    1500
    It's

    You see all this **** on this site about how republicans are bad, and how republicans WHEN IT HAPPENS ON BOTH SIDES.
    Last edited by GoCrew5; 01-28-2013 at 01:26 PM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,598
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GoCrew5 View Post
    It's

    You see all this **** on this site about how republicans are bad, and how republicans WHEN IT HAPPENS ON BOTH SIDES.
    This is a solid write up on princenton consortium if you can stomach the math.

    In the seven Republican-controlled states, the total votes cast were 16.22 million (50.8%) for Republicans, 15.68 million (49.2%) for Democrats for a 74 R, 32 D outcome. The simulations indicate that this seat split would normally only require 11.7 million Democratic votes. In other words, 4 million Democratic voters in seven states were disenfranchised.

    In Illinois, the total votes cast were 2.74 million (55.4%) for Democrats, 2.21 million (44.6%) for Republicans for a 12 D, 6 R outcome. In this case, 1.8 million Republican votes would have been “enough” to elect this delegation, so that about 400,000 Illinois Republican voters were disenfranchised.

    Therefore the disenfranchisement due to partisan-controlled redistricting was a total of 4.4 million voters from both parties. Democrats were disenfranchised more than Republicans, at a ratio of 10:1.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam/Maryland
    Posts
    779
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GoCrew5 View Post
    It's

    You see all this **** on this site about how republicans are bad, and how republicans WHEN IT HAPPENS ON BOTH SIDES.
    Good thing you edited, huh?

    The briefest search will show you countless examples of how and where Reps are abusing the system far worse than Dems are, and reaping far greater benefits in terms of state and House seats. So yes, the Reps cheat better, so in that sense they are worse.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    10,400
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...ry?id=17507339



    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ma-Phone-Video

    My bold added for emphasis to highlight the purely party political Rep. lies about this program. Have a look at the charts here and you will see that the suggestion that Obama has used food stamps as a deliberate way of 'buying' votes is exactly what I referred to above, namely "Faux news disinformation, lies, and outright male cow dung," since a very large chunk of the recipients of this non-partisan government program that goes back to the 70's reside in Rep states!

    It is true that the current number of food stamp recipients is indeed greater than the population of many countries, but you offer that irrelevant stat as an entirely wrong way of making a party political point, suggesting as you do that this is some kind of Dem. conspiracy to "buy" or "bribe" people to support Obama, whereas the real commentary should be about the failure of US capitalism to adequately enable people to earn enough to feed themselves and their families! Incidentally, the issuing of food stamps has only decreased during one year this century. Food stamps have had to increase year by year for decades now because in the wonderful USA, children starve and millions are unable to 'earn' enough of a living that will properly feed themselves and their families, a general trend that dramatically worsened after the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression was bequeathed to Obama by the idiot from Texas. Meanwhile, those who are doing just fine expect to eat out numerous times each week, spending more on one meal than poor people are able to spend all week.

    Funny how we never hear anything from the wrong wing about the enormous farm subsidies that mainly Rep. farmers have been collecting from the gubmint for decades. That's ok, that doesn't "buy" votes, but feeding people on $1 a day is "buying" votes!? This is pretty much in a nutshell why anyone capable of rational thought recognizes the utter hypocrisy of your original point, to which I responded with the words that you quoted.
    Sounds like you're the one drinking the tea. Do you really believe the stuff that you write?

    How has capitalism failed???? Because some people don't take advantage of what capitalism has to offer, you label it a failure. Free education that many people fail to avail themselves to it and they become unemployable. The single simplest medical condition to avoid is pregnancy yet millions of kids are born into families that cannot afford them. Is that part of capitalism's failure too??? Guys walking around holding their pants up and make themselves unemployable…is that another capitalism failure????

    You need to wake up and smell the coffee.

    And you think votes weren't bought with welfare and food stamps???? Really???? If you're waiting for an out right admission, you won't get. You have to be able to read between the lines and see what's in front of you.

    Bush was not a great president and you won't find many conservatives that will swear that he was. But what we have now is a joke. A clueless administration that wants to take care of everyone. They buy votes. How else can you explain they 95% of blacks voted for Obama. 95% of any group can't agree on anything…unless they were bribed somehow.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    774
    vCash
    1500
    jomota, I agree with your first statement about capitalism. Generally the destitute aren't that way because they can't work, it's because they choose not to. But to say the election was bought with food stamps and welfare is very ignorant. Yes Obama got almost all the black vote, but so did Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc. Blacks always vote Democrat, not just Obama. I have never voted for Obama, and I don't like his policies a bit, but Bush was just as bad if not worse.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    10,400
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    jomota, I agree with your first statement about capitalism. Generally the destitute aren't that way because they can't work, it's because they choose not to. But to say the election was bought with food stamps and welfare is very ignorant. Yes Obama got almost all the black vote, but so did Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc. Blacks always vote Democrat, not just Obama. I have never voted for Obama, and I don't like his policies a bit, but Bush was just as bad if not worse.
    Not nearly to the degree that they did for Obama and not nearly with the turnout that both his elections had. Obama became "their president." 95% of the blacks voted for Obama. That is a number just not possible for an informed voter. Therefore another reason must be in play. Kennedy didn't get 95% of the Catholic vote. Romney didn't get 95% of the Mormon vote, or the white vote. How do you explain it????

    Ask yourself this…

    Romney is black, Obama is white: who wins? I'd bet Romney. Election was close and the blacks vote for the black candidate.

    Both candidates are black: who wins? I have no idea.

    Both candidates are white: who wins? I'd bet Romney as many blacks stay home and the close vote swings Romney's way.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    On the way to Camelback
    Posts
    2,848
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by jomota View Post
    Not nearly to the degree that they did for Obama and not nearly with the turnout that both his elections had. Obama became "their president." 95% of the blacks voted for Obama. That is a number just not possible for an informed voter. Therefore another reason must be in play. Kennedy didn't get 95% of the Catholic vote. Romney didn't get 95% of the Mormon vote, or the white vote. How do you explain it????

    Ask yourself this…

    Romney is black, Obama is white: who wins? I'd bet Romney. Election was close and the blacks vote for the black candidate.

    Both candidates are black: who wins? I have no idea.

    Both candidates are white: who wins? I'd bet Romney as many blacks stay home and the close vote swings Romney's way.
    The election wasn't close. Doesn't matter because African Americans generally vote Democrat.

    We can see a trend here.

    83% Clinton in 1992
    84% Clinton in 1996
    90% Gore in 2000
    88% Kerry in 2004

    This has been going on for more than 20 years btw.

    The rest of your post is nonsense but I'd really like you to respond to the free phones line you spouted. Especially when that program started under Bush if I'm not mistaken.

    I'm glad that instead of looking from within at what is the problem with the GOP, you turn to blame others and look for scapegoats. I'm hoping their leaders continue thinking like that as it will work wonderfully for Hillary in 2016.

    The Giants NL West Division chase.

    Gagné's HGH Care Package

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam/Maryland
    Posts
    779
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GHGHCP View Post
    The election wasn't close. Doesn't matter because African Americans generally vote Democrat.

    We can see a trend here.

    83% Clinton in 1992
    84% Clinton in 1996
    90% Gore in 2000
    88% Kerry in 2004

    This has been going on for more than 20 years btw.

    The rest of your post is nonsense but I'd really like you to respond to the free phones line you spouted. Especially when that program started under Bush if I'm not mistaken.

    I'm glad that instead of looking from within at what is the problem with the GOP, you turn to blame others and look for scapegoats. I'm hoping their leaders continue thinking like that as it will work wonderfully for Hillary in 2016.
    Exactly. Not just nonsense, but the kind of paranoid stupidity we have come to expect from the extreme right who believe the bull that they're fed by Faux news, and then spout off about tea, koolaid, smelling coffee, etc. I debunked his typical Tea bagger comment about the phones, but he chose to ignore that rather than admit to being wrong.

    The loony right also doesn't accept to this day that they lost a 'fair' election, because Faux told them they were miles ahead in the polls and Mitt was going to walk it. Obviously, there had to be all kinds of shady business to explain their 'unexpected' loss, Obama must have cheated, fraud was committed, the POTUS "bought" votes with welfare and food stamps because why else would 95% of the black population (who, with one or two individual exceptions, have never backed the Tea bagger loony right) re-elect a black POTUS?

    The ignorance of this kind of thinking, and the gullibility shown when swallowing so many outright lies truly beggars belief.

    As for my comment regarding the failure of US capitalism, jomota, how else would you describe a situation where between 10-15% of the population (many of whom are also Reps. and live in red states) cannot adequately feed themselves because there is either no work available, or the available work doesn't pay enough to live on? Oh yeah, these upwards of 40m people are all lazy, didn't pay attention in school, and have something to do with teenage pregnancies. Sure, there are 'lazy' people who don't want to work, people who should have paid more attention during their years of education, and many teenagers who should not have brought babies into the world. But to tell over 40m people that it's all their own fault, and that the system hasn't failed them, is just so sadly typical of today's unintelligent and misguided extreme right wing. You people spend more time worrying about a fetus than you do about a fellow human being in need. Shame on you.

    You also avoided responding about the humongous amounts of money that have been going to farmers in red states in farm subsidies for decades now. That's not 'buying' votes, huh? If that's not buying votes, neither are food stamps.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    6,221
    vCash
    1500
    I expect the real outrage isn't that republicans were successful at a dirty trick, it is that the democrats didn't think of it first.
    Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are."

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam/Maryland
    Posts
    779
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    I expect the real outrage isn't that republicans were successful at a dirty trick, it is that the democrats didn't think of it first.
    Pathetic comment.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    6,221
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    Pathetic comment.
    Is it your position that gerrymandering is only done by democrats?
    Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are."

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam/Maryland
    Posts
    779
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    Is it your position that gerrymandering is only done by democrats?
    I have made my position on gerrymandering abundantly clear, numerous times, in whatever topics the subject has come up in.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    774
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by jomota View Post
    Not nearly to the degree that they did for Obama and not nearly with the turnout that both his elections had. Obama became "their president." 95% of the blacks voted for Obama. That is a number just not possible for an informed voter. Therefore another reason must be in play. Kennedy didn't get 95% of the Catholic vote. Romney didn't get 95% of the Mormon vote, or the white vote. How do you explain it????

    Ask yourself this…

    Romney is black, Obama is white: who wins? I'd bet Romney. Election was close and the blacks vote for the black candidate.

    Both candidates are black: who wins? I have no idea.

    Both candidates are white: who wins? I'd bet Romney as many blacks stay home and the close vote swings Romney's way.
    Black support for Democratic candidates has always been in the 80s and 90s. Some blacks will vote for Obama just because he's black, some whites will vote for Romney just because he's white. That's just the way it is. You're making the election out closer than it was, I thought it would have been closer, but it wasn't very close. One thing I am sure of though, I'll be glad in 4 years when Obama leaves, if nothing else just because I am so tired of hearing about race with this President. From both sides, it seems, it is all about race, race, race with Obama and that is not how it should be at all. I don't support him because he's a liberal. Romney did not appeal to me much but I voted for him anyway.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,337
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    Black support for Democratic candidates has always been in the 80s and 90s. Some blacks will vote for Obama just because he's black, some whites will vote for Romney just because he's white. That's just the way it is. You're making the election out closer than it was, I thought it would have been closer, but it wasn't very close. One thing I am sure of though, I'll be glad in 4 years when Obama leaves, if nothing else just because I am so tired of hearing about race with this President. From both sides, it seems, it is all about race, race, race with Obama and that is not how it should be at all. I don't support him because he's a liberal. Romney did not appeal to me much but I voted for him anyway.
    Just to be clear, always goes back to post 1964 in terms of the kind of black support Democrats get. The GOP has not come close to recovering since then.

    As far as being tired about race involvement, the interesting point of this last election, in my opinion was that race, for those who voted for the President was much less an issue. I imagine in the next election, it will be about gender.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •