Romney to cook Big Bird.............

Message boards : Politics : Romney to cook Big Bird.............
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · Next

AuthorMessage
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1301583 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 6:18:22 UTC - in response to Message 1301578.  

Your out of line.

Why? For scalding a politician and calling him our for his lies?

Where, my friend, am I out of line. Be specific.

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1301583 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1301697 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 15:34:01 UTC - in response to Message 1301666.  

Poll prediction

Looking at the map it seems that going upon population, Obama will get the West Coast and the East Coast votes, to win, whilst Romney will get middle America. But going upon number of states and land area, Romney should win. So a President can win by people numbers, but only represent 25% of the Country? Isn't it time this Electoral College was looked into?

By land mass you are correct. But not by population. Consider that the state of Nevada has less residents in total than the population living within the city limits of the City of Los Angeles California. Of that the City of Los Angeles has five times the number of people as the State of Alaska. There are places in the US where you can be the only person within 100 miles. This isn't Europe.

There is a bit of inequity, which was intentionally put into the Electoral College to bias it towards small population states. This because each state is given two votes simply by existing, the rest are by population. This was done so that small states can not be ignored.

Perhaps Chris is right and we should give each state 3 Senators for existing and hence 3 votes for existing in the Electoral Collage.


ID: 1301697 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1301726 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 17:00:14 UTC - in response to Message 1301719.  

.....If we followed this line of the constitution, we'd mathematically approach a pure democracy.

All or none from each state is a means of preventing a pure democracy.

For you liberals out there advocating for pure democracy, pure democracies always fail.

Us conservatives shouldn't have allowed you to pass the 17th amendment. That was a significant step towards a pure democracy.

Hmmmm. A strange statement from a citizen of a country that styles itself "The Home of Democracy".

Is an "impure" democracy still a democracy ?

Has there ever been a "pure" democracy ? Even Ancient Greece had limitations on suffrage.

Please name a "pure democracy" that has failed and how long did it last ?

It sounds to me like you are advocating a system where only "The Gentry" can vote (because they know best) and the Plebian rabble are left to get on with the job of making money for The Gentry unconcerned by politics.

According to Wikipedia, one of the reasons the 17th amendment was passed was to negate "the risk of corruption". They might as well repeal it, on those grounds, it has failed completely

T.A.
ID: 1301726 · Report as offensive
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 16,982,517
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1301733 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 17:11:16 UTC - in response to Message 1301719.  

You state the constitution often enough to realize the high bar set in order to pass an amendment. Were conservatives that weak in the 1910's? I don't think that was the case, they too saw the need for this change.





Us conservatives shouldn't have allowed you to pass the 17th amendment. That was a significant step towards a pure democracy.

ID: 1301733 · Report as offensive
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 16,982,517
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1301734 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 17:12:58 UTC - in response to Message 1301719.  

Sounds like you are endorsing the Electoral College here.




All or none from each state is a means of preventing a pure democracy.


ID: 1301734 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1301736 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 17:17:24 UTC - in response to Message 1301734.  

Sounds like you are endorsing the Electoral College here.




All or none from each state is a means of preventing a pure democracy.




+1
ID: 1301736 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1301766 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 18:26:24 UTC

If we want to get real radical, lets have a third house. Its job will be to repeal existing laws. The representation in it will be based on the amount of land area in the state. Just to be a bit more fair, not federally controlled land area, so national parks, forests etc., don't count. Then we give an equal number to the electoral college. How radical is that?

ID: 1301766 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1301780 - Posted: 3 Nov 2012, 19:10:06 UTC - in response to Message 1301766.  

If we want to get real radical, lets have a third house. Its job will be to repeal existing laws. The representation in it will be based on the amount of land area in the state. Just to be a bit more fair, not federally controlled land area, so national parks, forests etc., don't count. Then we give an equal number to the electoral college. How radical is that?


OMG......we NEED a third choice.

You just now saw that????????????

How freaking visionary.

Sorry, did not really mean to be an arse.

But, come on.............Yes, I agree with you on this one.

Meows,.
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1301780 · Report as offensive
Profile Ex: "Socialist"
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 3433
Credit: 2,616,158
RAC: 2
United States
Message 1302074 - Posted: 4 Nov 2012, 14:05:55 UTC - in response to Message 1301195.  

Re-electing Obama for a second term is like the Titanic backing up and having another go at the iceberg.

One could make that exact same argument about electing a Republican back into office.

It's so funny how many people blame Obama for the economy, apparently forgetting the guy that got us into the mess and WHEN.
#resist
ID: 1302074 · Report as offensive
Profile Ex: "Socialist"
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 3433
Credit: 2,616,158
RAC: 2
United States
Message 1302075 - Posted: 4 Nov 2012, 14:07:50 UTC - in response to Message 1301736.  
Last modified: 4 Nov 2012, 14:23:58 UTC

Sounds like you are endorsing the Electoral College here.




All or none from each state is a means of preventing a pure democracy.




+1

+2

@Gary's; shouldn't it be based on population, rather than physical size of the state? I mean really... Come on. You'd be giving greater power to states with much smaller populations. Which is an existing issue, with the senate IMHO. Then again some of us prefer thinking of the US as one country, and others want it to be 50 countries.
#resist
ID: 1302075 · Report as offensive
Profile Ex: "Socialist"
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 3433
Credit: 2,616,158
RAC: 2
United States
Message 1302084 - Posted: 4 Nov 2012, 14:25:00 UTC - in response to Message 1302080.  

Re-electing Obama for a second term is like the Titanic backing up and having another go at the iceberg.

One could make that exact same argument about electing a Republican back into office.

It's so funny how many people blame Obama for the economy, apparently forgetting the guy that got us into the mess and WHEN.


You are completely ignoring the balance of power in DC.

Which has also been slightly to the right for several years now as far as I know..
#resist
ID: 1302084 · Report as offensive
Profile Ex: "Socialist"
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 3433
Credit: 2,616,158
RAC: 2
United States
Message 1302095 - Posted: 4 Nov 2012, 14:47:03 UTC

That looks like a Republican Majority for 3/4ths of Bush's term. You were trying to prove a point that democrats were responsible for the economies downturn during BushII? 'Cause I'm not seeing it...?
#resist
ID: 1302095 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1302129 - Posted: 4 Nov 2012, 15:57:42 UTC - in response to Message 1302075.  

@Gary's; shouldn't it be based on population, rather than physical size of the state? I mean really... Come on. You'd be giving greater power to states with much smaller populations. Which is an existing issue, with the senate IMHO. Then again some of us prefer thinking of the US as one country, and others want it to be 50 countries.

It is 50 countries. Each state is a sovereign. And we would end up with the same mess the EU has.

Now how about that third house with repeal power being based on property value owned by people not corporations? And only property owners can vote for them. All that huge block of disenfranchised Manhattan high rises ...

ID: 1302129 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1302190 - Posted: 4 Nov 2012, 18:01:16 UTC - in response to Message 1302132.  

It is 50 countries. Each state is a sovereign. And we would end up with the same mess the EU has.

Good point.

Might be a clue to the EU about how to get rid of their mess, if they so choose.

ID: 1302190 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1302226 - Posted: 4 Nov 2012, 19:05:40 UTC - in response to Message 1302129.  

@Gary's; shouldn't it be based on population, rather than physical size of the state? I mean really... Come on. You'd be giving greater power to states with much smaller populations. Which is an existing issue, with the senate IMHO. Then again some of us prefer thinking of the US as one country, and others want it to be 50 countries.

It is 50 countries. Each state is a sovereign. And we would end up with the same mess the EU has.

Now how about that third house with repeal power being based on property value owned by people not corporations? And only property owners can vote for them. All that huge block of disenfranchised Manhattan high rises ...

Why don't you just make it only white male property owners and take yourselves all the way back to the 1790s?
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1302226 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1302580 - Posted: 5 Nov 2012, 19:46:54 UTC - in response to Message 1302226.  

that was Ben Franklins Idea.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1302580 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Romney to cook Big Bird.............


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.