|
|
Post by mcnoch on Nov 8, 2012 12:16:54 GMT -5
Where did you get the idea that the TP thinks they won? I didn't wrote that they believe that they won the election, but that they think that they didn't lost it. Maybe this has a different meaning in German. Those TP members interviewed in German TV told that the compromises and reorientation toward the middle by Romney lost the election. With the pure teachings and absolutely no compromises those people think they can wind the next time. But there was one Rep- member too who hoped that the TP-episode inside his party might be over now. |
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Nov 8, 2012 13:48:54 GMT -5
English logic gets a bit tricky. For instance if they did not lose the election, they must have won it.
We would say "They did not think that they were the CAUSE of the loss of the election".
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Nov 9, 2012 7:23:08 GMT -5
>>Even more shocking than Obama's unexpected landslide victory<< How do you figure it was a landslide victory.? The popular vote came out Obama 59.8 million, Romney 57.2 million. The electoral count gets skewed when you have that winner-take-all rule. It's now a done deal with Obama with 61,170,405 vs, Romney's 58,163,977 for the popular vote. The E-vote is the only one that counts and that was by a landslide (332 to 206, now that FL finally got done). But Obama won no matter how it's looked at. And I am glad. He's the president we've had that I liked the best so far. And millions of other people feel the same way (but perhaps not in this forum). IMAO, Baby Bush was the worst in my lifetime, with Lyndon Johnson a close second. So I find Obama a great relief after that idiot Baby Bush. I don't mind so much about having an a**hole for our president, such as Baby Bush. But Baby Bush was a stupid a**hole. We need a smart a**hole if we are going to elect an a**hole as our president. I would consider Ronny Reagan as a smart a**hole as far as running things are concerned (or was it really his wife who made all the good decisions?), even if he was rather stupid on many unrelated things that don't count for making a good president. -Don- |
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Nov 9, 2012 8:49:16 GMT -5
From my e-mail yesterday. While some of it is 'over the top' I do agree with most of it....
Congratulations to the Democrats and Young People! You now own it.
The next terrorist attack - you own it. Can't get a job after graduation - you own it. Sky rocketing energy prices due to Obama's EPA shutting down the energy producing states - you own it. A nuclear Iran - you own it. Bowing to the Soviet Union - you own it. Another severe recession - you own it. A volatile border with Mexico - you own it. Trouble getting good health care - you own it. Higher heath insurance costs and health care costs - you own it. No budget you own it. Our allies mistrust - you own it. Another trillion of debt - you own it. More Benghazi situations - you own it. No one willing to join the military - you own it. Trouble getting to loan to buy a home - you own it. More dependency on food stamps - you own it. Trouble finding good employment - you own it. Several part time jobs instead of a good job - you own it. A World Government - you own it. The UN governing the United States instead of ourselves - you own it. A Senate that will not bring any legislation to the table rather it is "Dead on Arrival" - you own it. China controlling our world trade trampling all over us - you own it. Loss of our freedoms as we have known it in the past - you own it. A dictatorship instead of a democracy that follows the Constituion - you own it. Less take home pay and higher living costs - you own it. Driving a car that looks like a toy - you own it. More government corruption and lies - you own it. More toleration of extreme and fanatical Islamists - you own it. Terrorist attacks called work place incidents - you own it. Your revenge instead of love of country - you own it.
President George Bush is out of it now, and there is not another good man for you to villify and lie about. In a way I am relieved that another good man will not be blamed when it was impossible to clean up this mess you voted for. Have a good day. God bless the United States and Texas! God is our hope now.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Nov 9, 2012 11:23:08 GMT -5
From my e-mail yesterday. While some of it is 'over the top' I do agree with most of it....Congratulations to the Democrats and Young People! You now own it.
The next terrorist attack - you own it. Great! There are no worries as long as we have somebody like Obama to give the order to blow the head off people such as Osama. Baby Bush was great at getting other countries to hate us and accomplishing nothing useful. But Baby Bush was great for our record debt. Obama gets in, and he gets OBL's head blown off fast and efficiently, with no BS, no ridiculous expense. IMAO, Obama is the best thing that ever happened to the USA since I've been alive. -Don- |
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Nov 9, 2012 13:01:32 GMT -5
Don>>It's now a done deal with Obama with 61,170,405 vs, Romney's 58,163,977 for the popular vote. The E-vote is the only one that counts and that was by a landslide (332 to 206, now that FL finally got done)<<
The elector count is distorted by the “winner-take-all” rule, which results in disenfranchisement for the voter.
Consider a state that has ten electoral votes. Lets assume the popular count went 49% for one candidate and 51% for the other. Under these circumstances one might expect the electoral count to be split 50-50. But instead, under the WTA rule, one candidate gets ten votes and the other gets none. So 49% of the population have been disenfranchised.
I’d like to see the Supreme Court rule on this issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Nov 9, 2012 18:42:25 GMT -5
Denny>>I have little use for anyone that REFUSES to compromise under any condition. <
Setting the stage for a contentious debate over reducing the nation's deficit, President Obama today drew a clear line in the sand about the extent to which he will compromise in order to get a congressional deal on deficit reduction, insisting that while he is "open to new ideas" and "committed to solving our fiscal challenges," he will reject any approach that does not involve a tax increase on America's highest-income families.
Obama has his agenda and Congress will comply with his wishes or else. Compromise is only for Republicans.
And by the way, it is Congress that is supposed to initiate a budget, not the President. The Democratic controlled Senate has not offered a budget for the last four years, and I doubt that they will in the next four years. I wish we had a good method to hold their feet to the fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Nov 9, 2012 20:49:48 GMT -5
Consider a state that has ten electoral votes. Lets assume the popular count went 49% for one candidate and 51% for the other. Under these circumstances one might expect the electoral count to be split 50-50. But instead, under the WTA rule, one candidate gets ten votes and the other gets none. So 49% of the population have been disenfranchised. I’d like to see the Supreme Court rule on this issue. I well understand how the E-vote works and because of that, I would expect a 9-0 vote from the SCOTUS to keep it as is, if they really go by the US Constitution. However, sometimes I think we should get rid of the lawyers, politicians and such in the SCOTUS and replace them with English professors or people who know how to read and understand what the US Constitution really says. Their own personal opinions on how things should be shouldn't have much of an influence on their decisions if based on what words mean as written. IMO, the countless 5-4 decisions prove something is wrong somewhere. Think of each state as a different country, with it's own laws, that united ONLY for some special purposes, such as military and such. The majority people from each state, based on their population, should have a say in it, NOT the the majority of people at large. IMO, to go by a full popular vote would be very unconstitutional. IOW, an individual vote from another state, should have no effect on my vote in CA for who CA wants for our president. Only other CA voters should be able to cancel my vote in CA for US president. So my guess is that you will lose 9-0, if they do their job, even if it did go to the SCOTUS. But in the last election, it would not matter. Obama clearly won both ways anyway. And I am very happy that he did win, no matter how it's looked at. -Don- SSF, CA |
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Nov 9, 2012 21:12:02 GMT -5
Bowing to the Soviet Union - you own it. What kinda of idiot would talk about Obama as president and the USSR in the same time frame? Who doesn't know the Soviet Union (USSR) has not existed for more than 20 years? That was well before most people ever even heard of Obama. -Don- |
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Nov 9, 2012 21:29:39 GMT -5
>>IMO, to go by a full popular vote would be very unconstitutional<<
No one said anything about a full popular vote. I stated the winner-take-all rule has disenfranchised a good percentage of the voters. The electoral votes should be allocated according to the percentage of the popular vote per candidate. This in essence is the difference between a democracy and a republic.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Nov 9, 2012 23:44:46 GMT -5
>>IMO, to go by a full popular vote would be very unconstitutional<< No one said anything about a full popular vote. I stated the winner-take-all rule has disenfranchised a good percentage of the voters. The electoral votes should be allocated according to the percentage of the popular vote per candidate. This in essence is the difference between a democracy and a republic. Sorry I didn't really read and understand your last post. I now see your point. Too many people in CA wasted their time voting, as it made no difference at all, even to CA. I now think the SCOTUS could go along with such an idea. So could I. Seems fair enough to me, yet is still done state by state. -Don- |
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Nov 10, 2012 3:29:42 GMT -5
This of course will mean that you might see smaller parties to become part of this equation too. The haggling to get their votes might give them an undeserved high influence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2012 9:19:37 GMT -5
"Compromise is only for Republicans" is bull, pure unadulterated BS and you know it. If anything, currently, and since the beginning of the power ot the TP, compromise has been treated as a four letter word. The Dems would be far more likely to compromise than the GOP. Would they dig in their heels in some instances? Hell yes, but no more than the GOP and probably much less frequently and less stridently. Obama and Boehner both say one thing I like and that is that they should govern not as Republicans or as Democrats, but rather as Americans. We both know that is being said for the benefit of the public, but that's the way it SHOULD be.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Nov 10, 2012 14:12:41 GMT -5
D>>If anything, currently, and since the beginning of the power ot the TP, compromise has been treated as a four letter word.<<
Somehow I get the impression that you think the TP is doing the negotiations with the Democrats on various issues. That is not their function. They are in business to get rid of the undesirables in the Republican party. That is ALL they do except support candidates of their choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2012 8:57:59 GMT -5
The TP does de facto conduct negotiatons with the Democrats in that they hold the GOP members who are beholding to them for their elections to a certain standard. If the Dems don't agree with that standard, the GOP members aren't "allowed" to negotiate. I don't like ANY faction that holds that much control over its' members.
I know it's pollyanna, but it would be nice to see a candidate run as an "American" rather than as a member of any party. It would be interesting to see if that person could garner any votes.
|
|
