100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Main Change We Need | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
of coarse you think that the popular vote should rule, now. but if ithe outcome was reversed you would be for the electoral vote. Right? no, I would not I question the electoral college when it doesnt seem to reflect the way the citizens voted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What we need is a government that puts the needs of the people first, above anything else...personal gain, political and world power.
The rewards reaped from this will far out'shadow any payoff, donation or speaking fee you can dream of. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the difficulty of that is there are so many different people whose needs are so diverse,,
Oprah 2020!!! ..a true self made billionaire, therefore obviously brilliant and capable of running things |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And that non-factual, non-logical decision is what I so strongly oppose, because I am a problem solver above all else. And I know from all manner of problem solving, that if you refuse to deal with what is factually true and logical, and instead insist only on catering to your emotionally pleasing distortions, you will solve nothing, and will make most problems very much worse. What is factual and logical is respecting the vote no matter what your stance is, those who do not are effectively un-democratic and yes should be viewed as enemies of the state. To ferment continued division by rioting and protesting violently against the vote IS un-American. The silent vote has spoken and won, suck it up and respect it or go ahead and move to Bangladesh. My position would not change had the other side won I think you are carrying things too far again, in exactly the way I am counselling against. Yes. I also dislike it when people refuse to accept the vote, and decide to try to circumvent it. I didn't like it when the Republicans did it after Clinton and Obama were elected and reelected, and I don't like it when Democrats do so either. What is important to recognize as regards the current protests going on, is that they are NOT a function of the Democratic Party; that they are NOT all being done identically by a unified group of people; and that there are lots of JUST PLAIN PROTESTERS (100% legal and VERY Constitutional) who MUST NOT be told that they are "enemies of the state." Yes. People who think that breaking the law as a form of protest, need to be told otherwise. However, we do not treat any OTHER law breakers as "enemies of the state," and to do so with these people, is therefore ANTI-Constitutional, and ANTI-rule of law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. People who think that breaking the law as a form of protest, need to be told otherwise. However, we do not treat any OTHER law breakers as "enemies of the state," and to do so with these people, is therefore ANTI-Constitutional, and ANTI-rule of law. They need to be told otherwise? Like, stop that you bullies? They're destroying property, looting and all in the name of not respecting the vote, the most basic foundation of everything, country, many other crimes pale in comparison. enemies of the state is fitting, it should be a VERY serious matter Also, a Guardian writer called for a presidential assassination in a tweet. Enemy of the state there too IMO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like in pulling them out of the rioting crowd and scolding them on why what they are doing is bad... like that... Lol
Btw.. do we send in the police.. or the rioters Grandmothers. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
LittleLeftofRight
on
Sun 11/13/16 09:51 PM
|
|
I suppose I should have been more careful in my wording. I was referring to the creation of regulations, which then are regarded as law, but unfortunately didnt clarify it. I am pointing out that there are lawful procedures that must be followed and met to enable regulations to be legitimately be made and thats not the way its done in the US. The rest is your taking the ball and running. However that said there is no limit to the unconstitutional trash the legislatures can produce, and pass as law despite that it is entirely unconsitutional, and you are stuck with obeying that unconstitutional regulation forced upon you as law. Lets take the states overlay of their flavor of religion enforced upon the mormons. You will obey the god state and 'its' religion or lose everything and end up checked in at the graybar hotel. Where in the constitution did the people make an exception to the right to exercise their religion, granting the state the authority to establish a state religion in the form of a law that denies the mormons of their religion? Thats a nice pie in the face argument since not only did the state establish their religion dogma, the courts supported it. You are overlooking something in the process. I'm not saying that it is okay to pass unconstitutional laws and regulations. I'm saying that Due Process is involved. That means that when unconstitutional laws are suggested, that that is protected free speech. After they are passed, the process to get rid of them is through challenge in the courts. What we have way too much of right now, are people angrily demanding that laws be removed, or even debated, simply because they PERSONALLY think they are unconstitutional. Oh thats right law is the great equalizer in america isnt it? Except of course the state gets to use my tax dollars to make unconstitutional laws against me AT MY EXPENSE and to get rid of those crap laws I have to use my personal money to fight them in court once again AT MY EXPENSE. Thats a really fair deal isnt it? Then the state overlords require that you beat a broad set of statutory 'presumptions' to get past the gatekeeper to even get your case heard, much of which runs to common law that runs costs well over 50g to litigate, and of course we the citizens have that laying around as pocket change to fight for our rights. Equal under the law my ***. Screwed under the law is more like it. Since you used the legal term, I presumed you would reconise I said the same thing in laymans terms, with the word 'procedure' to simplify it for those who are not too legally inclined. Finally, I dont see anyones response to the Mormon Matter. That is where the state or courts for that matter have the jurisdiction and/or authority to over lay and enforce 'their' religion against the religion of the people? No comments from anyone? State established religion is unconstitutional. The Mormon case is unconstitutional. Some opinions about law are based in fact, others fiction, once again the challenge, to anyone wants to step up to mound and conduct a friendly forum litigation based in fact rather than innuendo. You talk about change how about the guv respecting the laws that are NOT UNDER the constitution, but over it, ie: speech, arms, and religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of coarse you think that the popular vote should rule, now. but if ithe outcome was reversed you would be for the electoral vote. Right? no, I would not I question the electoral college when it doesnt seem to reflect the way the citizens voted Here I will help you with that. Each state has a specified number of electors based upon population same as a specified number of reps and senators. In order to have a valid complaint about the electors one would need to show that some electors voted 'contrary' to the popular vote of their state. The electors are held to that pledge, they cant vote willy nilly or base their vote on the pop votes of a different state. So my question is which electors voted contrary to the popular votes of their state which is the only possible way anyone would have a valid complaint about the electors. Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged. List of State Laws and Requirements Regarding the Electors verified as of March 1, 2016 The Office of the Federal Register presents this material for informational purposes only, in response to numerous public inquiries. The list has no legal significance. It is based on information compiled by the Congressional Research Service. For more comprehensive information, refer to the U.S. Constitution and applicable Federal laws. Legal Requirements or Pledges Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate: ALABAMA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 17-19-2 ALASKA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 15.30.040; 15.30.070 CALIFORNIA – State Law – Elections Code § 6906 COLORADO – State Law – § 1-4-304 CONNECTICUT – State Law – § 9-175 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – DC Pledge / DC Law – § 1-1001.08(g) FLORIDA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 103.021(1) HAWAII – State Law – §§ 14-26 to 14-28 MAINE – State Law – § 805 MARYLAND – State Law – § 8-505 MASSACHUSETTS – Party Pledge / State Law – Ch. 53, § 8, Supp. MICHIGAN – State Law – §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and Elector is replaced.) MISSISSIPPI – Party Pledge / State Law – §23-15-785(3) MONTANA – State Law – § 13-25-304 NEBRASKA – State Law – § 32-714 NEW MEXICO – State Law – § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.) NORTH CAROLINA – State Law – § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.) OHIO – State Law – § 3505.40 OKLAHOMA – State Pledge / State Law – 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.) OREGON – State Pledge / State Law – § 248.355 SOUTH CAROLINA – State Pledge / State Law – § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.) VERMONT – State Law – title 17, § 2732 * VIRGINIA – State Law – § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory – “Shall be expected” to vote for nominees.) WASHINGTON – Party Pledge / State Law – §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.) WISCONSIN – State Law – § 7.75 WYOMING – State Law – §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108 . Total Electoral Votes: 538; Majority Needed to Elect: 270 State Number of Electoral Votes Alabama 9 Alaska 3 Arizona 11 Arkansas 6 California 55 Colorado 9 Connecticut 7 Delaware 3 District of Columbia 3 Florida 29 Georgia 16 Hawaii 4 Idaho 4 Illinois 20 Indiana 11 Iowa 6 Kansas 6 Kentucky 8 Louisiana 8 Maine 4 Maryland 10 Massachusetts 11 Michigan 16 Minnesota 10 Mississippi 6 Missouri 10 Montana 3 Nebraska 5 Nevada 6 New Hampshire 4 New Jersey 14 New Mexico 5 New York 29 North Carolina 15 North Dakota 3 Ohio 18 Oklahoma 7 Oregon 7 Pennsylvania 20 Rhode Island 4 South Carolina 9 South Dakota 3 Tennessee 11 Texas 38 Utah 6 Vermont 3 Virginia 13 Washington 12 West Virginia 5 Wisconsin 10 Wyoming 3 So I do not see a problem with the electoral votes, in a democratic vote most states 2 excepted are winner take all for the state, so whats wrong with the clinton supporters since the electors all voted according to the popular vote of their states? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I do not see a problem with the electoral votes, in a democratic vote most states 2 excepted are winner take all for the state, so whats wrong with the clinton supporters since the electors all voted according to the popular vote of their states? The sore losers don't perceive the United States of America as being the United States of America. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What did I miss? :(
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What did I miss? :( Complaints about a system that levels the playing field for all 50 states. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The change has been made, stop whining!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What did I miss? :( nothing much.. just a whine sampling party |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What did I miss? :( some people are blaming the electoral college when al the electors voted in consonant with the popular vote of their states respectively. the libs dont understand how the system works, they think the electors went against the pop vote and they did not. That is the only way anyone could blame the electoral college. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of coarse you think that the popular vote should rule, now. but if ithe outcome was reversed you would be for the electoral vote. Right? no, I would not I question the electoral college when it doesnt seem to reflect the way the citizens voted Here I will help you with that. Each state has a specified number of electors based upon population same as a specified number of reps and senators. In order to have a valid complaint about the electors one would need to show that some electors voted 'contrary' to the popular vote of their state. The electors are held to that pledge, they cant vote willy nilly or base their vote on the pop votes of a different state. So my question is which electors voted contrary to the popular votes of their state which is the only possible way anyone would have a valid complaint about the electors. Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged. List of State Laws and Requirements Regarding the Electors verified as of March 1, 2016 The Office of the Federal Register presents this material for informational purposes only, in response to numerous public inquiries. The list has no legal significance. It is based on information compiled by the Congressional Research Service. For more comprehensive information, refer to the U.S. Constitution and applicable Federal laws. Legal Requirements or Pledges Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate: ALABAMA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 17-19-2 ALASKA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 15.30.040; 15.30.070 CALIFORNIA – State Law – Elections Code § 6906 COLORADO – State Law – § 1-4-304 CONNECTICUT – State Law – § 9-175 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – DC Pledge / DC Law – § 1-1001.08(g) FLORIDA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 103.021(1) HAWAII – State Law – §§ 14-26 to 14-28 MAINE – State Law – § 805 MARYLAND – State Law – § 8-505 MASSACHUSETTS – Party Pledge / State Law – Ch. 53, § 8, Supp. MICHIGAN – State Law – §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and Elector is replaced.) MISSISSIPPI – Party Pledge / State Law – §23-15-785(3) MONTANA – State Law – § 13-25-304 NEBRASKA – State Law – § 32-714 NEW MEXICO – State Law – § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.) NORTH CAROLINA – State Law – § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.) OHIO – State Law – § 3505.40 OKLAHOMA – State Pledge / State Law – 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.) OREGON – State Pledge / State Law – § 248.355 SOUTH CAROLINA – State Pledge / State Law – § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.) VERMONT – State Law – title 17, § 2732 * VIRGINIA – State Law – § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory – “Shall be expected” to vote for nominees.) WASHINGTON – Party Pledge / State Law – §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.) WISCONSIN – State Law – § 7.75 WYOMING – State Law – §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108 . Total Electoral Votes: 538; Majority Needed to Elect: 270 State Number of Electoral Votes Alabama 9 Alaska 3 Arizona 11 Arkansas 6 California 55 Colorado 9 Connecticut 7 Delaware 3 District of Columbia 3 Florida 29 Georgia 16 Hawaii 4 Idaho 4 Illinois 20 Indiana 11 Iowa 6 Kansas 6 Kentucky 8 Louisiana 8 Maine 4 Maryland 10 Massachusetts 11 Michigan 16 Minnesota 10 Mississippi 6 Missouri 10 Montana 3 Nebraska 5 Nevada 6 New Hampshire 4 New Jersey 14 New Mexico 5 New York 29 North Carolina 15 North Dakota 3 Ohio 18 Oklahoma 7 Oregon 7 Pennsylvania 20 Rhode Island 4 South Carolina 9 South Dakota 3 Tennessee 11 Texas 38 Utah 6 Vermont 3 Virginia 13 Washington 12 West Virginia 5 Wisconsin 10 Wyoming 3 So I do not see a problem with the electoral votes, in a democratic vote most states 2 excepted are winner take all for the state, so whats wrong with the clinton supporters since the electors all voted according to the popular vote of their states? you don't have to see a problem some people who are told 'your vote count', and not 'your states vote counts' see that most people voted for Clinton and feel that it therefore does not and they think it should the reason it has not been an issue, is because the states votes have seemed to reflect the popular vote,, but this time , in the first 16 years of the century, it has happened TWO times that it has not reflected the popular vote I will leave it to the experts and those in authority to work through if the time come but I understand the argument for the popular vote when the collective US electoral vote seems to have begun to not reflect that of the US population,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What did I miss? :( Complaints about a system that levels the playing field for all 50 states. how does it 'level' it for the citizens? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What did I miss? :( some people are blaming the electoral college when al the electors voted in consonant with the popular vote of their states respectively. the libs dont understand how the system works, they think the electors went against the pop vote and they did not. That is the only way anyone could blame the electoral college. None of what you said is based on factual knowledge. Your vague term "libs" clearly doesn't apply to anyone other than "people you don't like," because EVERYONE has complained about the Electoral College system at one time or another. And no, most of the people who are complaining about the E.C. are NOT ignorant of how it works at all. What they are upset about is EXACTLY how it works, which I can only deduce that you do not, since you think it reflects the popular vote, when it clearly does not. Here's the main thing ANYONE needs to know, in order to get a handle on the E.C.: the United States is a Republic. It is actually named well, because the government was designed, and remains, as a collection of STATES, not as a single NATION. And that is ALSO why we end up with people winning elections, while losing the overall popular vote. There are so far only TWO states which apportion their electors proportionately to the way people vote there. Forty-eight other states are winner-take-all. That means that if candidate "A" wins state "X" by a 90% landslide, and loses to candidate "B" in state "Y" (a state with identical number of voters)by a slim margin, BOTH CANDIDATES WILL GET THE SAME NUMBER OF ELECTORAL VOTES, even though in total popular vote BETWEEN those two states, candidate "A" won as much as double or more popular votes. Anyone who wants every citizens vote to count equally, will be correct in opposing the E.C. system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone what to bring up why we had to choose between these two in the first place? Many people could have voted in the primaries and changed the out come. So all the people who were not happy with who was on the ticket should have done something earlier. Of coarse by the time the primaries came to my state the candidates were pretty much already picked. But think of all the time we spent digging up dirt and arguing that could have been saved. But it seems so much easier to blame everything else. How many of those protesters didn't even cast a vote? If you seen Donald Trump on 60 minutes you would see the politician in him coming out. Back tracking on promises, kissing ***, buddy to the Clinton, and no clue about what was going on. And about the arguing" STOP IT"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
LittleLeftofRight
on
Mon 11/14/16 08:18 PM
|
|
What did I miss? :( some people are blaming the electoral college when al the electors voted in consonant with the popular vote of their states respectively. the libs dont understand how the system works, they think the electors went against the pop vote and they did not. That is the only way anyone could blame the electoral college. None of what you said is based on factual knowledge. Your vague term "libs" clearly doesn't apply to anyone other than "people you don't like," because EVERYONE has complained about the Electoral College system at one time or another. And no, most of the people who are complaining about the E.C. are NOT ignorant of how it works at all. What they are upset about is EXACTLY how it works, which I can only deduce that you do not, since you think it reflects the popular vote, when it clearly does not. Here's the main thing ANYONE needs to know, in order to get a handle on the E.C.: the United States is a Republic. It is actually named well, because the government was designed, and remains, as a collection of STATES, not as a single NATION. And that is ALSO why we end up with people winning elections, while losing the overall popular vote. There are so far only TWO states which apportion their electors proportionately to the way people vote there. Forty-eight other states are winner-take-all. That means that if candidate "A" wins state "X" by a 90% landslide, and loses to candidate "B" in state "Y" (a state with identical number of voters)by a slim margin, BOTH CANDIDATES WILL GET THE SAME NUMBER OF ELECTORAL VOTES, even though in total popular vote BETWEEN those two states, candidate "A" won as much as double or more popular votes. Anyone who wants every citizens vote to count equally, will be correct in opposing the E.C. system. First we are not talking about "one time or another", the attempt to make me look foolish fails due to the false premise of your argument, we are talking about this time, and this time it is in fact the "libs" that are complaining as I said. you could have saved yourself a lot of typing had you quoted me from another thread where I explained all that. Even in this thread I alluded to it for those who understood the system. What did I miss? :( some people are blaming the electoral college when al the electors voted in consonant with the popular vote of their states respectively. the libs dont understand how the system works, they think the electors went against the pop vote and they did not. That is the only way anyone could blame the electoral college. Now that might not slap people in the face but nonetheless the electoral college accurately reflects the popular vote for each state. If its 51red/49blu then the state is considered red, that is how a democracy works. So whats next get rid of all the representatives and senators since they are also apportioned according to population? You are correct however that at this precise moment in time the electors have yet to cast their votes BUT as you can see from all the reports and state laws that they are expected to vote in consonant with the voters, therefore the assumption is perfectly valid. I believe its jan 6th Even if you parse out and proportion the EC votes and add all reds and all blues it still has the same result because you cant magically create more electors than your state is allotted, and once they have all voted there is nothing more. You do realize that that if you get rid of the EC the same problem will result with the representatives so we will have to get rid of them as well as I said they operate on exactly the same principle. as you can see in the second to the last column and I do not claim to know the 'exact' apportionment algorithm they use it should be quite obvious they are attempting to equalize representation to prevent a single state from calling all the shots for the whole nation.  |
|
|
|
|
