Be a Supporter!

Get rid of electoral colleges

  • 1,825 Views
  • 101 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 24th, 2013 @ 10:39 PM Reply

At 1/24/13 10:12 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: When will you Republicans stop bitching about Obama winning? The Democrats had to deal with Bush winning his reelection so stop being a big baby and just except that Obama won!

Did they accept it? I only recall them screaming and crying about him. Wanting him impeached. Some wanting him dead. Others denying his presidency altogether. Democrats and Obama deserve worse.

All-American-Badass
All-American-Badass
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 24th, 2013 @ 11:12 PM Reply

At 1/24/13 06:39 PM, Ravariel wrote:
At 1/24/13 10:50 AM, TheMason wrote: So I wonder if we need to reform the EC. What about assigning one elector to each congressional district?
There's actually a push, by republican lawmakers, in several (leaning-blue) states to do just this. It would significantly alter the awarding of their EC's. In Virginia, for instance, where Obama won by carrying 51% of the popular vote, and got all of it's 13 EVs, if you went by district Obama would have only won 4 EVs, and Romney would have won 9.

This is why I like my idea of splitting the electoral votes proportional or as close to proportional as possible to the popular vote in each state, gerrymandering corrupts the vote by congressional district plan. I did the math and even though Obama would still win under my idea he would only win with 278 electoral votes vs. Romney's 260 and Ohio and New Hampshire would have split their electoral votes evenly between the two due to the even number of electoral votes and the close margin

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 12:12 AM Reply

I don't see the harm in splitting them up to better reflect the voting. Since hey, you know it wouldn't of mattered anyway?

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 12:28 AM Reply

At 1/25/13 12:12 AM, Ceratisa wrote: I don't see the harm in splitting them up to better reflect the voting. Since hey, you know it wouldn't of mattered anyway?

When an entire race votes for you, you're gonna win.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 12:32 AM Reply

At 1/25/13 12:12 AM, Ceratisa wrote: I don't see the harm in splitting them up to better reflect the voting. Since hey, you know it wouldn't of mattered anyway?

I am fine with this, but it needs to be done in an all or nothing way. Either all states should go all or nothing, or we shouldn't change. Only changing the states that have Red state legislatures but vote blue for President is nothing other than a cheap attempt at election rigging.

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 10:44 AM Reply

I'm definately no expert in you relectoral colleges system.
I am definately all for 1 man 1 vote .... But just so you know we have a multiparty system here in the village (aka Kanada)

I was for years on side with giving the underdogs who battled against our REP & DEM Parties
(also know as the Conservatives & Liberals)

Well 4 years ago here in my Province they finally won .....
& do you know what we got ?

SWEET
F&(#
ALL !

Same old same old, higher taxes, serious amounts of bullshit, no cuts in an ever expanding government, broken election promises.

EXACTLY , absolutely EXACTLY the same bullshit, new faces same crap !

Because no one who gets elected will ake the hard decissions.
No one elected in politics (OK not everyone , just about everyone !) gives a fucking rats ass about anything except, fillin gtheir pockets, & GETTING REELECTED !

Nothing
Else
Matters !

& that is why IMO there should be 4 year limits on politicians, NO aloowing for rerunning.

& get people in there who if they over spend & run a deficit are responsible personally for repaying it. Now that would see to the hard choices being made ...the popularity contests need to stop.
The big business interests financing bothall sides (every candidate & Party) needs to be made illegal !
The country needs to be run as a business, You don't give yourself (the leadership) large raises & then tell everyone else they need to make cuts.
You don't need to build a huge top heavy bureaucracy even fuckin' bigger when you need to cut costs ...but that is all any of us have seen in Canada & the US, Europe since WW2 & before even !


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 02:35 PM Reply

As I've thought about it...perhaps we need to both get rid of the electoral college and reform how we vote.

I propose that when we do away with the EC we also make it that in order to vote for our elected officials...you must also meet all qualifications for that office. It's common sense: if a person has to have a certain level of familiarity with their district, maturity, etc...should we not also require that of our electorate?

As for amendments and the like...we should allow everyone 18 years and older to vote.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 03:05 PM Reply

At 1/25/13 02:35 PM, TheMason wrote: As I've thought about it...perhaps we need to both get rid of the electoral college and reform how we vote.

I propose that when we do away with the EC we also make it that in order to vote for our elected officials...you must also meet all qualifications for that office. It's common sense: if a person has to have a certain level of familiarity with their district, maturity, etc...should we not also require that of our electorate?

Let's look at those qualifications. For the US House:

Article I, § 2
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

"Been seven years a citizen of the US" - Hm, okay, I can go with that. Means immigrants will have to gain citizenship and be civilized members of society for seven years before they can vote for the US House. Wouldn't affect anyone born in the US, at least based on this particular qualification.

Inhabitancy requirement - this only makes sense, and, to be honest, this is already in effect, at least in practice if not by law. It's why, since I live in Ohio, I can't vote against Mitch McConnell, even though I would love to.

Age requirement - The problem with your proposal is that it violates the 26th Amendment (all citizens 18+ get the chance to vote in elections). Requiring a citizen to be 25 to vote for the House goes against that principle.

The qualifications are similar for the Senate, so I won't rehash them again, but here is the relevant text from the Constitution:

Article I, § 3
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

So you would have to be 30 to vote for the US Senate... Again, 26th Amendment violation.

Article II, § 1
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

35 years old... =/ ... Not to mention this set of requirements, under your proposal, would prohibit all first generation immigrants from voting in a Presidential election after they obtain citizenship. While this would certainly be a huge victory for the GOP (imagine all those Latino voters who would be disenfranchised), it is patently unconstitutional and would return the US to a system of determining who votes that would be similar to land ownership, except in this case, you get the right to vote for President by virtue of birthright instead of citizenship status.

As for amendments and the like...we should allow everyone 18 years and older to vote.

How does that work when the requirements for office require certain age limitations? You would either have to repeal the 26th Amendment or amend the text I cited above.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 03:07 PM Reply

At 1/25/13 02:35 PM, TheMason wrote: As for amendments and the like...we should allow everyone 18 years and older to vote.

Eh, I disagree. Stupid people voting is part of the problem.

DickChick
DickChick
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 03:20 PM Reply

I agree, and it goes both ways. My vote didn't matter at all because 81% of my county voted for Romney and my state (Texas) obviously went to him.

At 1/25/13 03:07 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/25/13 02:35 PM, TheMason wrote: As for amendments and the like...we should allow everyone 18 years and older to vote.
Eh, I disagree. Stupid people voting is part of the problem.

Stupid is pretty subjective, and intelligent people disagree on political issues. No matter how much the vote is limited there will still be the same chance of a negative outcome so it might as well be equal.


Just a chick with a dick.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 03:27 PM Reply

At 1/25/13 03:20 PM, DickChick wrote: Stupid is pretty subjective, and intelligent people disagree on political issues. No matter how much the vote is limited there will still be the same chance of a negative outcome so it might as well be equal.

No, no what I mean is actual stupid people. Like people who vote based on race.

A simple 10 question quiz on basic constitutional knowledge or political history would do.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 05:40 PM Reply

At 1/25/13 03:05 PM, theburningliberal wrote: How does that work when the requirements for office require certain age limitations? You would either have to repeal the 26th Amendment or amend the text I cited above.

The age limitiations is the core of why this would give us a better republic. So they remain. By eliminating the EC you're having to amend the constitution, ergo re-work the 26th Amendment as well.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 06:52 PM Reply

At 1/25/13 03:27 PM, LemonCrush wrote: A simple 10 question quiz on basic constitutional knowledge or political history would do.

That's hardly enough. If you're going to make intelligence any factor it all, make it the proper level of intelligence. Simply knowing the gist fo a few basics does not qaulify someone to understand the difference one word can make on a law. Frankly, if you're going to use intelligence, all non-JDs should be ruled out. As, even the smartest doctors, mathmeticians, and engineers might as well be reading Greek when it comes to statutory language.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 07:57 PM Reply

At 1/25/13 06:52 PM, Camarohusky wrote: That's hardly enough. If you're going to make intelligence any factor it all, make it the proper level of intelligence. Simply knowing the gist fo a few basics does not qaulify someone to understand the difference one word can make on a law. Frankly, if you're going to use intelligence, all non-JDs should be ruled out. As, even the smartest doctors, mathmeticians, and engineers might as well be reading Greek when it comes to statutory language.

That's my point. Someone, no matter how smart, should not be able to vote in political matters, if they have no knowledge of how govt. works, history, or repercussions of what they vote for.

I have never seen so may idiots, politically, as I have in the Presidency. Bush was one thing, but at least people knew what he was about, and supported him, right or wrong. Republicans knew he was a crony capitalist, but they agreed with that policy because they believe it was right.

Obama supporters on the other hand....they don't even seem to know who Obama is, or what he does, or what he stands for. The motherfucker won a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE while simultaneously starting wars! It's not even the supporters or their beliefs, really. They say they support certain policies of his, that he doesn't even implement. It's one thing to support Obama because "Oh hey, he's making things equal for everyone"...IF he was actually doing it. The Obama that people support, this peace loving, for the people kind of guy, doesn't actually exist.

I've had Obama supporters literally say in earnest, that Romney was a racist and in the KKK. Or that he only wanted to benefit the rich.

IDK, people's ignorance of candidates and their beliefs just infuriates me to no end. It's one thing to disagree with policies. It's another thing altogether to support a candidate based on policies they don't even practice.

This isn't directed at you, or anyone here even. While we disagree about what is right, at least you know what Obama's actual policies are...and you support them. Most Obama voters I see, or meet, support this mythical Obama that doesn't even exist.

/rant

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 09:40 PM Reply

At 1/24/13 10:39 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Did they accept it? I only recall them screaming and crying about him. Wanting him impeached. Some wanting him dead.

That's out of the ordinary? I'm sure that's happened with pretty much every President in the modern era.

Others denying his presidency altogether. Democrats and Obama deserve worse.

The difference is that Bush had already prepared a concession speech, the Supreme Court had many Conservative judges with unrealistic demands and the governor of Florida was his own brother. Obama had won his states without dispute. It seems quite different to compare the two, especially since state legislatures were moving against Obama trying to pass Voter ID laws.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 10:06 PM Reply

At 1/25/13 09:40 PM, Warforger wrote: The difference is that Bush had already prepared a concession speech, the Supreme Court had many Conservative judges with unrealistic demands and the governor of Florida was his own brother. Obama had won his states without dispute. It seems quite different to compare the two, especially since state legislatures were moving against Obama trying to pass Voter ID laws.

My issue was more with what I quoted. Democrats most definitly did NOT "accept" Bush's victory. Hell, democrats are STILL blaming him for shit that Obama is fucking up for.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 25th, 2013 @ 11:07 PM Reply

At 1/25/13 10:06 PM, LemonCrush wrote: My issue was more with what I quoted. Democrats most definitly did NOT "accept" Bush's victory.

Oh really? What did they do? Demand the government be overthrown? Hell no they just let it go and moved on with Bush. Al Gore himself said so.

Hell, democrats are STILL blaming him for shit that Obama is fucking up for.

Bush made a couple many bad decisions which we're still feeling the effects of. He started two wars and mishandled both making them go on forever. And no not some of that stupid "he sent a couple of planes over" you rag on Obama about, this was Vietnam scale of wars. He himself inherited a weakening Economy (I'm talking about Bush) but wasn't able to provide any lasting improvement to it with a couple of periods of growth interrupted with more stagnation. In the process he created the largest budget deficit in history (but it wasn't entirely his fault, budget deficits occur every time there's a recession since there's less revenue, but starting two wars definitely contributed to it). I mean he wasn't stupid when it came to economic affairs, but he sure as hell was stupid when it came to foreign affairs which ties into that general theme.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 26th, 2013 @ 11:16 AM Reply

At 1/25/13 11:07 PM, Warforger wrote: Bush made a couple many bad decisions which we're still feeling the effects of.

So even though Obama is following Bush's policies EXACTLY, he gets a pass.

Explain why?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 26th, 2013 @ 11:26 AM Reply

At 1/26/13 11:16 AM, LemonCrush wrote: So even though Obama is following Bush's policies EXACTLY,

On a quick look, his policies are actually quite different So explain how they're exactly the same.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 26th, 2013 @ 11:47 AM Reply

At 1/26/13 11:26 AM, Camarohusky wrote: On a quick look, his policies are actually quite different So explain how they're exactly the same.

Corporate Welfare: He actually outdoes Bush here. Not only as he continued the rediculous catering to corporate America with TARP, Stimulus and bailout money, his a large part of his cabinet are Wall Street execs, and. worst of all, he has now made it a law that Americans give money to insurance conglomerates.

Gitmo/5th Amendment: Gitmo still open. Patriot Act expanded/extended. NDAA. Maintains a kill list (NY TImes).

Guns: Trying to restrict/alter gun rights, in response to tragedy, just like Bush did.

Oil: Obama is pro oil and nuclear energy. But when the cameras are on he's for "green energy".

War: Increased US imperialism. Authorized 20,000 drone strikes in his first term and dropped over 17,000 bombs. In comparison, in seven years, Bush authorized over 17,000. Usually targeting urban areas and villages. Invaded Libya without Congressional approval. Escalated the wars in Pakistan, Somalia, and Afghanistan. Started a war in Yemen. Selling billions in weapons to Saudi Arabia. AS of Christmas Eve, sent military brigades to over 35 african nations.

Yeah, you didn't vote for change. You voted for the same old warlord, faux capitalist you bitched about for years.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 26th, 2013 @ 06:33 PM Reply

At 1/26/13 11:26 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/26/13 11:16 AM, LemonCrush wrote: So even though Obama is following Bush's policies EXACTLY,
On a quick look, his policies are actually quite different So explain how they're exactly the same.

Bush was pretty left for his party. If you deny that you don't know the facts or are ill informed.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 26th, 2013 @ 07:08 PM Reply

At 1/26/13 11:16 AM, LemonCrush wrote: So even though Obama is following Bush's policies EXACTLY, he gets a pass.

Explain why?

He hasn't authorized a full scale invasion of another country, he hasn't forced regulations from taking place (for example Bush administration officials prevented State Attorney's from enforcing Bank regulations) etc. etc. Not even exactly.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 26th, 2013 @ 07:13 PM Reply

At 1/26/13 06:33 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Bush was pretty left for his party.

And Bush was strongly to the right for America, so what does that say about the GOP?

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 26th, 2013 @ 09:27 PM Reply

At 1/26/13 07:08 PM, Warforger wrote: He hasn't authorized a full scale invasion of another country, he hasn't forced regulations from taking place (for example Bush administration officials prevented State Attorney's from enforcing Bank regulations) etc. etc. Not even exactly.

Oh, so because his invasions weren't "full scale" then it's okay?

As for his regulations, he's loosed them on banks and industry allowing them to get away with economic murder, just as they did before.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 26th, 2013 @ 09:29 PM Reply

At 1/26/13 07:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote: And Bush was strongly to the right for America, so what does that say about the GOP?

Evidently he wasn't very "to the right" for America, because you have a large, large amount of people supporting his policies.

I guess it's okay if you're black and/or have a D next to your name?

theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 26th, 2013 @ 11:38 PM Reply

At 1/26/13 11:47 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/26/13 11:26 AM, Camarohusky wrote: On a quick look, his policies are actually quite different So explain how they're exactly the same.
Corporate Welfare: He actually outdoes Bush here. Not only as he continued the rediculous catering to corporate America with TARP, Stimulus and bailout money,

Much of the TARP money has been repaid to the Treasury, most notably by Chrysler and AIG. By the time the recovery process is complete, the Treasury will actually have a net gain on the whole TARP/auto bailouts. Part of what Senate Democrats are doing is using the Budget process to trim the tax code, closing loopholes and just generally simplifying it, along with trying to identify areas to cut spending that will hopefully help provide a middle ground with House Republicans.

his a large part of his cabinet are Wall Street execs, and. worst of all, he has now made it a law that Americans give money to insurance conglomerates.

First, let's clarify. None of those currently in or being nominated to the President's Cabinet are current CEO's. Secondly, even if they were, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Having experience in business and finance is important, even critically so for some Cabinet positions.

Gitmo/5th Amendment: Gitmo still open. Patriot Act expanded/extended. NDAA. Maintains a kill list (NY TImes).

NDAA the president opposed but signed in order to continue to pay the bills of the military. Closing gitmo has been made impractical, even through executive order, through statutory language Congressional Republicans have added (and continue to add every time they pass an appropriations bill) regarding the status of Gitmo. Some provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act have lapsed, and others will expire soon.

Guns: Trying to restrict/alter gun rights, in response to tragedy, just like Bush did.

Which is constitutionally permissible, US v. Miller & DC. v. Heller...

Oil: Obama is pro oil and nuclear energy. But when the cameras are on he's for "green energy".

He has instituted many green energy programs through his first Administration, including R&D funding, new infrastructure to support a 21st century civilization, tax credits for green energy purchases (cars, upgrades to homes, etc...).

War: Increased US imperialism. Authorized 20,000 drone strikes in his first term and dropped over 17,000 bombs. In comparison, in seven years, Bush authorized over 17,000. Usually targeting urban areas and villages. Invaded Libya without Congressional approval. Escalated the wars in Pakistan, Somalia, and Afghanistan. Started a war in Yemen. Selling billions in weapons to Saudi Arabia. AS of Christmas Eve, sent military brigades to over 35 african nations.

Under the War Powers Resolution, President Obama used every bit of authority the Constitution and statute allowed the President to have. More to the point, the US involvement in Libya was majorly over by April, within the 90 days allowed by the War Powers resolution, even assuming it applied. Simply put, the ways our military was used in Libya falls short of "full-blown hostilities" including a lack of "sustained fighting or active exchanges of gunfire between ground troops." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?
pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'll agree on the drone strikes, that is bullshit and needs to stop. Obama has made clear the use of drone strikes is temporary, but as you point out, he has done little to slow/stop their use.

Overall, though, considering the US hasn't involved itself in new instances of direct nation-building (like Iraq) or openly invaded another country, with or without good reason (like Afghanistan), and has only used military influence (aside from drone strikes) to close the war in Iraq, make significant strides in speeding a US exit in Afghanistan and to promote the development of new government by the citizens of the countries in areas where we had previously struggled with foreign policy - Libya being a prime example (remember the problems in Libya circa 04-06?), I would have to say our level of imperialism has dramatically been reduced.

Yeah, you didn't vote for change. You voted for the same old warlord, faux capitalist you bitched about for years.

No, not really/

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 27th, 2013 @ 12:30 AM Reply

At 1/26/13 11:38 PM, theburningliberal wrote: Much of the TARP money has been repaid to the Treasury, most notably by Chrysler and AIG. By the time the recovery process is complete, the Treasury will actually have a net gain on the whole TARP/auto bailouts. Part of what Senate Democrats are doing is using the Budget process to trim the tax code, closing loopholes and just generally simplifying it, along with trying to identify areas to cut spending that will hopefully help provide a middle ground with House Republicans.

A) TARP money was repaid with more borrowed money, as was the bailout. But all of this is irrelevant anyway, as the government shouldn't be involved in industry to begin with. I remember a short time ago that Democrats used to agree.

First, let's clarify. None of those currently in or being nominated to the President's Cabinet are current CEO's. Secondly, even if they were, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Having experience in business and finance is important, even critically so for some Cabinet positions.

Former CEO's with pensions. Again, the president being connected to CEO's was a bad thing only a few years ago.

NDAA the president opposed but signed in order to continue to pay the bills of the military. Closing gitmo has been made impractical, even through executive order, through statutory language Congressional Republicans have added (and continue to add every time they pass an appropriations bill) regarding the status of Gitmo. Some provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act have lapsed, and others will expire soon.

He opposed NDAA? You know what presidents do when they oppose something? THEY DON'T FUCKING SIGN IT. As for Gitmo being impractical...why keep it open? No matter what answer you give, there's still a bunch of innocent people being imprisoned with no day in court.

Which is constitutionally permissible, US v. Miller & DC. v. Heller...

Bill of Rights trumps that

He has instituted many green energy programs through his first Administration, including R&D funding, new infrastructure to support a 21st century civilization, tax credits for green energy purchases (cars, upgrades to homes, etc...).

He has also supported/authorized deep water drilling, promotes coal, and nuclear energy. I actually agree with these stances...but he ran against him and his supporters are hugely opposed to them.

Under the War Powers Resolution, President Obama used every bit of authority the Constitution and statute allowed the President to have. More to the point, the US involvement in Libya was majorly over by April, within the 90 days allowed by the War Powers resolution, even assuming it applied. Simply put, the ways our military was used in Libya falls short of "full-blown hostilities" including a lack of "sustained fighting or active exchanges of gunfire between ground troops." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?
pagewanted=all&_r=0

Exactly. 90 days.

Either way, the WPA is bullshit to begin with, created by warmongers to get around legitimate authorizations and declarations of war.

I'll agree on the drone strikes, that is bullshit and needs to stop. Obama has made clear the use of drone strikes is temporary, but as you point out, he has done little to slow/stop their use.

Exactly

Overall, though, considering the US hasn't involved itself in new instances of direct nation-building (like Iraq) or openly invaded another country, with or without good reason (like Afghanistan), and has only used military influence (aside from drone strikes) to close the war in Iraq, make significant strides in speeding a US exit in Afghanistan and to promote the development of new government by the citizens of the countries in areas where we had previously struggled with foreign policy - Libya being a prime example (remember the problems in Libya circa 04-06?), I would have to say our level of imperialism has dramatically been reduced.

Imperialism is imperialism no matter how small. Obama supporters can try to downplay it, but at the end of the day, innocent people are still dying at the hands of Obama's orders. I for one, oppose all military actions unless the US is directly threatened, IE, WW2. I do not support sending our people to go kill others or have themselves killed, for means of political games, as Obama, and evidently, his supporters, seem to be okay with.

As history has been teaching us for almost 100 years, govt. building ALWAYS bites us in the ass. ALWAYS. You do know that nearly every mid-east bad guy we face today, was funded by us in the first place, right? Time to stop wasting billions funding revolutionaries and governments that will turn their back on us in a couple decades. WE have given so much to those countries, and they do nothing but spit on us. It's time to bring our troops home, stop giving our money to those who want to kill, and fix our own damn govt. before we start building other ones.

No, not really/

You haven't really contradicted anything I've said. You've basically just said "Oh neo-con policies are okay under Obama, because he does them a little differently'

theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 27th, 2013 @ 10:58 AM Reply

At 1/27/13 12:30 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/26/13 11:38 PM, theburningliberal wrote: Much of the TARP money has been repaid to the Treasury, most notably by Chrysler and AIG. By the time the recovery process is complete, the Treasury will actually have a net gain on the whole TARP/auto bailouts. Part of what Senate Democrats are doing is using the Budget process to trim the tax code, closing loopholes and just generally simplifying it, along with trying to identify areas to cut spending that will hopefully help provide a middle ground with House Republicans.
A) TARP money was repaid with more borrowed money, as was the bailout. But all of this is irrelevant anyway, as the government shouldn't be involved in industry to begin with. I remember a short time ago that Democrats used to agree.

TARP money was repaid with interest out of the retained earnings that those companies has started earning following the federal bailout of those banks, same with the bailout itself. And generally I would agree with you that government shouldn't be involved in industry, but given how TARP/the auto bailouts have turned out, I think it was worth the risk for the government to step in and stabilize those companies rather than letting the leak that sprung in our proverbial economic bubble become a gushing guyser.

Former CEO's with pensions. Again, the president being connected to CEO's was a bad thing only a few years ago.

To active CEO's, and many of the Obama appointees are deferring their CEO pensions while they are in office to avoid a conflict of interest, something that Bush appointees didnt even consider. Not to mention that circa 2007-8, the actions of a few CEO's gave everyone in that position a bad name.

He opposed NDAA? You know what presidents do when they oppose something? THEY DON'T FUCKING SIGN IT. As for Gitmo being impractical...why keep it open? No matter what answer you give, there's still a bunch of innocent people being imprisoned with no day in court.

So taking an ideological stand is more important than funding our military while it is involved in overseas operations? With Gitmo, it is not Gitmo itself that is impractical, the process of closing it is impractical because of statutory language that House Republicans continue to pass in appropriations bills that leaves no room for the President to do anything about Gitmo and still keep tabs on the detainees there.

Which is constitutionally permissible, US v. Miller & DC. v. Heller...
Bill of Rights trumps that

Let's review, shall we? The Bill of Rights sets out standards for rights, talking about which ones we have, how they are administered and which ones the government shouldn't be allowed to touch. Now, the constitution also sets up the Supreme Court which has the authority (both under Marbury v. Madison and Article III, Section 2) to review and interpret the laws under which our government is established. In the specific cases of US v. Miller and DC v. Heller, those cases provide a new standard from which we view our second amendment rights. Under that lens, the second amendment is "not unlimited" and can be curtailed in certain situations, depending on the factors. Heller & Miller combined give us a standard of "uncommon" and "unusual" when it comes to second amendment rights, and the case also makes clear that it is the duty of the gun owners to prove these weapons are NOT uncommon and are NOT unusual. This is the current interpretation of the Supreme Court, and just because you don't like it / don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong.

He has also supported/authorized deep water drilling, promotes coal, and nuclear energy. I actually agree with these stances...but he ran against him and his supporters are hugely opposed to them.

That's called an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence. Focusing our areas on new, unproven technologies while completely abandoning centuries of use of coal and oil overnight would be catastrophic. Until most of the country is more reliant on green technology and less reliant on traditional sources of energy, we can't just walk away from investments we've made over the last century, although we can (as in the case of deep water drilling and coal) begin to draw down our reliance on those technologies as other forms of energy become more prominent.

Under the War Powers Resolution, President Obama used every bit of authority the Constitution and statute allowed the President to have. More to the point, the US involvement in Libya was majorly over by April, within the 90 days allowed by the War Powers resolution, even assuming it applied. Simply put, the ways our military was used in Libya falls short of "full-blown hostilities" including a lack of "sustained fighting or active exchanges of gunfire between ground troops." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?
pagewanted=all&_r=0
Exactly. 90 days.

Major operations were over inside the 90-day window. After that, our involvement fell to a level that didn't meet the requirement envisioned by the WPA.

Either way, the WPA is bullshit to begin with, created by warmongers to get around legitimate authorizations and declarations of war.

The WPA is another limit placed on the executive power to control the military and how it is used. If the Executive fails to justify a major military operation to Congress within the time window established, Congress can recall American troops to prevent more military deaths in a war that failed to meet any kind of political legitimacy. How is that a bad thing?

Imperialism is imperialism no matter how small. Obama supporters can try to downplay it, but at the end of the day, innocent people are still dying at the hands of Obama's orders. I for one, oppose all military actions unless the US is directly threatened, IE, WW2. I do not support sending our people to go kill others or have themselves killed, for means of political games, as Obama, and evidently, his supporters, seem to be okay with.

The problem with your argument is that in the 21st century, with rapid globalization of the economy and the interconnectedness of all countries, there is a lot more now that constitutes a 'direct threat' to American interests than what was possible 70 years ago. A destabilizing situation in just about any given country is a threat to American interests (something Obama was wise enough to realize when he sent US forces to fill a short-term, stabilizing role in Libya). That is also why he kept our involvement small-scale and temporary, under the command of NATO forces.

As history has been teaching us for almost 100 years, govt. building ALWAYS bites us in the ass. ALWAYS. You do know that nearly every mid-east bad guy we face today, was funded by us in the first place, right? Time to stop wasting billions funding revolutionaries and governments that will turn their back on us in a couple decades. WE have given so much to those countries, and they do nothing but spit on us. It's time to bring our troops home, stop giving our money to those who want to kill, and fix our own damn govt. before we start building other ones.

First off, there is a difference between reacting to democratic movements underway in other countries and instigating them. In Libya, we got involved only after Libyan rebels were close to ousting Gaddafi, in the same manner that the French got involved after we showed we had the ability to win the Revolution. In Iraq, we stepped in and basically brought them democracy, without any strong movement in place already fighting for what we were bringing. Instances like Libya are how we need to promote American values abroad, rather than imposing them as we did in Iraq.


No, not really/
You haven't really contradicted anything I've said. You've basically just said "Oh neo-con policies are okay under Obama, because he does them a little differently'

These aren't neo-con policies, you just think they are because you see only what you want to see.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 27th, 2013 @ 12:05 PM Reply

At 1/27/13 10:58 AM, theburningliberal wrote: TARP money was repaid with interest out of the retained earnings that those companies has started earning following the federal bailout of those banks, same with the bailout itself. And generally I would agree with you that government shouldn't be involved in industry, but given how TARP/the auto bailouts have turned out, I think it was worth the risk for the government to step in and stabilize those companies rather than letting the leak that sprung in our proverbial economic bubble become a gushing guyser.

It wouldn't have become a gyser at all. That propaganda BS. Notice how every other troubled automaker seemed to make it out okay? The problem was not the auto industry, it was ONE company who were too greedy to sell off or reformat. Same with the banks.

Now, if it were an industry wide issue, I may agree with you. But it wasn't. It was one stubborn company who was unwilling to look at alternatives. And the knew they could get it, because Obama is a union shill

To active CEO's, and many of the Obama appointees are deferring their CEO pensions while they are in office to avoid a conflict of interest, something that Bush appointees didnt even consider. Not to mention that circa 2007-8, the actions of a few CEO's gave everyone in that position a bad name.

Again, it's only okay because Obama does it a little differently? lol okay.

So taking an ideological stand is more important than funding our military while it is involved in overseas operations? With Gitmo, it is not Gitmo itself that is impractical, the process of closing it is impractical because of statutory language that House Republicans continue to pass in appropriations bills that leaves no room for the President to do anything about Gitmo and still keep tabs on the detainees there.

We wouldn't need more military funding if we weren't starting wars all over the goddamn place, and weren't using our military as police.

So, when are democrats gonna stop blaming republicans for everything?

Let's review, shall we? The Bill of Rights sets out standards for rights, talking about which ones we have, how they are administered and which ones the government shouldn't be allowed to touch.

The Bill of Rights is inalienable, and while I'm no constitutional scholar, I'm 99% sure that is is impossible to legally alter it.

That's called an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence. Focusing our areas on new, unproven technologies while completely abandoning centuries of use of coal and oil overnight would be catastrophic. Until most of the country is more reliant on green technology and less reliant on traditional sources of energy, we can't just walk away from investments we've made over the last century, although we can (as in the case of deep water drilling and coal) begin to draw down our reliance on those technologies as other forms of energy become more prominent.

We agree. But he doesn't word things this way, nor did he campaign this way. I remember specific speeches where he demonized the coal industry where he said he was actually going to raise taxes on fossil fuels.

Major operations were over inside the 90-day window. After that, our involvement fell to a level that didn't meet the requirement envisioned by the WPA.

We're still bombing Yemen, which was started Nov. 7. More than 90 days ago

We're still bombing Somalia, which was started January 2012. More than 90 days ago.

The WPA is another limit placed on the executive power to control the military and how it is used. If the Executive fails to justify a major military operation to Congress within the time window established, Congress can recall American troops to prevent more military deaths in a war that failed to meet any kind of political legitimacy. How is that a bad thing?

The WPA is not a limit. It's just the opposite. It allows the president to get into quagmires that are illegal. Congress has not legally declared or authorized a war since 1942. And every war since the WPA was passed, has been longer than 90 days. Hell, the Afghan war is the LONGEST continuous conflict in US history.

The problem with your argument is that in the 21st century, with rapid globalization of the economy and the interconnectedness of all countries, there is a lot more now that constitutes a 'direct threat' to American interests than what was possible 70 years ago. A destabilizing situation in just about any given country is a threat to American interests (something Obama was wise enough to realize when he sent US forces to fill a short-term, stabilizing role in Libya). That is also why he kept our involvement small-scale and temporary, under the command of NATO forces.

Bullshit. Planes in our airspace. Subs or ships off our shores. Ok. A destabilizing situation is not threatening to the US if we actually put our military where it should be, which is protecting OUR borders, not the borders of some middle eastern dictatorship.

You're buying into Obama's pro-war propaganda.

First off, there is a difference between reacting to democratic movements underway in other countries and instigating them. In Libya, we got involved only after Libyan rebels were close to ousting Gaddafi, in the same manner that the French got involved after we showed we had the ability to win the Revolution. In Iraq, we stepped in and basically brought them democracy, without any strong movement in place already fighting for what we were bringing. Instances like Libya are how we need to promote American values abroad, rather than imposing them as we did in Iraq.

We should NEVER had gotten involved with Libya. If there was ever a point, it was in the 70's when Gaddhafi killed Americans. But now, no. It wasn't our fight, we had no business there. Just as we have no business in Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran, which is or latest sabre-rattling venture.

As for "bringing democracy" overseas...yeah, that's what bites us in the ass. You remember that we installed Saddam, right? And paid Osama? And the current Iranian power structure?

We do not need to be promoting our values overseas, for two big reasons. A) They do not want it. B) We have to force it on them by killing them.

These aren't neo-con policies, you just think they are because you see only what you want to see.

No, they're neo-con policies. I know because that's what Democrats werre calling them under Bush. And that's what they were calling them when Romney ran on them.

scoutthesoldier
scoutthesoldier
  • Member since: Jul. 25, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Get rid of electoral colleges Jan. 27th, 2013 @ 01:24 PM Reply

Yes, we should get rid of the Electoral College with a petition or something. The whole reason the Electoral College is here is because back in the day, everyone was too stupid to decide on who to vote for. But now, we are all pretty smart people, so we should get rid of them.


That Scout is a Soldier!

BBS Signature