Other Resources The Political Joe » President for life Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 3
 
 
2018-03-06 5:03 PM
in reply to: Bob Loblaw

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

You imply that there's no need to fight for Democracy in America, yet the party you champion is doing everything it can to undermine the very foundation which we've been built upon.  The 1st Amendment is under attack by the Democratic Party.  The 2nd Amendment is under attack by the Democratic Party.  The 4th Amendment is under attack by the Democratic Party. The 15th Amendment is under attack by the Democratic Party.  Our free and fair elections are under attack by the Democratic Party.
But yeah, we should ignore all that and go bomb some other countries and try to overthrow their governments in stead.  /eyeroll

The 2nd, ok. The 1st and 4th, if you say so. But the 15th? You sure about that? "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Which race are the democrats try to suppress the vote of?

The first is the oppression of any speech that isn't progressive in nature.  Ban all conservative speakers from campus, ban conservatives from facebook, shame and mock anyone who dares say anything in support of Trump.  I know many of you don't see it, but just as an experiment try to post something positive about Trump on FB and let me know how that works out for you. 
People are not allowed to speak or say anything outside of the liberal doctrine is the mantra of the left.  Most of the attacks are under the guise of political correctness.  You can't say that because it's "offensive".

If my vote is being devalued through a party's attempt to allow illegal (non-citizen) aliens to vote then my vote is under attack. 
Most Democrats Think Illegal Immigrants Should Vote

Illegal immigrants get OK to vote in Maryland city's elections

NY Democrats seek citizen rights for illegal immigrants

 

 

Banning all conservative speakers from campus, banning conservatives from facebook, or shaming and mocking anyone who dares say anything in support of Trump literally has absolutely nothing to do with the 1A. 

And there's nothing in the Constitution does it prohibit non-citizens from voting. There's a federal law that does for federal elections, but nothing stating that some random city in Maryland can't allow illegals from voting in local elections. It's up to each state to decide who they want voting in their elections. States rights for the win!

banning free speech has nothing to do with free speech?  um...

Those were state examples I cited, but illegals are also voting in federal elections in quiet substantial numbers and the Democratic Party doesn't have a problem with it for some strange reason.  ;-)

Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016

 



2018-03-06 5:26 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
10143
5000500010025
Alabama
Subject: RE: President for life
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy Ahhh, so your wife is restricting your 2nd Amendment rights. Is she ... a Democrat? (Horror)

She's a pretty conservative lady overall, but at times I have to scratch my head.  She got upset at me several years ago when she found out that not everyone in my company makes the same salary.  She couldn't comprehend it and insisted that I pay everyone the same salary.  That was the last time I mentioned employee salaries to her.  hah




I was sitting in a design review all day today with about 40 engineers. There were 3 females....and one of them was and OA type flipping charts. These are people from all over the country from several companies and the government. Most of these people are very well compensated. So when I hear about the disparity of income levels I point to engineering. The female engineers make comparable salaries with male engineers with like experience. When I was an engineering manager I only had a few female engineers. Some were brilliant engineers! I think if woman want equal pay they need to pursue technical careers.

I mentioned this before but since the Oscars brought it up again.....they claimed at the Oscars that actresses make on average of 30% of what big star male actors make. I think there are 2 reasons. One is there are a lot more drop-dead gorgeous woman than there are dashingly handsome young men in Hollywood. So simple supply and demand. Two, the shelf-life of a actress is shorter than an actor. I think Robert Redford is about 112 and woman still find him handsome. Same with Tom Selleck and Same Elliot. I like Betty White but the good looks train left the station 50 years ago. And reason C is because of the types of movies that people want to see. A lot more call for 007, Jack Reacher.....badass types....like Bruce Willis, Pincino, Costner, Denzel, Tom Cruise than for aging females. Daniel Craig has a better physique at 50 than I had at 24! Sure some woman have held up....but not nearly the number as men. How many movies do you see with the lead role being a female? Again, driven by what type of movies the pubic wants to see.
2018-03-06 5:45 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Champion
10143
5000500010025
Alabama
Subject: RE: President for life
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

You imply that there's no need to fight for Democracy in America, yet the party you champion is doing everything it can to undermine the very foundation which we've been built upon.  The 1st Amendment is under attack by the Democratic Party.  The 2nd Amendment is under attack by the Democratic Party.  The 4th Amendment is under attack by the Democratic Party. The 15th Amendment is under attack by the Democratic Party.  Our free and fair elections are under attack by the Democratic Party.
But yeah, we should ignore all that and go bomb some other countries and try to overthrow their governments in stead.  /eyeroll

The 2nd, ok. The 1st and 4th, if you say so. But the 15th? You sure about that? "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Which race are the democrats try to suppress the vote of?

The first is the oppression of any speech that isn't progressive in nature.  Ban all conservative speakers from campus, ban conservatives from facebook, shame and mock anyone who dares say anything in support of Trump.  I know many of you don't see it, but just as an experiment try to post something positive about Trump on FB and let me know how that works out for you. 
People are not allowed to speak or say anything outside of the liberal doctrine is the mantra of the left.  Most of the attacks are under the guise of political correctness.  You can't say that because it's "offensive".

If my vote is being devalued through a party's attempt to allow illegal (non-citizen) aliens to vote then my vote is under attack. 
Most Democrats Think Illegal Immigrants Should Vote

Illegal immigrants get OK to vote in Maryland city's elections

NY Democrats seek citizen rights for illegal immigrants

 

 

Banning all conservative speakers from campus, banning conservatives from facebook, or shaming and mocking anyone who dares say anything in support of Trump literally has absolutely nothing to do with the 1A. 

And there's nothing in the Constitution does it prohibit non-citizens from voting. There's a federal law that does for federal elections, but nothing stating that some random city in Maryland can't allow illegals from voting in local elections. It's up to each state to decide who they want voting in their elections. States rights for the win!

banning free speech has nothing to do with free speech?  um...

Those were state examples I cited, but illegals are also voting in federal elections in quiet substantial numbers and the Democratic Party doesn't have a problem with it for some strange reason.  ;-)

Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016

 





It does when it is a government supported institution. Remember the 1st amendment is about gubment censoring free speech. This is the same reason public schools can't sponsor prayer as it 'endorses religion'. So why should someone be censored at state supported university? Private universities, yes....if ORU doesn't want an atheist or a Satanist to speak, they have a right to not invite him. But if a tax payer funded university is deciding someone can't speechify because they are too conservative that is a violation of the 1st amendment, IMNSHO.

My biggest concern is we are moving away from the liberties we all thought were inalienable and granted by our Creator. Who the hail are you (in general) to tell me what I cannot think, feel or say? If I want to hate Jews (I don't!) that I my right. If I want to hate terrorists, pedophiles, rapists I can. If I think the Confederate flag honors fallen Americans that is my opinion. If I think homosexual marriage is wrong that is what I believe. If you think whites are superior to blacks I will disagree but respect your right to believe as you believe and speak about your beliefs. I might counter your white superiority by pointing to the NFL and NBA and you might argue back with the US Olympic swim team. Point is, we are at LIBERTY to believe as we choose and to voice our minds no matter how unpopular our positions might be.

The bottom line is there will ALWAYS be bigotry and prejudice in the world. It is human nature and you might teach/shame people into not sharing their views but you will never stop it. Ever. To think otherwise is ignorance gone to seed.





Edited by Rogillio 2018-03-06 5:51 PM
2018-03-06 6:24 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15646
50005000500050010025
Subject: RE: President for life
I do believe the big voices on the left want to change the constitition....they have blatantly expressed that desire on the 2nd amendment, and their actions show that they'd like to, and have/will, limit speech. I don't see how a country this damn divided goes forward without a reckoning of some sort. I hope not, but it feels like that's where we're headed. It'll be ugly, but I mostly feel we might as well get on with it instead of leaving it for our kids.

Edited by Left Brain 2018-03-06 6:25 PM
2018-03-06 8:03 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: President for life

you do realize we had to change the constitution (the 13th amendment) to end slavery right? amendments to the constitution are necessary when things change from when it was written.  Like you know, have muskets to having AR-15's.

2018-03-06 8:46 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
15646
50005000500050010025
Subject: RE: President for life
We won't give up the latest technology in weapons, Dave....not any more than the framers would give up their latest technology in weapons....just forget about it. There are 10's of millions of AR-15's in circulation....and this is causing millions more to be purchased....you'll not get them.....because you won't stop at the 2nd amendment and, ultimately, that's what they are for. That's why the amendment was written. As I said, I hope it never comes to that.....but I've watched as the left loses its mind over not getting their way.....I'll keep my guns, thanks.


2018-03-06 8:51 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
15646
50005000500050010025
Subject: RE: President for life
And Dave, you DO realize the 13th was added, right? Our supreme court has ruled on the 2nd....you're not taking it away.
2018-03-07 6:40 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: President for life
Nobody, other than some bomb throwers on the left, is talking about taking away the 2A. However, we do have to recognize that all of the rights granted by the constitution do have guardrails. You cannot scream fire in a crowded theater, you cannot own an atomic bomb. It is how high and strong to make those guardrails where our society struggles. As far as the 2nd amendment goes, the gun lobby has made anything that touches guns politically taboo for years. Some of this is clearly protecting 2A and is warranted, some things such as reasonable expansions and strengthening of background checks, sale of high capacity magazines, and the push for "concealed carry" across state lines are issues that many states do not support but have little control over as we do not have walls between our states.

Because I care about this issue, I have been listening to a lot of people with a voice in the public square and I think that the pressure for some change has never been greater. We'll see is Washington will be persuaded to thaw a bit on this issue and make some changes urged by the majority.
2018-03-07 8:04 AM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Champion
10143
5000500010025
Alabama
Subject: RE: President for life
You can scream fire in a crowded theater...provided there is a fire. :-)

Problem as I see it is we are not a democracy we are a represented republic. The public is fickle and often will the majority is wrong. At one time he majority supported segregation, woman voting, SSM etc. We have a constitution to protect the rights of everyone....even the 0.1% of the population that like to shoot AR-15s at the range.
2018-03-07 9:27 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
15646
50005000500050010025
Subject: RE: President for life

The 2nd amendment was not put in place to protect people who like to shoot AR-15's at the range.  It was not put in place to protect people who like to hunt. It was put in place so that the people could protect themselves from tyranny.  I practice at the range, as every responsible gun owner should IMO.  But, the honest truth is, I don't keep AR-15's because I like to shoot them, I keep them because they are easy to maintain and build, and they are superb killing machines in the right hands. I have guns for hunting, for target shooting, and for collecting.  I have AR-15's in case I need to kill people to protect myself or my family.  I hope with all of my being that it never happens.

Oyster - I disagree that it's only the "bomb throwers" who want the 2nd amendment repealed.  Go back and read dmiller's post.  The only reason to say that the constitution has been changed before is to make the point that it can be changed again.  There can be no doubt that there is a movement in this country to change, if not re-write altogether, the constitution.  If you don't think so I can give you some folks to follow on social media in a PM.  (dmiller is not one of them   I have met Dave and he's a good man.  I think he's misguided on this issue, but we don't have to agree)

I'm not a conspiracy guy.....I don't have to be.....I have guns.  Nobody is changing the Constitution.  It's the reason for the 2nd amendment.

2018-03-07 10:08 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: President for life
Originally posted by Rogillio

You can scream fire in a crowded theater...provided there is a fire. :-)

Problem as I see it is we are not a democracy we are a represented republic. The public is fickle and often will the majority is wrong. At one time he majority supported segregation, woman voting, SSM etc. We have a constitution to protect the rights of everyone....even the 0.1% of the population that like to shoot AR-15s at the range.

I think what you meant to compare was federalism (dual vs cooperative), as the definition between a republic and a democracy is pretty close (see below). Nevertheless, our federalism may be one of the problems. States are free to enact their own laws and as long as those laws only affect those in that state then everything is fine, no harm-no foul. However, some issues (such as guns and drugs) can migrate from one state to another, making the concept of a omnipotent overseeing federal government necessary. However, to do its job effectively, this situation likely require the federal gov't to enact laws that will upset one state to the favor of another state. I cannot think of a better example than the current gun control debate.

From wikipedia:
Republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives.
Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.


2018-03-07 10:13 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: President for life
Originally posted by Left Brain

The 2nd amendment was not put in place to protect people who like to shoot AR-15's at the range.  It was not put in place to protect people who like to hunt. It was put in place so that the people could protect themselves from tyranny.  I practice at the range, as every responsible gun owner should IMO.  But, the honest truth is, I don't keep AR-15's because I like to shoot them, I keep them because they are easy to maintain and build, and they are superb killing machines in the right hands. I have guns for hunting, for target shooting, and for collecting.  I have AR-15's in case I need to kill people to protect myself or my family.  I hope with all of my being that it never happens.

Oyster - I disagree that it's only the "bomb throwers" who want the 2nd amendment repealed.  Go back and read dmiller's post.  The only reason to say that the constitution has been changed before is to make the point that it can be changed again.  There can be no doubt that there is a movement in this country to change, if not re-write altogether, the constitution.  If you don't think so I can give you some folks to follow on social media in a PM.  (dmiller is not one of them   I have met Dave and he's a good man.  I think he's misguided on this issue, but we don't have to agree)

I'm not a conspiracy guy.....I don't have to be.....I have guns.  Nobody is changing the Constitution.  It's the reason for the 2nd amendment.



Dave's in some good company:

"Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. "

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison, Sept 1789
2018-03-07 10:34 AM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by Rogillio You can scream fire in a crowded theater...provided there is a fire. :-) Problem as I see it is we are not a democracy we are a represented republic. The public is fickle and often will the majority is wrong. At one time he majority supported segregation, woman voting, SSM etc. We have a constitution to protect the rights of everyone....even the 0.1% of the population that like to shoot AR-15s at the range.
I think what you meant to compare was federalism (dual vs cooperative), as the definition between a republic and a democracy is pretty close (see below). Nevertheless, our federalism may be one of the problems. States are free to enact their own laws and as long as those laws only affect those in that state then everything is fine, no harm-no foul. However, some issues (such as guns and drugs) can migrate from one state to another, making the concept of a omnipotent overseeing federal government necessary. However, to do its job effectively, this situation likely require the federal gov't to enact laws that will upset one state to the favor of another state. I cannot think of a better example than the current gun control debate. From wikipedia: Republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives. Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

I guess I'm ok with that as long as we enact laws that are inline with the majority of states.  ;-)

2018-03-07 10:38 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: President for life
2018-03-07 10:41 AM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Pro
15646
50005000500050010025
Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by Left Brain

The 2nd amendment was not put in place to protect people who like to shoot AR-15's at the range.  It was not put in place to protect people who like to hunt. It was put in place so that the people could protect themselves from tyranny.  I practice at the range, as every responsible gun owner should IMO.  But, the honest truth is, I don't keep AR-15's because I like to shoot them, I keep them because they are easy to maintain and build, and they are superb killing machines in the right hands. I have guns for hunting, for target shooting, and for collecting.  I have AR-15's in case I need to kill people to protect myself or my family.  I hope with all of my being that it never happens.

Oyster - I disagree that it's only the "bomb throwers" who want the 2nd amendment repealed.  Go back and read dmiller's post.  The only reason to say that the constitution has been changed before is to make the point that it can be changed again.  There can be no doubt that there is a movement in this country to change, if not re-write altogether, the constitution.  If you don't think so I can give you some folks to follow on social media in a PM.  (dmiller is not one of them   I have met Dave and he's a good man.  I think he's misguided on this issue, but we don't have to agree)

I'm not a conspiracy guy.....I don't have to be.....I have guns.  Nobody is changing the Constitution.  It's the reason for the 2nd amendment.

Dave's in some good company: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. " Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison, Sept 1789

Yeah, good thing that never caught on.....what else you got?  How about we just follow our laws and constitution and not cherry pick quotes to fit our opinion as needed. To me, that's part of the problem.......you should post that on twitter somewhere and watch the wings it gets......that could end up being the best laugh of my day.  

What the heck, I'll play too..........

Let's use this from your boy Jefferson -"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. —Thomas Jefferson"

Or how about this from Madison -  "The important distinction so well understood in America, between a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. — James Madison"

Wait, there's this from Washington (let me know when you want me to stop) - "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. — George Washington"

I am a direct descendant of people who fled their country because they had no way to defend themselves from a govt. that had become tyrannical.  They found freedom here and built a family.  We're not leaving if it happens here.  That's why they came.

 

 

 

 

2018-03-07 12:01 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
15646
50005000500050010025
Subject: RE: President for life

Here's another, on this fine "quote day" ..........It's from Kitty Werthmann.  If you don't know who she is, look it up.

“Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

“No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

“Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.”

“This is my eye-witness account.

“It’s true. Those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.

“America is truly is the greatest country in the world.

“Don’t let freedom slip away.

“After America, there is no place to go.”

To be clear, I don't "cling" to my guns or religion.  I just have them in case you think you can just take my or my family's freedom.  I hope they never fire a shot in anger.......so should anyone who thinks they can take them.

I have posted before that I have never even considered joining the NRA......I'm now reconsidering that for the first time.  I'll likely at least send them a check. 

 

 



2018-03-07 1:29 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
10143
5000500010025
Alabama
Subject: RE: President for life
Originally posted by Left Brain

Here's another, on this fine "quote day" ..........It's from Kitty Werthmann.  If you don't know who she is, look it up.

“Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

“No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

“Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.”

“This is my eye-witness account.

“It’s true. Those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.

“America is truly is the greatest country in the world.

“Don’t let freedom slip away.

“After America, there is no place to go.”

To be clear, I don't "cling" to my guns or religion.  I just have them in case you think you can just take my or my family's freedom.  I hope they never fire a shot in anger.......so should anyone who thinks they can take them.

I have posted before that I have never even considered joining the NRA......I'm now reconsidering that for the first time.  I'll likely at least send them a check. 

 

 





You get gift when you join. Knife or gym bag. Also get your choice of hunting magazine or guns and ammo mag.

2018-03-07 1:31 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: President for life

I truly believe that those who want to take away gun ownership aren't bad people, they just feel our planet has progressed far enough along that they're no longer required.  People aren't invading countries to kill all their people anymore and governments are for the most part civil.  It is a valid argument, but the part people don't realize is that the reason all these things are progressing is because of people with guns.  The US and our allies have created this stability by the use of a very heavy hand that involved the killing of hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions).  As the US and our allies have gotten weaker and less likely to intervene the world has gotten more dangerous because the fear of the heavy hand has subsided.
Rest assured if the US dismantled our military and turned in our guns we would be invaded in no time because evil still exists and power corrupts.  We as citizens don't have guns to hunt with, we have guns to ensure that our government doesn't get any bright ideas.  Sure, we don't have nukes, but a well regulated militia can take down the largest military in the world.  (cough, vietnam)
The other cool part is that the majority of the military is very patriotic and would likely be fighting on the side of the people if they were ever ordered to do large scale bad stuff against US citizens.  It's not tinfoil hat stuff, it's the reality of history.  If you deny history and want to believe everyone will just be good if we disarm then a person is welcome to believe that, but it doesn't change reality.

2018-03-07 1:47 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: President for life
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by Rogillio You can scream fire in a crowded theater...provided there is a fire. :-) Problem as I see it is we are not a democracy we are a represented republic. The public is fickle and often will the majority is wrong. At one time he majority supported segregation, woman voting, SSM etc. We have a constitution to protect the rights of everyone....even the 0.1% of the population that like to shoot AR-15s at the range.
I think what you meant to compare was federalism (dual vs cooperative), as the definition between a republic and a democracy is pretty close (see below). Nevertheless, our federalism may be one of the problems. States are free to enact their own laws and as long as those laws only affect those in that state then everything is fine, no harm-no foul. However, some issues (such as guns and drugs) can migrate from one state to another, making the concept of a omnipotent overseeing federal government necessary. However, to do its job effectively, this situation likely require the federal gov't to enact laws that will upset one state to the favor of another state. I cannot think of a better example than the current gun control debate. From wikipedia: Republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives. Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

I guess I'm ok with that as long as we enact laws that are inline with the majority of states.  ;-)



But since we don't vote by the acreage, a population-based map is a better representative of the point you want to make.





(statepop1024.png)



Attachments
----------------
statepop1024.png (137KB - 1 downloads)
2018-03-07 1:53 PM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: President for life

In all seriousness we kind of do vote by the acreage in the Senate.  Each state gets two representatives and states like NY and CA are massively under-represented in the Senate from a population standpoint.

Then you have states like Vermont and Wyoming that barely have 500k people total that get 2 senators.

I know there's arguments for keeping it that way and doing away with it, but it is interesting none the less.

2018-03-07 1:58 PM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Pro
15646
50005000500050010025
Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by Rogillio You can scream fire in a crowded theater...provided there is a fire. :-) Problem as I see it is we are not a democracy we are a represented republic. The public is fickle and often will the majority is wrong. At one time he majority supported segregation, woman voting, SSM etc. We have a constitution to protect the rights of everyone....even the 0.1% of the population that like to shoot AR-15s at the range.
I think what you meant to compare was federalism (dual vs cooperative), as the definition between a republic and a democracy is pretty close (see below). Nevertheless, our federalism may be one of the problems. States are free to enact their own laws and as long as those laws only affect those in that state then everything is fine, no harm-no foul. However, some issues (such as guns and drugs) can migrate from one state to another, making the concept of a omnipotent overseeing federal government necessary. However, to do its job effectively, this situation likely require the federal gov't to enact laws that will upset one state to the favor of another state. I cannot think of a better example than the current gun control debate. From wikipedia: Republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives. Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

I guess I'm ok with that as long as we enact laws that are inline with the majority of states.  ;-)

But since we don't vote by the acreage, a population-based map is a better representative of the point you want to make.

How come the election maps from the left are always manipulated in some way?  It's a map, the shape doesn't change.....every state is not completely blue or red.  That cartoon map you posted is kind of silly.



2018-03-07 3:30 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: President for life
No it's not silly in terms of perception. If you look at what Tony put up, and knew little else you would go, jeez, Trump did win in a total landside. But as we elect a president based on human beings voting, and human distribution within the country is far from even, the map I put up is far more representative of the truth. Geographically not accurate, but we don't vote by acreage.
2018-03-07 3:43 PM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Pro
15646
50005000500050010025
Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Oysterboy No it's not silly in terms of perception. If you look at what Tony put up, and knew little else you would go, jeez, Trump did win in a total landside. But as we elect a president based on human beings voting, and human distribution within the country is far from even, the map I put up is far more representative of the truth. Geographically not accurate, but we don't vote by acreage.

Ah, yes, the big metropolitan sewers where most of the people live, most of the crime is, and most of the despair is.......let's let them run the country, that should work out well.  LMAO

I'm grateful for the electoral college, the founders got that right too. 

And yes, to me your map is silliest in terms of perception.......and leaves out every citizen who voted for the other party in your red/blue states.......Tony's map does not.  I like that better.

2018-03-07 3:45 PM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Oysterboy No it's not silly in terms of perception. If you look at what Tony put up, and knew little else you would go, jeez, Trump did win in a total landside. But as we elect a president based on human beings voting, and human distribution within the country is far from even, the map I put up is far more representative of the truth. Geographically not accurate, but we don't vote by acreage.

I do enjoy the sociology of political leanings.  Obviously the heavier urban areas tend to vote more Democratic because the entire way of life in a big system is a reliance on "the matrix".  Basically the government keeps everything running and we just live our lives within the system.  More rural areas tend to be a lot more self reliant and less reliant on "the matrix" to keep everything running.  If we lose power in my neighborhood, it's a minor inconvenience but really not a big deal.  If a neighborhood in NYC loses power it's a really big deal.

It's not to say one geographical area is more right or more wrong than the other, we're just different and live in different worlds really so of course our thoughts on the governments role will be different.

2018-03-07 3:59 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: President for life
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy No it's not silly in terms of perception. If you look at what Tony put up, and knew little else you would go, jeez, Trump did win in a total landside. But as we elect a president based on human beings voting, and human distribution within the country is far from even, the map I put up is far more representative of the truth. Geographically not accurate, but we don't vote by acreage.

I do enjoy the sociology of political leanings.  Obviously the heavier urban areas tend to vote more Democratic because the entire way of life in a big system is a reliance on "the matrix".  Basically the government keeps everything running and we just live our lives within the system.  More rural areas tend to be a lot more self reliant and less reliant on "the matrix" to keep everything running.  If we lose power in my neighborhood, it's a minor inconvenience but really not a big deal.  If a neighborhood in NYC loses power it's a really big deal.

It's not to say one geographical area is more right or more wrong than the other, we're just different and live in different worlds really so of course our thoughts on the governments role will be different.



Yeah, but one of the most liberal states is Vermont which is also extremely rural. I think your thesis is partially correct, but you have to weave in religious tendencies, education, racial makeup, and history into the mix. The tribalism runs deep.
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » President for life Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 3