The rats are deserting the sinking ship
bigdog
even his allies are beginning to look out for numero uno.
Congressional candidates are beginning to distance themselves from
McCain. Those inside his campaign are beginning the blame game. There
are even whispers that Carribou Barbie sees the handwriting on the
wall and is ready to throw her running mate under the bus and position
herself for 2012. If you are a Republican candidate and Indiana is
still in play 12 days before the election, the ball game is over. Cue
the bugler to start playing taps for the late John McCain.
viet nam vet.
<acb48ba5-00cb-44f0...@e2g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It ain't over till the fat lady sings.
But, it is really over.
It's President Obama
get used to it for maybe 8 yrs..
OK?
--
Money; What a concept !
Gray Ghost
04B0BA.193...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
Yeah. Gore and Kerry habd Bush beat, too. Thanks I'll wait for the actual
election to throw in the towel.
Besides the possibility of mass suicide if Obama loses is far to appealing.
--
Always remember:
Bull Connor was a Democrat!
bigdog
wrote:
> In article
> <acb48ba5-00cb-44f0-86bd-85884a0c1...@e2g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
The winner of this election is going to inherit such a mess, there is
a strong possibility he will be a one term President. On the other
hand, if it Obama and there is a strong economic turnaround, it could
cause a sea change in American politics. When the economy made a
dramatic turnaround under Reagan, it swung the political pendulum to
the right for the next couple of decades. Republicans kept running
against Jimmy Carter into the 1990s. A similar turnaround under Obama
could swing that pendulum back to the left. The Democrats might be
running against George W. into the 2020s. It might even become
acceptable for a politician to admit he is a liberal as was the case
back in the 1960s.
BobR
Nope, it will never be President Obama to me....Just Odama.
BobR
Your subject for the thread was a more accurate description...it is
RATS not allies and not supporters.
Middle Class Warrior
Theres is a lot of infighting in the McCain campaign and among other
Republican groups. The end is near for them.
Felix D.
"Middle Class Warrior" <eel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4901d353$0$11497$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
Counting your chickens before they hatch, eh?
Hubris.
Gray Ghost
$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com:
Only for the weak, the cowards and the faithless. IOW the useless scum he
hardly needs anyway.
The Nice Mean Man
You'll see. You'll see.
SaPeIsMa
"viet nam vet." <george...@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgewkspam-04B0...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
My condolences on the OBVIOUS effects of Agent Orange on your brain
mrmcafee
founded. Your guy lost - BIG TIME!!!!
mrmcafee
And we do see.
President Obama. Once again, President Obama. Get used to it. Obama will
be president for a long time.
mrmcafee
> Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net>
Brown pants? Me? Hey I might soak my collar with tears of joy, but the
brown stuff? That's YOUR territory.
>
mrmcafee
> In article <X5hQk.4309$jr1....@newsfe01.iad>,
> mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> President Obama. Once again, President Obama. Get used to it. Obama
>> will be president for a long time.
>
It will be for those guys.
Bush's eight years seemed like eternity to me.
>
grandwazoo
> In article <X5hQk.4309$jr1....@newsfe01.iad>,
> mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> will be president for a long time.
>
>
Time to reconsider presidential term limits.
grandwazoo
Let's hope Bush can refrain from doing more damage, but I'm sure there
will be a last looting of the treasury or last minute gutting of
environmental regulations. Opps, he's aready proposing changes.
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/11/05/bush%E2%80%99s-parting-moves-on-the-environment/
The proposals include the following:
• A change to the Endangered Species Act to disallow the ESA from being
used to regulate global climate change even if a species, like the polar
bear, is suffering as a result of it. The change also reduces the number
of scientific reviews of projects performed by the US Fish & Wildlife
Service.
• Six new resource management plans for 11 million acres of federal land
in Utah that critics say would open more roads and trails, make nearly 9
million acres available for oil and gas development, and reduce the
areas managed primarily for environmental value. Five of the plans were
finished on Friday.
• A rule change eliminating one of the few regulations governing
mountaintop mining, a common practice in Appalachia in which a
mountain’s top is blown off to get access to the rich coal beds beneath.
Currently, a largely ignored “buffer zone” rule bars mining companies
from dumping debris within 100 feet of any stream. The new rule would
require them to either avoid the buffer zone or show why that is not
possible, and to minimize harming the streams “to the extent possible”
if they must dump there.
• A proposal to remove an “emergency powers” provision that allows the
Interior Department or two congressional committees to protect public
lands. The rule gained prominence this summer when the House Natural
Resources Committee declared 1 million acres next to the Grand Canyon
off limits to uranium mining.
grandwazoo
> Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net>
> said:
>
>>> In article <X5hQk.4309$jr1....@newsfe01.iad>, mrmcafee
>>> <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> President Obama. Once again, President Obama. Get used to it. Obama
>>>> will be president for a long time.
>>> I don't consider eight years to be a long time.
>>
>> It will be for those guys.
>
>
> You're insufferable children either way, init.
>
You rightwingers are going to get better than you deserve, but it is
time to move beyond the slanderous rhetoric. The 'base' is now
irrelevant and exposed to the majority of the electorate. And that
coalition is young.
mrmcafee
> Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
> <mich...@michelle.org> said:
>
>> In article <Xns9B4DDC74FF5...@69.16.185.247>,
>> Larry in AZ <use...@DELETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> President Obama. Once again, President Obama. Get used to it.
>>>>>> Obama will be president for a long time.
>>>>> I don't consider eight years to be a long time.
>>>>
>>>> It will be for those guys.
>>>
>>> You're insufferable children either way, init.
>> demonstrated by you and by his audience when he gave his concession
>> speech.
>
> Me..?
>
>> Obama won fair and square, which can't be said for Bush.
>
> He outspent McCain by a factor of six, in some cases buying up 100 percent
> of the commercial airtime in key areas, so that even if McCain had had the
> money, there was no chance of airing his ads.
>
> All that, and he won by only 6 million popular votes, which is less than
> the 8 million Clinton got over Bob Dole, the most boring GOP candidate in
> recent history.
>
> You Dems are just loving the Electoral College now, aren't you..?
>
> No complaints, eh..?
>
I'll complain, and for the same reason I complained in 2000. Obama
enjoys a landslide electoral victory, but his margin of victory in the
popular vote doesn't indicate the unity that the electoral projects. We
need to be a democracy. Our president should be the president of the
people and not the states. The numbers indicate that Obama has a thin
but wide spread plurality of support from the American people.
Ready to join me in a call to the new government to propose a
constitutional amendment which will provide for popular election of the
President and Vice President?
mrmcafee
I'm looking froward to the "pardon list".
Bucky Coughman
> enjoys a landslide electoral victory, but his margin of victory in the
> popular vote doesn't indicate the unity that the electoral projects. We
> need to be a democracy. Our president should be the president of the
> people and not the states. The numbers indicate that Obama has a thin
> but wide spread plurality of support from the American people.
>
> Ready to join me in a call to the new government to propose a
> constitutional amendment which will provide for popular election of the
> President and Vice President?
The welfare recipients and beggers nearly outnumber the workers now. The
country will destruct the socialists outnumber the workers.
Where do we stand in line for the free gas the Blacks are talking about?
When does Obama start paying our mortgages like the Blacks are talking
about?
mrmcafee
> In article <RiEQk.305$JW....@newsfe01.iad>,
> mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> The numbers indicate that Obama has a thin but wide spread plurality
>> of support from the American people.
>
>
> Except for white men (but not white women‹although his percentage there
> dropped from Kerry's‹although whites overall‹but even then, he had the
> highest percentage of votes for a Democrat from white men since Jimmy
> carter), where he had a plurality, he had a majority among almost every
> demographic. It was the largest majority since GHW Bush's 53.4% in
> 1988, and the largest Democratic majority since LBJ's 61.1% in 1964.
>
> 66% of voters age 18 to 29 voted for him; Kerry got 54%, from a smaller
> population, four years ago.
>
> He got 95% of the African American vote; Kerry got 88%
>
> 66% of Hispanics voted for him, compared to 53% for Kerry.
>
> He lost the white vote by 12 points, with whites making up 74% of voters.
>
> Nixon won with 43.4% of the popular vote (in a three-way race) in 68,
> but 60.7% in 72.
>
> Reagan got 50.7% in 1980, smaller than Obama, but he got more electoral
> votes than Obama. In 84, he got 58.8% of the popular vote.
>
And, if the voters hold up, he only has 7 % more people who voted for
him than McCain.
But I get your point. Obama has one heck of a lot of people who support him.
grandwazoo
> Waiving the right to remain silent, Michelle Steiner
> <mich...@michelle.org> said:
>
>> In article <Xns9B4DDC74FF5...@69.16.185.247>,
>>
>>>>>> President Obama. Once again, President Obama. Get used to it.
>>>>>> Obama will be president for a long time.
>>>>> I don't consider eight years to be a long time.
>>>>
>>>> It will be for those guys.
>>>
>>> You're insufferable children either way, init.
>> McCain knows how to lose with grace; his followers don't, as
>> demonstrated by you and by his audience when he gave his concession
>> speech.
>
> Me..?
>
>> Obama won fair and square, which can't be said for Bush.
>
> He outspent McCain by a factor of six, in some cases buying up 100 percent
> of the commercial airtime in key areas, so that even if McCain had had the
> money, there was no chance of airing his ads.
>
> All that, and he won by only 6 million popular votes, which is less than
> the 8 million Clinton got over Bob Dole, the most boring GOP candidate in
> recent history.
>
> You Dems are just loving the Electoral College now, aren't you..?
>
> No complaints, eh..?
>
Oh poor baby, the Republicans got out spent.
grandwazoo
If he resigned at the last minute, Chenney could pardon him.
bigdog
>
> Ready to join me in a call to the new government to propose a
> constitutional amendment which will provide for popular election of the
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is a bad idea. The 2000 election tells us why. Suppose instead of
Florida being decided by fewer than 1000 votes the national popular
vote had been that close. Can you imagine what that recount would have
been like. The election lawyers would make a fortune. Challenges would
be made in precincts all over the country. It took five weeks for the
courts to resolve the issues in a single state. Multiply that by 51.
The Electoral College makes our presidential elections manageable.
Instead of one large race we have 51 smaller ones. It also requires a
candidate to garner more widespread support. He can't get a majority
by running up large vote totals in a single state or region as would
be possible in a direct popular vote.
A more practical solution would be to follow the Nebraska and Maine
models which allocate the Electoral College by Congressional district.
In a close election, there might be a dozen or two districts that
would be close enough to warrant a recount. That is far more
manageable than recounting the whole country. The problem with that is
the big states would oppose it because it would dilute threir
influence. As it is, California delivers 55 electoral votes to the
winner. More than 10% of the total and 20% of what is needed for
victory. If their votes were allocated by Congressional district, they
might split 33-22, giving just an 11 vote margin to the winner instead
of 55.
bigdog
>
> He outspent McCain by a factor of six, in some cases buying up 100 percent
> of the commercial airtime in key areas, so that even if McCain had had the
> money, there was no chance of airing his ads.
It is the most delightful piece of poetic justice that John McCain was
done in by the campaign laws he played a major role in engineering. I
vote against John McCain for one simple reason. McCain-Feingold. That
trumped all other issues combined. The First Amendment was a guarantee
that all citizens could speak freely in this country about any subject
they wanted, including presidential elections. Thanks to John McCain,
interest groups as diverse as the Sierra Club, AARP, the NRA are
barred from airing ads about the candidates 60 days before the general
election. On the other hand 527 groups can run as many ads as they
want. Network commentators also enjoy the right to speak their minds
on the airwaves. The right to speak freely is parceled out to
enitities the government deems worthy. Free speech ended in this
country when SCOTUS approved McCain-Feingold. That is why I was so
delighted to see the campaign finance system jammed up John McCain's
ass. Squeal like a pig, McCain.
mrmcafee
> Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net>
> mentioned Bush vs. McCain, they'd be at least equal.
At the start of the campaign, McCain touted Bush's programs. It was a
completely accurate charge to say that McCain = four more years of Bush.
McCain even voted for torture! That's how far he had abandoned his
previous stands.
>
> He outspent McCain by a factor of six or seven to one.
The vast majority of the funding coming from small contributions. Really
a remarkable feat.
>
> If Bush had had an approval rating of 30 or 35 percent, Obama would have
> lost, regardless of money spent.
If pigs could fly, we would all have heavy duty raincoats too.
>
mrmcafee
> On Nov 6, 10:45 am, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>> Ready to join me in a call to the new government to propose a
>> constitutional amendment which will provide for popular election of the
>> President and Vice President?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> This is a bad idea.
Democracy is never a bad idea.
> The 2000 election tells us why. Suppose instead of
> Florida being decided by fewer than 1000 votes the national popular
> vote had been that close. Can you imagine what that recount would have
> been like. The election lawyers would make a fortune. Challenges would
> be made in precincts all over the country. It took five weeks for the
> courts to resolve the issues in a single state. Multiply that by 51.
Yet, it could be done and done accurately.
> The Electoral College makes our presidential elections manageable.
> Instead of one large race we have 51 smaller ones. It also requires a
> candidate to garner more widespread support.
Say what? You error here.
> He can't get a majority
> by running up large vote totals in a single state or region as would
> be possible in a direct popular vote.
You might want to rethink this point. Today, candidates need only
campaign and win in those few large states with the most electoral
votes. We didn't see the candidates campaign in Hawaii or Montana or
even in Rhode Island. When a vote that is cast in Alaska has as much
value as one casted in California, then you will see candidates spread
out throughout the nation. The "winner take all" causes the candidates
to concentrate in winning just those few large states. When the minority
vote in California exceeds the majority vote in Ohio, then the
candidates will campaign in both states.
mrmcafee
And return the favor?
viet nam vet.
mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
The Last Nail was dick cheney's endorcement.
--
When the Power of Love,replaces the Love of Power.
that's Evolution.
viet nam vet.
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <tGJQk.981$x51...@newsfe01.iad>,
> mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > But I get your point. Obama has one heck of a lot of people who
> > support him.
>
> And it's across the board; no one demographic won it for him.
>
> If all the under 30's who voted for him had voted for McCain, it would
> have flipped two states, and Obama would still have won.
>
> If, instead, all the over 65's who voted for him, had voted for McCain,
> Obama would still have won. (I don't recall how many states would have
> flipped.)
>
> If, instead, all the Latinos who voted for him had voted for McCain, it
> would have flipped two states, and Obama would still have won.
>
> Etc.
Amen.
BobR
Yes, it was so remarkable that it was almost unbelievable and almost
impossible to confirm.
>
>
> > If Bush had had an approval rating of 30 or 35 percent, Obama would have
> > lost, regardless of money spent.
>
> If pigs could fly, we would all have heavy duty raincoats too.
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
BobR
> In article <Xns9B4F4315EAC4thefrogpri...@69.16.185.250>,> > > 100% of commercial air time?
>
> > Available air time. But you knew I meant that...
>
> By "commercial air time", I meant air time devoted to commercials. All
> of which was available to organizations buying the time. Since there
> were other commercials besides his, it is obvious that he didn't buy
> 100% of that time.
>
> I find it highly amusing, though, to see a Republican whining about
> being outspent.
>
> --
> It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America.
You can bet this will be the last time that any candidate accepts the
public funds route. From here on out, it will be an unlimited
spending spree. McCain was really stupid to not say to hell with the
public funds route.
grandwazoo
> Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net>
> mentioned Bush vs. McCain, they'd be at least equal.
>
>
> lost, regardless of money spent.
>
If shit was shineola
grandwazoo
That's why I theorize that he was not in charge of his campaign.
("Welcome my son. Welcome to the machine." Pink Floyd)
grandwazoo
first Yes that would be the cue to exit the stage.
mrmcafee
> In article
> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> A more practical solution would be to follow the Nebraska and Maine
>> models which allocate the Electoral College by Congressional
>> district.
>
> votes in proportion to the popular vote.
>
> But I'd still rather see the popular vote nationwide carry the election.
> although your argument about a close race does have some merit, the
> larger the voting population, the smaller the odds of a race being that
> close become.
>
When you eliminate the "winner take all" concept and the idea that each
state has "x" many votes to elect the president, and go with a direct
popular election of the total nation's vote, then there would be no
ties. Who cares if the vote in a precinct, county, or state was so close
as to be a tie? It is the entire nation's vote that counts. The concept
of a nationwide tie is a bit to comprehend.
Morton Davis
"mrmcafee" <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in message
news:AjhSk.3754$M5....@newsfe01.iad...
The electoral college STAYS.
mrmcafee
solution. We are ONE nation, not 50.
RD (The Sandman)
Elminate the electoral college and all the states between the urban
coastal areas simply become flyover territory.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Be who you are and say what you feel...Because those that
matter...don't mind...And those that mind...don't matter."
Scout
No, we are a union of sovereign states.
mrmcafee
And they aren't now? When was the last time candidates campaigned in
Alaska? Tell me, if a man's vote in Alaska was worth exactly as much as
a woman's vote in California, why would Alaska be ignored during
presidential campaigns? If maybe a candidate didn't have the majority's
support in California, but still had such a minority support that the
numbers far out weighed the oppositions majority support in say Arizona,
wouldn't you expect him to campaign in California when under today's
rules he wouldn't waste the resources fighting a lost cause?
Once again, today under the Electoral College, a candidate need only
campaign and win in just a few large states. Under a nationwide, popular
election every vote would be equal in power. Candidates would be well
advised to campaign nationwide.
>
mrmcafee
Not since the 17th Amendment, and never "sovereign states" since the
constitution.
>
>
>
mrmcafee
> Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net>
> said:
>
>> campaign and win in just a few large states. Under a nationwide, popular
>> election every vote would be equal in power. Candidates would be well
>> advised to campaign nationwide.
>
> electoral votes from New York and California you always count on getting.
>
But we would win the most votes in those states, and nationwide which
would be what counts.
RD (The Sandman)
@newsfe01.iad:
Damn, when did they move the state of Alaska? Last I knew it was on the
NW coast of North America......not in the states between the urban
coastal areas.
Tell me, if a man's vote in Alaska was worth exactly as much as
> a woman's vote in California, why would Alaska be ignored during
> presidential campaigns? If maybe a candidate didn't have the majority's
> support in California, but still had such a minority support that the
> numbers far out weighed the oppositions majority support in say
Arizona,
> wouldn't you expect him to campaign in California when under today's
> rules he wouldn't waste the resources fighting a lost cause?
>
> Once again, today under the Electoral College, a candidate need only
> campaign and win in just a few large states. Under a nationwide,
popular
> election every vote would be equal in power. Candidates would be well
> advised to campaign nationwide.
It would only have made a difference in a couple of elections. Still
pissed about Gore? If he had won his home state, Florida would be a
footnote.
RD (The Sandman)
Perhaps. Don't judge all elections by the last three.
RD (The Sandman)
Huh? The states all have sovereign rights and powers granted to them by
the people. We are not simply a national government. See the 10th
amendment. It is a reminder that whatever powers the federal government
did not have was retained by the states and the people. Why would that
be necessary if there was no sovereignty by the people in the states?
The people as sovereign may delegate portions of their power to whichever
level of government they wish.
mrmcafee
> mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in
> news:DfYSk.2763$kt1...@newsfe01.iad:
>
>> Larry in AZ wrote:
>>> Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee
>>> <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> said:
>>>
>>>> Once again, today under the Electoral College, a candidate need only
>>>> campaign and win in just a few large states. Under a nationwide,
>>>> popular election every vote would be equal in power. Candidates
>>>> would be well advised to campaign nationwide.
>>> Don't look now, but if the EC were eliminated, Dems would lose all
>>> those electoral votes from New York and California you always count
>>> on getting.
>>>
>>
>> But we would win the most votes in those states, and nationwide which
>> would be what counts.
>>
>
> Perhaps. Don't judge all elections by the last three.
If we were to lose, democracy would still be served (which is kinda the
point after all). As things stand, the form the US uses is not very
democratic. The president is the representative of the state governments
and not the people. Ever since the 17th Amendment, this nation has
recognized that we are one nation not a confederation of several. The
states have recognized that fact by allowing their citizens to select
the state's electors. Time for us to vote directly for president.
>
mrmcafee
Aren't you? If not, you should be. Just look at the mess that has resulted!
The 2000 election make a farce out of America's claims to be the world's
greatest democracy.
> If he had won his home state, Florida would be a
> footnote.
If pigs could fly, we all would invest in heavy duty raincoats.
>
>
mrmcafee
See the constitution. States are subordinate to the national government.
If you have a higher power over you in anything, you are not sovereign.
RD (The Sandman)
I didn't vote for Bush. However, he was, and is, my president. I didn't
vote for Obama either, but he will be my president.
> The 2000 election make a farce out of America's claims to be the
> world's greatest democracy.
That happened whether or not you accept the results. Instead of crying
over history, you should spend your time trying to fix the problems we
are having. Those problems, BTW, are the result of failure and
mismanagement from both sides of the aisle. Everything from burnt toast
to global warming is not the fault of George W Bush.
>> If he had won his home state, Florida would be a
>> footnote.
>
>
> If pigs could fly, we all would invest in heavy duty raincoats.
>>
>>
>
--
RD (The Sandman)
@newsfe01.iad:
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:DfYSk.2763$kt1...@newsfe01.iad:
>>
>>> Larry in AZ wrote:
>>>> Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee
>>>> <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Once again, today under the Electoral College, a candidate need
only
>>>>> campaign and win in just a few large states. Under a nationwide,
>>>>> popular election every vote would be equal in power. Candidates
>>>>> would be well advised to campaign nationwide.
>>>> Don't look now, but if the EC were eliminated, Dems would lose all
>>>> those electoral votes from New York and California you always count
>>>> on getting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But we would win the most votes in those states, and nationwide which
>>> would be what counts.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps. Don't judge all elections by the last three.
>
>
> If we were to lose, democracy would still be served (which is kinda the
> point after all). As things stand, the form the US uses is not very
> democratic.
Of course, it is. A pure democracy it isn't. But it is a representative
one.
The president is the representative of the state governments
> and not the people.
How did that happen? In the states (and not all are winner take all) the
electoral vote is decided by the people's vote, not the state
governments.
> Ever since the 17th Amendment, this nation has
> recognized that we are one nation not a confederation of several. The
> states have recognized that fact by allowing their citizens to select
> the state's electors. Time for us to vote directly for president
If that had remained the same then your complaint about the state
electing the president would hold some water since the state legislatures
would control 100 of the electoral votes. Currently, they don't.
RD (The Sandman)
No, you are not completely sovereign. The true soveriegns in our
political system are the people. They are the ones who decide which
level of government gets which powers. If you really look at the
Constitution, there are limited powers and they are laid out. The
politicians have bent that out of shape with some of the changes they
have done under the aegis of, for example, the Commerce Clause. At least
the USSC reined them in somewhat in US v Lopez.
Scout
Then the system worked and Gore lost like he was suppose to.
...except I suspect you would rather that the rule be ignored and allow Gore
to be elected.
Scout
Thus there is no sovereignty since there is always some higher power that
limits what you can do.
mrmcafee
According to the constitution, the president isn't elected by the
people. He is elected by the state governments who are free to use any
method that they choose.
>
> The president is the representative of the state governments
>> and not the people.
>
> How did that happen?
Something about the Founders not trusting too much democracy and federalism.
> In the states (and not all are winner take all)
Most are.
> the
> electoral vote is decided by the people's vote, not the state
> governments.
Only because state governments elect to allow them to do so.
>
>> Ever since the 17th Amendment, this nation has
>> recognized that we are one nation not a confederation of several. The
>> states have recognized that fact by allowing their citizens to select
>> the state's electors. Time for us to vote directly for president
>
> If that had remained the same then your complaint about the state
> electing the president would hold some water since the state legislatures
> would control 100 of the electoral votes. Currently, they don't.
But they do. They currently ALLOW their citizens to elect their
electors. Most could change that by just passing a bill. Florida debated
doing just that in 2000.
>
>
mrmcafee
popular election of the president.
mrmcafee
Just as you can't be a little pregnant, you can't be a little sovereign.
Either you are , or you are not.
mrmcafee
democracy as a result.
Scout
Really? The people are subordinate to the federal government since you have
to obey the laws they enact..........
or does your interpretation of sovereignty change from moment to moment?
Scout
That's nice, but until you do..........your comment above about the 2000
election is a scam.
Scout
Then the people aren't sovereign since three is a higher power over them,
local, state and federal governments and all the laws they enact with
subordinate the people to them.
So you were saying?
mrmcafee
My comment was that the 2000 election made a farce out of America's
boast that we are the world's greatest democracy. Prove me wrong.
mrmcafee
Do you pretend that the majority of the voting citizens in the US can
not change through their representatives any law? Shoot, they can even
change the constitution! They are, ultimately, sovereign in this
country. Name a more powerful force.
>
>
mrmcafee
Are you really this dense?
The MAJORITY of the voting citizens elect those people who craft the
laws and also vote for constitutional amendments. Ultimately, the
MAJORITY is sovereign.
grandwazoo
Seems to me that the overseas military votes were never counted, due to
the artifice of the Safe Harbor ruling.
grandwazoo
"They" R US!
Scout
Ah, well, you see, according to the rules and laws under which the election
was held, the person who was suppose to win, did, even though someone tried
to steal the election by trying to change the rules and laws in the middle
of the election.
Democracy worked.
Scout
Nope. Since it is the representatives (ie federal government) that choses
what will and will not be changed in the law.
...unless you wish to say the states are soverign because they can do the
same thing.
>Shoot, they can even change the constitution! They are, ultimately,
>sovereign in this country. Name a more powerful force.
Interesting how quickly your assertion has changed. Suddenly despite being
governed by the federal government, the people are sovereign while at the
same time you try to claim the states are not despite the same identical set
of circumstances.
Scout
Hey, you are the one that told me because this principle applies to the
states. I simply figure that if you think it's good enough to prove the
states aren't soveriegn then it should work just as well to prove the people
aren't either.
Seems you now wish to deny what you have already claimed to be your proof.
> The MAJORITY of the voting citizens elect those people who craft the laws
> and also vote for constitutional amendments. Ultimately, the MAJORITY is
> sovereign.
Actually, the STATES vote for Constitutional Amendments. Ah, damn, that
means the states are sovereign. Well so much for your assertion that they're
not.
Scout
"grandwazoo" <gr...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:odudnfei9cBmv4DU...@posted.commspeed...
Agreed, and it was a real problem IMO. Though I suspect based on typical
voting patterns that including those votes would have only compounded Gore's
loss.
mrmcafee
I do not dispute the facts, just in Bush's case regret them.
>
>> The 2000 election make a farce out of America's claims to be the
>> world's greatest democracy.
>
> That happened whether or not you accept the results. Instead of crying
> over history, you should spend your time trying to fix the problems we
> are having.
Oh, I have. I worked very hard for not only an Obama victory, but for
all Democratic candidates.
> Those problems, BTW, are the result of failure and
> mismanagement from both sides of the aisle.
Let's be accurate. The GOP ran the total show all by themselves for 6
years under Bush, and the last 2 has been a virtual stalemate.
> Everything from burnt toast
> to global warming is not the fault of George W Bush.
Well, in my case, yes it is.
I can recall at least one case of burnt toast due to my attention being
focused on the morning paper due to yet another news story about a Bush
excess. So far as global warming is concerned, Bush (and the right) can
take a lion's share of blame.
mrmcafee
Our presidential election laws are not very democratic. THAT is the
POINT. Geez!
>
>
mrmcafee
of the VOTING citizens (not individual people, not all people) are
sovereign in the US. Not the federal government and certainly not the
state government.
RD (The Sandman)
I take it you wish to ignore the roles of Barney Frank and the Finance
Committee on the health of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? You wish to
ignore lending suggestions.....eh, policies on loans that poor people
couldn't really afford. You wish to ignore predatory practices on the
part of financial institutions. You wish to ignore the greed of
executives and the overreaching of people for homes that they knew they
couldn't afford. You wish to ignore the asinine gall of the car industry
to continue making SUVs and large trucks instead of designing smaller
fuel efficient cars with more appeal than rotten grapes.
Interesting..
>> Everything from burnt toast
>> to global warming is not the fault of George W Bush.
>
>
> Well, in my case, yes it is.
No, it isn't.
> I can recall at least one case of burnt toast due to my attention
> being focused on the morning paper due to yet another news story about
> a Bush excess.
See, that was your fault for having your head up your ass. ;)
So far as global warming is concerned, Bush (and the
> right) can take a lion's share of blame.
Oh? None of this global warming occurred except in the last 8 years?
RD (The Sandman)
Not quite. Constitutionally, the president is chosen by electors. Now,
the state governments can apportion their electors however they choose.
Those electors are equal to the number of senators and congressmen from
the state. Some, by law, state winner take all. Most others do that,
historically. At least one state apportions them per the percentage of
popular vote.
>> The president is the representative of the state governments
>>> and not the people.
>>
>> How did that happen?
> Something about the Founders not trusting too much democracy and
> federalism.
Not much of an explanation to support your comment.
>> In the states (and not all are winner take all)
>
> Most are.
See above.
>> the
>> electoral vote is decided by the people's vote, not the state
>> governments.
>
> Only because state governments elect to allow them to do so.
However that is how it is done. Power to the people. State governments
will allow whatever the citizens of that state give them the power to
allow.
>>> Ever since the 17th Amendment, this nation has
>>> recognized that we are one nation not a confederation of several.
>>> The states have recognized that fact by allowing their citizens to
>>> select the state's electors. Time for us to vote directly for
>>> president
>>
>> If that had remained the same then your complaint about the state
>> electing the president would hold some water since the state
>> legislatures would control 100 of the electoral votes. Currently,
>> they don't.
>
> But they do. They currently ALLOW their citizens to elect their
> electors. Most could change that by just passing a bill. Florida
> debated doing just that in 2000.
Read up on constitutions. Governmets are allotted powers by the people.
We giveth.....we can take away.
RD (The Sandman)
Basically what I said before you snipped my comments other than the one
sentence. Not very nice...since they were part of the same paragraph.
RD (The Sandman)
It is the people who are sovereign. The states have some of the
sovereignty upwards to the federal government that the people do since
the people gave them powers that they did not give the federal
government. The people give portions of their sovereign powers to the
level of government that they wish. One reason why most crimes are at
the state level not the federal level. Another reason is that the
representatives of this country are chosen by the people, not the
government.