Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Same question I had four years ago.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2012 at 11:42am
Again in politics, "Perception is reality" is a hard issue to fathom. Being from NY and thier 'radical' leftists, and seeing the attmpts here now in Nebraska at 'radical' leftists, the comic nature of the difference is my entertainment.

The people who lump all Republicans into the 'radical' mold because it fits thier bias is what I am getting at, it is thier 'perception' of the Republicans as a whole, rather than a true representation across the entire spectrum.
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2012 at 11:46am
I'm just horrified that the reactionary right has such a say in nominations and driving policy, and by the moderates who have been thrown under the bus and been challenged from the right on social issues. I voted for Scott Brown BTW, the crap the far right stirred up cost him the election. 
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2012 at 12:23pm
It seriously kind of scares me that people think Mitt Romney is too far left. I hate to see what they think of next if they feel they need to go more right wing. I know that's an outsider perspective, but a candidate that insanely conservative would be (hopefully) laughed out of Canada.
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2012 at 12:51pm
If I were to write a comeback strategy for Republicans, it would follow a few platforms:

A:) Distance themselves from the tea party. Fringe groups don't win elections (Al Gore isn't president for a reason.)

B:) Get behind gay marriage. It's inevitable, and history, more often than not, finds conservatives stumbling in their political power because of falling on the wrong side of an issue.

C:) Pursue younger politicians. Old white dudes talking about rape and black people just makes us all uncomfortable.

D:) Work with Obama in the next four years. You can achieve legend status in politics (cough*bill clinton*cough) by simply reaching across the aisle and appealing to more than just the core demographic.

E:) Stop trying to appeal to everyone. You can't pull the Ron Paul supporters and trying to do so just gives votes to Gary Johnson. Be who you are and pull back the main demographic.

Those aren't just suggestions, they're requirements if they want to keep from losing the house and the next presidency.


Edited by stratoaxe - 07 November 2012 at 12:53pm
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4026
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2012 at 1:12pm
Why doesn't the US just go with the popular vote? Why this point/state system?

KBK
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2012 at 1:21pm
Why? Because the United States is just that a group of States (in the definition of the time countries) joined in a Union. Think of it as 50 countries trying to find a consensus leader. The needs of Nebraska have to be addressed as well as the needs of the more populated New York. If not New York will get far more from the system than Nebraska. Even though the electoral college system is weighted, if we went popular vote the 6 most populated States would pick the President and the smaller States would have no real say but have to submit to the 6 most populated. Our system was designed where the States had 'equal' say in our government, bastardized in 1863, but still needed.
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4026
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2012 at 1:43pm
I can sort of see the point in what you are saying, but the number of people voting for a person will not change.

People still vote for their parties. I doubt it would make much of a difference. What's the popular vote looking like at the moment? Still a win for Obama?

KBK
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2012 at 1:53pm
Originally posted by Kayback Kayback wrote:

I can sort of see the point in what you are saying, but the number of people voting for a person will not change.

No, but geographical representation would be lost. Every election would be essentially decided by New York, California, Texas and Florida. 

The Electoral College helps smaller states, both in population and geographical size, have a standardized weight. 


Edited by agentwhale007 - 07 November 2012 at 1:53pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2012 at 1:54pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Even though the electoral college system is weighted, if we went popular vote the 6 most populated States would pick the President and the smaller States would have no real say but have to submit to the 6 most populated. Our system was designed where the States had 'equal' say in our government, bastardized in 1863, but still needed.

This may be the only thing on which you and I absolutely agree. 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2012 at 6:31pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Even though the electoral college system is weighted, if we went popular vote the 6 most populated States would pick the President and the smaller States would have no real say but have to submit to the 6 most populated. Our system was designed where the States had 'equal' say in our government, bastardized in 1863, but still needed.

This may be the only thing on which you and I absolutely agree. 
I wondered if the framers had any idea how unlikely it would be for no candidate to get a majority in the electoral college (which kicks it to the house, 1-state, 1-vote. If the states almost all winner-take-all, no majority might be more common, or if the Republican party split into a looney-right party, and a center-right party that was able to pull more independents and minorities. A schism on the right could potentially swing elections more reliably that way once you stop a majority and send it to the house since more individual states lean right. If you had two right-leaning parties able to win states, you could potentially screw the left out of the white house for decades. 

I hope somebody can think of some good reasons why that wouldn't work or can't happen, because if any party is going to split, it would be that one and now considering how they're doing with the demographic shift. 
Back to Top
Yomillio View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Retard

Joined: 31 July 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3397
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Yomillio Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2012 at 7:02pm
Not to repasta a Facebook status, but a friend of mine put this up; couldn't agree more.

"The GOP is going to do the same thing as four years ago. They point fingers at each other, and blame the loss on anybody who might have been involved, often glossing over their accomplishments and burying people who came out of the election as respected statesmen (or women). Here's an idea: Why not look at the real reason you lost? Tea Party nut jobs drag the party so far right that a center right candidate can't realistically win a primary and then perform in the general election. Candidates with a strong economic or foreign affairs background are glossed over so that somebody who touts all the right super conservative stances on social issues can spend the next six months alienating a large percentage of the population who might otherwise agree with a moderate Republican platform. Smarten up and stop giving us the best of a bad field."
Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Offline
Points: 4447
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2012 at 7:05pm
How can you say a center right candidate can't win the nomination, when Mitt Romney just got the GOP nomination?
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2012 at 7:27pm
He's saying they can't win a general election since they've had to salt the earth in order to get the GOP to nominate them by at the very least, flip-flopping from a previously moderate stance to get the GOP to nominate them. See McCain on immigration, and Romney on abortion and healthcare. Maybe the lesson here is for moderate GOP hopefuls to just say "Abortion is none of my business and a not anywhere near the most important issue" or "If you really think deporting 12 million people and all that entails, or continuing to ignore the situation is acceptable, you're smoking crack" and somehow manage to win. But every time they seem to back off. 
Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Offline
Points: 4447
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2012 at 9:39pm
Yeah, and maybe the left/the media can not categorize a stance against employer bought birth control as a war on women.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 November 2012 at 10:41pm
Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:

Yeah, and maybe the left/the media can not categorize a stance against employer bought birth control as a war on women.
If you're going to accept the premise that employers and insurers can be forced to provide coverage, fine. We had the insurance mandate debate already. Denying birth control coverage was seen by religious employers as a chance to take a stance against immorality as defined by that religion. Mainly, the whole "casting your seed upon the ground...blah blah blah, death by stoning" "if a woman has premarital sex or is raped, she needs to get married to whomever impregnated her or she shall be put to death for prostitution" stuff. Regardless of how each religion has rationalized those beliefs to make them sound less horrible and stone age, it boils down to wanting to either get off slightly cheaper, or saying employers should not cover any medical condition caused by perceived immorality. Rush Limbaugh went as far as to call Sandra Fluke a slut and prostitute over this, setting off the news blitz. The Catholic church told Obama to go fornicate himself when he tried to compromise and say insurers should pay for it, by reason that if they paid insurers and insurers paid for contraception, they were still being forced to pay for it. That tactic either takes us back to debating the mandate, or opting for religious or belief-based exemption for any condition you want. Don't believe in smoking? Don't cover lung-cancer treatments. Don't believe in premarital sex? Don't cover anti-biotics, Valtrex, or pre-natal care for unwed mothers, liver trouble for drinkers, psych meds for scientologists, or medical care at all if you're a christian-scientist. Again, back to debating the mandate, which the US supreme court upheld. 

I challenge you to draw the line on those exemptions. Either argue the mandate (the court already decided) or call your employees who want to control when they have kids, as well as other conditions hormonal contraception helps, sluts. I'd call it a war against free will, not a war on women. I kind of like not having surprise children. 
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2012 at 3:30pm
Originally posted by rednekk98 rednekk98 wrote:


I wondered if the framers had any idea how unlikely it would be for no candidate to get a majority in the electoral college (which kicks it to the house, 1-state, 1-vote.
If it kicks to the house every state gets their electoral college vote minus 2. I'm not sure where you assumed that each state has one congressman from.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2012 at 3:48pm
Originally posted by rednekk98 rednekk98 wrote:


I challenge you to draw the line on those exemptions. Either argue the mandate (the court already decided) or call your employees who want to control when they have kids, as well as other conditions hormonal contraception helps, sluts. I'd call it a war against free will, not a war on women. I kind of like not having surprise children. 
 
Whatever you'd call it, that doesn't addres the point USAF was making-the phrase "war on women" is a ridiculous way of drumming up a low key issue like paying for birth control into being the next civil rights movement.
 
So yeah-I agree that it's silly not to cover something so miniscule that can save so much money in the long run. But it's absolutely ridiculous to take said miniscule issue and make someone out to be a hatemonger for advising it.
 
It all kind of sums up the problems with modern politics-play everything up way out of proportion so that your opponent looks like an evil douchebag for something so minor and insignificant it's barely worth the argument time given to it.
 
Kind of like framing Christians to all be followers of:

Originally posted by Rednekk Rednekk wrote:

Denying birth control coverage was seen by religious employers as a chance to take a stance against immorality as defined by that religion. Mainly, the whole "casting your seed upon the ground...blah blah blah, death by stoning" "if a woman has premarital sex or is raped, she needs to get married to whomever impregnated her or she shall be put to death for prostitution" stuff.
 
Rather than go in to a dialectic on why old testament law isn't generally regarded as a mandate to the new testament church, I'll tell you that generalizing people who take moral stances based on religion as condoning rape or incest is just as ignorant and bigoted as those who generalize women who use birth control as sluts and whores.
 
There's an absolute double standard with Christianity and it drives me crazy. Build up Christians to be hatemongering idiots all day and you're golden, make generalizations about Islam and this thread would already be locked.
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2012 at 4:19pm
Originally posted by DaveEllis DaveEllis wrote:



Must have been hanging out with Donald Trump
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2012 at 6:08pm
Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

Originally posted by rednekk98 rednekk98 wrote:


I wondered if the framers had any idea how unlikely it would be for no candidate to get a majority in the electoral college (which kicks it to the house, 1-state, 1-vote.
If it kicks to the house every state gets their electoral college vote minus 2. I'm not sure where you assumed that each state has one congressman from.
 

Article 2 section 1 (& 12th Amendment)- "But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; " 

I might be misinterpreting that, but I am conscious of proportional representation in the House. 

As for the "War on Women" aspect of this thing comments like this really put that into the public eye. The firestorm about covering BC came from the Catholic church, which is solidly against sex for any other reason that procreation, going back to the whole "casting seed upon the ground" thing, minus the death penalty part. It's the official position of the Catholic church, though admittedly of a minority of actual Catholics. It was a silly showdown, with the Bishops complaining about a "War on Religion", even after a proposed compromise. There were very silly accusations by both sides, some just resonated with the general public more. Any campaign would be stupid not to jump on it. The multiple rape comments by Tea Party favorites, some who replaced more moderate Republicans, really couldn't add to it better. Couple that with the trans-vaginal ultrasound requirement before an abortion, planned defunding of planned parenthood, and proposed "personhood" amendment, and you can make a pretty strong case that the Right does not in any way support reproductive rights as a rule. Abortion in any case is seen as murder by many, and the more extreme your views, the more likely you are to be nominated by that party. Hell, they're even talking about qualifying unimplanted fertilized eggs as people. I wonder if that happened, you could prosecute a woman for criminal indifference for not self-implanting them rather than let them be destroyed, or get freezer-burned? As a whole, monotheistic religions have a terrible track record on women's issues. 

The "Culture Wars" seemed effective at the end of the last century after the Clinton Impeachment. The economy was decent, we weren't in major wars, and were somewhat ashamed at perceived immorality, be it hollywood or the oval office. The economy sucks, healthcare is expensive, many couples, and many women (since unless you want an operation or to wear one of those uncomfortable devices, BC is on them) should rightly be concerned as to when to have a child, and how to pay for that choice. I'd always thought the Republican Party was about keeping the government out of our lives, apparently it's just your wallet. That is, unless you are part of the 47% who don't pay federal income tax, or get things like subsidized student loans, or disability benefits, medicare or social security, in which case you should pay more. 

The radical part of the Republican party perpetuates a narrative that people who get help from the government are lazy parasites who want unearned benefits, if you have a job you can feel better than someone who got laid off and gets unemployment benefits, if you get unemployment, you can feel better than someone who gets food stamps. Maybe Bill O'Reilly articulated this best, albeit with racist implication.


Edited by rednekk98 - 09 November 2012 at 6:55pm
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4026
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2012 at 9:31pm
I'm always rather tickled by the whole "anti abortion" thing. Two of my female friends have recently had mis carriages. One once, one twice. The second one the egg wasn't viable.

My wife is busy trying the be a surrogate for another family, the first attempt didn't take.

In all 3 cases, all 4 dead babies, it was GOD's will the baby died. How does that work?

He gets to take babies away from people who want them, but we are not allowed to take them from those who don't?

That sounds fair.

KBK
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.297 seconds.