Telling article, one of the many people didn't pay attention to...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/04/04/obama-i-am-constrained-by-a-system-that-our-founders-put-in-place/

 

Too bad the idiot feels constrained. That's what it was designed to be. It tells a lot about the president

and his intentions, while trying to sound like he actually cares about the 2nd Amendment. Such a liar.

 

He has said in the past, the same things, before and after the first elections, and people didn't seem

to care about him, his past and his intentions. Just one more sly about a communist. Nothing really

new here.

 

There is no such thing as middle ground on things like this, and should never be.

Edited April 4, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That article also shows how the media is his friend. Just the way things are said. Innuendo.

 

Regardless of what others are thinking, I consider the combination of him and his entourage

of the media to be evil. No better way to put it.

[E4 No More]

"I am elected by you." Wrong! He's elected by an electoral college in a system where the majority of eligible voters do not vote.

 

“...'there doesn’t have to be a conflict' between keeping citizens safe and protecting Second Amendment rights to gun ownership." True, but you choose to make it a conflict.

 

"Prospects for passage of similar measures by Congress appear bleak, largely because of concerns by conservative Republicans and moderate Democrats who come down more on the side of gun rights." So they acknowledge that you have rights to guns. So if you are on the side of gun rights then the opposite would be...?

[Oh Shoot]

"I am elected by you." Wrong! He's elected by an electoral college in a system where the majority of eligible voters do not vote.

 

Well, actually, a whopping 51-60% of eligible voters generally do in presidential elections.

 

- OS

[RED333]

I heard it on the radio, his mouth is moving, he is lieing!

[E4 No More]

Well, actually, a whopping 51-60% of eligible voters generally do in presidential elections.

 

- OS

I've heard as much as 60% of eligible voters do not vote. Who knows who's really right? :shrug:

[Oh Shoot]

I've heard as much as 60% of eligible voters do not vote. Who knows who's really right? :shrug:

 

Stats are pretty acceptable on it.  Just have to compare latest census with votes cast.

 

Here's a couple, but all of them are pretty close:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

 

Midterm elections are indeed under 50% nowadays.

 

- OS

[zapfbroad]

That article also shows how the media is his friend. Just the way things are said. Innuendo.

 

Regardless of what others are thinking, I consider the combination of him and his entourage

of the media to be evil. No better way to put it.

The other day he was shooting basketball and only made 2 out of 22 shots. I'm sure reporters from the lapdog media pool were hastily scribbling how "republicans kept moving the hoop" and had gone so far as to "enlist Dikembe Mutombo a well known uncle tom to attempt to reject the presidents attempts". I'm so sick of mainstream media sycophants cozying and coddling to get exclusives for softball interviews about fashion, sports, music, his 'sex appeal' & the other pressing issues of the day.

[East_TN_Patriot]

"I am elected by you." Wrong! He's elected by an electoral college in a system where the majority of eligible voters do not vote.
 

That doesn't matter. The electoral college votes in accordance to the voters who do vote. One can make an argument that the "winner takes all" nature of the electoral process is unfair, but the Founding Fathers put the electoral college process in place or a reason and I strongly believe it would a gravely serious mistake to do away with it.

[E4 No More]

That doesn't matter. The electoral college votes in accordance to the voters who do vote. One can make an argument that the "winner takes all" nature of the electoral process is unfair, but the Founding Fathers put the electoral college process in place or a reason and I strongly believe it would a gravely serious mistake to do away with it.

Not that I was ever a political science major, but it is my understanding that they are not required to follow the popular vote of their state. I seem to recall some hubub back in the Clinton election about some of the electoral college doing precisely that. I also seem to recall that the reason for the electoral college was that the backwoodsmen weren't considered literate enough to make an intelligent vote.

 

I do think that the majority of eligible voters who do not vote would lean towards the right than the left.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Several states have passed laws that affect that now. They went to proportional votes with their delegates. Some

did it, like SWJewellTN said.

[Oh Shoot]

Several states have passed laws that affect that now. They went to proportional votes with their delegates.

 

Still just two AFAIK, Nebraska and Maine?

[Guest PapaB]

I also seem to recall that the reason for the electoral college was that the backwoodsmen weren't considered literate enough to make an intelligent vote.

 

You just justified the electoral college. Now it's the inner city dwellers instead of the backwoodsmen. Same problem, new location.

[Guest PapaB]

That doesn't matter. The electoral college votes in accordance to the voters who do vote. One can make an argument that the "winner takes all" nature of the electoral process is unfair, but the Founding Fathers put the electoral college process in place or a reason and I strongly believe it would a gravely serious mistake to do away with it.

 

Makes me think of how we used to vote for Senators. The 17th changed that and now we see the unintended consequences. I agree it could be a mistake to cancel the electoral college. We need to be careful of what we wish for, we could be sorry we get it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Still just two AFAIK, Nebraska and Maine?

That may be true right now, but there are several more talking about it.

[E4 No More]

You just justified the electoral college. Now it's the inner city dwellers instead of the backwoodsmen. Same problem, new location.

Ummm, no. Stating a BS reason For a concept dating back to the 18th century doesn't justify it today.

[Randall53]

Midterm elections are indeed under 50% nowadays.

 

- OS

 

Problem is, the midterm elections are never less important since this election is all about the congress and the senate.  One group that write the laws, and another that approves them for the Presidents signature.  I believe many times the midterms are even more important, as in the current situation.

 

The worst scenario I can think of is the Liberals winning control of the Congress and Senate, then Obama gets the opportunity to appoint a couple of liberal Justices to the Supreme Court early in his last 2 years. That, my friends is the Perfect Storm.

[Moped]

He already has the opportunity to appoint two liberal judges.  The Senate ratifies the Supreme Court Justices.  The House has nothing to do with it.  He already has two out of three.  If he gets the House, he could end up the next Hugo Chavez.

[Oh Shoot]

He already has the opportunity to appoint two liberal judges.  The Senate ratifies the Supreme Court Justices.  The House has nothing to do with it.  He already has two out of three.  If he gets the House, he could end up the next Hugo Chavez.

 

Yep, look at all he "accomplished" his first two years when he had both House and Senate.

 

My friends, if Sandy Hook had happened in '08, the EBRs and mags would most likely already have been gone.

 

- OS

Edited April 7, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[tnhawk]

We get the government we deserve.  We elected those who "should" represent us.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Ummm, no. Stating a BS reason For a concept dating back to the 18th century doesn't justify it today.

Kind of like the Second Amendment maybe?

The purpose of the Electoral College was to assure that the largely populated urban states were not able to completely decide the presidential elections through their massive populations.  It also served as a check against a corrupted election process.  The candidate must get the majority of electors, not popular vote.  It was a way of protecting the interests of the less populated rural states.  Technically the electors are not required to vote for the candidate they represent, but it's not happened in American history as far as I am aware.  The electors for a given candidate are chosen by each political party and they send their elector to vote following the election.  You don't become a party's electoral representative if you are not a wildly loyal party member.  The Electoral College concept fits into the federalist system conceived by the founders.  

Edited April 12, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Randall53]

I've heard as much as 60% of eligible voters do not vote. Who knows who's really right? :shrug:

 

And that, folks...is a freak'n crying ass shame!!! I'd venture to say that many of these are very intelligent people that realize the average politicians of today are nothing but liars, and have no intention of doing  what they say they will do, or what is right for our country, but would rather blind-fold us and take us down the rabbit hole as fast as they can.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Speaking of voting, it's absolutely amazing that the Libtard commies think it is more important in knowing who has registered guns but they don't want to know who legitimately votes, or who is in our country legally. No to voter ID, but yes to gun registry. Geeze!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Kind of like the Second Amendment maybe?

The purpose of the Electoral College was to assure that the largely populated urban states were not able to completely decide the presidential elections through their massive populations.  It also served as a check against a corrupted election process.  The candidate must get the majority of electors, not popular vote.  It was a way of protecting the interests of the less populated rural states.  Technically the electors are not required to vote for the candidate they represent, but it's not happened in American history as far as I am aware.  The electors for a given candidate are chosen by each political party and they send their elector to vote following the election.  You don't become a party's electoral representative if you are not a wildly loyal party member.  The Electoral College concept fits into the federalist system conceived by the founders.  

 

Am not disputing any of that. Merely adding, IIRC another motivation for the design was the slow communications and travel of the times? Many of the founders were hoping we would not have political parties, and for instance if there had been split regional elections with several regional "winners", then deciding which regional winner comes out on top would have taken forever corresponded via mail delivered by ship, pony or foot. So it would have been "most practical" for electors of the various states to get together in one spot to hash-out the final result?

 

Am not making argument that improved communications make the Electoral College system obsolete. It may have other advantages compared to the many alternate designs. But it might have been one of the better designs especially in an era of slow communications?

[E4 No More]

Kind of like the Second Amendment maybe?

The purpose of the Electoral College was to assure that the largely populated urban states were not able to completely decide the presidential elections through their massive populations.  It also served as a check against a corrupted election process.  The candidate must get the majority of electors, not popular vote.  It was a way of protecting the interests of the less populated rural states.  Technically the electors are not required to vote for the candidate they represent, but it's not happened in American history as far as I am aware.  The electors for a given candidate are chosen by each political party and they send their elector to vote following the election.  You don't become a party's electoral representative if you are not a wildly loyal party member.  The Electoral College concept fits into the federalist system conceived by the founders.  

Yet the states that are largely populated carry more electoral votes than the ones with smaller populations. Kind of why you tend to see more read states than blue states, yet look who we have in power.