Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 02, 2015, 03:13:06 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 536
26  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: 5th Circuit upholds Texas abortion restrictions on: June 12, 2015, 08:16:52 am
Is it really the state's problem if the clinics can't maintain basic sanitation standards?

Read the case and familiarize yourself with the new regulations being passed.
27  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Christie: It's time for a military approach to China, show them who's the boss on: June 09, 2015, 04:04:47 pm
Oh God, I can only imagine Chris Christie engaging in diplomacy with China.
28  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeb plans June 15 announcement on: June 07, 2015, 07:19:37 am
Why the hell does he go by Jeb? His actual first name (John) is far nicer.

It's so folksy!
29  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Why was Oregon closer then Florida in 2004 on: June 06, 2015, 01:54:05 pm
Also, Bush won nationally by 3 points...
30  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why are conservatives becoming so unhinged over Caitlyn Jenner? on: June 05, 2015, 04:20:28 pm
You didn't even mention Huckabee's tasteless transphobic joke, or that Rick Santorum exists.

frothy has been less awful than many other people regarding ms jenner, surprisingly enough

Santorum has been striking a much less obnoxious tone this time. He knows what undid him in 2006 now.
31  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Do you think Dubya be on the campaign trail for Jeb in 2016 on: June 03, 2015, 02:00:28 pm

Interesting! Maybe W isn't as much of a liability after all.
32  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Huckabee-I wish I was Trans-gendered on: June 02, 2015, 10:19:22 pm
So weird. He and Santorum have gone in opposite directions and I can't say it's going to help Huckabee to run like its 2004.
33  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: One person, one vote: SCOTUS to tell us what it means on: May 31, 2015, 07:06:04 am
A better solution would be for the federal government to issue ID cards and require that they be accepted for federal elections without a further registration step. 

That's Phase 3 of Operation Jade Helm.
34  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What is up with CountryClassSF? on: May 30, 2015, 03:09:19 pm
I thought he was a parody troll for a very long time, but no troll could be as persistent as he has been.
35  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: German users - why did the FDP collapse in 2013? on: May 30, 2015, 01:21:13 pm
I'm curious what a FDP-Links voter looks like.
36  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: One person, one vote: SCOTUS to tell us what it means on: May 30, 2015, 07:00:10 am
Doing this for redistricting but NOT for apportionment, while consistent under the constitution, makes a total mockery of the principles here. Either non-citizens should count, or they don't. Otherwise this is handing states like Texas a huge tranche of seats based on its non-citizen population which won't count for legislators. This means that a citizen in a Republican district in Texas will have an unequal vote compared to a citizen in a Republican district in Kentucky or Ohio because the R districts in TX will have significantly fewer residents and voters.

There are already inter-state discrepancies in vote strength.  Compare a Montana voter for the House to a Rhode Island voter.  The fact that this might alter the discrepancies (decreasing them in some cases, increasing them in others) is basically irrelevant.  The only question is how best to ensure that, within each state, all voters are afforded equal protection.  

The issue is that it needlessly causes a new discrepancy of the type that this change purportedly addresses. If there were a political Hippocratic oath to "do no harm," this fails miserably.

And what I am saying is that a) the inter-state discrepancy is not a "new discrepancy", and b) it doesn't make the existing discrepancy worse, only different.  Some of the changes will decrease discrepancies.  

By new discrepancy, I implied "new type of discrepancy."

If you can suggest any change to the Rhode Island - Montana discrepancy that doesn't involve fractional representatives or increasing the size of the House of Representatives to 2,000 members, I'm all ears. It's unsupportable to compare an unavoidable artifact of small states to a superfluous distortion that is avoidable and afflicts a large number of states.
37  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: One person, one vote: SCOTUS to tell us what it means on: May 29, 2015, 09:13:14 pm
Doing this for redistricting but NOT for apportionment, while consistent under the constitution, makes a total mockery of the principles here. Either non-citizens should count, or they don't. Otherwise this is handing states like Texas a huge tranche of seats based on its non-citizen population which won't count for legislators. This means that a citizen in a Republican district in Texas will have an unequal vote compared to a citizen in a Republican district in Kentucky or Ohio because the R districts in TX will have significantly fewer residents and voters.

There are already inter-state discrepancies in vote strength.  Compare a Montana voter for the House to a Rhode Island voter.  The fact that this might alter the discrepancies (decreasing them in some cases, increasing them in others) is basically irrelevant.  The only question is how best to ensure that, within each state, all voters are afforded equal protection. 

The issue is that it needlessly causes a new discrepancy of the type that this change purportedly addresses. If there were a political Hippocratic oath to "do no harm," this fails miserably.
38  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: One person, one vote: SCOTUS to tell us what it means on: May 29, 2015, 09:48:18 am
Congress, through the VRA, requires States to estimate the CVAP (and its racial composition) when performing redistricting.

Does this requirement apply to all 50 states?
39  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why is SSM such a big deal? on: May 29, 2015, 09:45:43 am
In NYC we have a straight pride parade; it's called the St. Patrick's Day Parade.

Also, Halloween.
40  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: One person, one vote: SCOTUS to tell us what it means on: May 28, 2015, 01:09:56 pm
Doing this for redistricting but NOT for apportionment, while consistent under the constitution, makes a total mockery of the principles here. Either non-citizens should count, or they don't. Otherwise this is handing states like Texas a huge tranche of seats based on its non-citizen population which won't count for legislators. This means that a citizen in a Republican district in Texas will have an unequal vote compared to a citizen in a Republican district in Kentucky or Ohio because the R districts in TX will have significantly fewer residents and voters.
41  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Where would 'Little England" Be? on: May 28, 2015, 12:15:34 pm
At the mouth of the Thames River...

42  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why is SSM such a big deal? on: May 28, 2015, 11:54:14 am
Del Tachi, I'm pretty sure you can go back to 2003-2004 and find Republican federal officials calling the Lawrence decision wrongly decided. That meant they were arguing for the criminalization of gay sex. I certainly would concede that by that date, few were willing to say outright they wanted gay sex to be criminalized, but stood up for the principle that states should be allowed to do so if they wanted.
43  Questions and Answers / The Atlas / Re: Petition to ban BushOklahoma on: May 21, 2015, 09:39:25 pm
Braum's
44  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gallup poll: Record percentage support SSM on: May 21, 2015, 09:34:10 pm
Just wait until SSM can be performed and recognized in all 50 states after June (I fully expect the Supreme Court to settle the issue). The graph of SSM support is going to look like an expedited version of interracial marriage. Conservatives will grumble about it for a time, probably gives LGBT relatives a hard time for a while, and the issue will just slowly go away.

But the G.G. will not let it go away. They want it in our faces 24/7 non stop. If I were told I'd never have to hear about this again, I'd be satisfied.

Not going to political forums and clicking on links with "Same Sex Marriage" in the title might be a start to the relief you seek.
45  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why is SSM such a big deal? on: May 21, 2015, 12:12:07 pm
Don't you think there would be some more support on the Right for civil marriage if opponents were not basically compared to Hitler?

Um, no.
46  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: More chatter about a Dem redraw of CD lines in CA if SCOTUS tanks AZ commission on: May 20, 2015, 08:21:10 am
I'm grabbing the popcorn. This is heating up.
47  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of Torie on: May 18, 2015, 12:07:06 pm
FF.
48  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Palinesque VP pick for Hillary on: May 09, 2015, 02:43:57 pm
Loretta Sanchez, but that's a stretch.
49  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: UK General Election - May 7th 2015 (The Official Election Day & Results Thread) on: May 09, 2015, 02:35:51 pm
Fair enough, but with respect to the UKIP voters up there who were formerly Labour voters, does that not indicate some estrangement with the party, an estrangement that will not be easy to assuage?

That doesn't mean that they're about to vote bloody Tory.

Give them time baby, give them time. Who would have thought Harlan County, KY would have become a Pub bastion 20 years ago?

Who is Margaret Thatcher in this analogy? Harlan County doesn't have much animus toward Reagan, I don't think.

Similarly, Ed Miliband may be a bit disconnected from Labour's roots but it's not quite like Barack Obama's reception in Appalachia.
50  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Anti-gay lawmaker outed by man he flirted online on: May 03, 2015, 07:56:54 am
If being attracted to someone of the same sex is not a psychological condition, what is it? A physical condition?  A metaphyscial condition?   Surely you must admit that being attracted to someone and having sex with them are in some way distinct? 

It's a sexual orientation.

That is a label, not a description.

"Psychological condition" is also a label. It's all semantics.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 536


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines