Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 26, 2015, 03:32:55 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 160
76  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: CA-Sen: California Quake on: December 11, 2014, 10:08:38 am
Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.

It benefits all moderates, who, otherwise, had no chances against left-wing loonies in Democratic primaries, and right-wing ones - in Republican. This year election gave enough examples of that with more sensible Democrats (and in some cases - Republicans) elected, and most moonbats and wingers  - defeated. And, as a person, who greatly dislikes loonies of all types - i can only applaude.. Of course - there are opposite examples too, but first step must be made to correct partisan idiocy, which existed before (and utterly denied moderates any chances to influence political process).

There were hardly any left-wing loonies winning elections before the top two, that really has never been the case. The legislature made some of the deepest cuts to services anywhere to balance the budget before the top two was implemented. The top two didn't benefit "moderate" Republicans that much, as none of them running this year in California managed to pickup one single seat.

Wrong. DeMayo, Gorrell and Ose almost won, and DeMayo would have win, if not for scandal. Kashkari managed to defeat Donnelly in "top 2" primary, what could not be a case in closed Republican primary. Republicans elected moderate Baker and libertarianish Hadley to Assembly. And i mentioned a substantial number of "business Democrats" elected this year (BTW, in most of the "top 2" D - D races more moderate candidates were elected, and that's natural - they get support of most Indies and some Republicans in such races). Substantial improvement over the most polarized legislature in the nation, which California was before. And it's only a beginning)))

It's spelled DeMaio, FYI and I'm not entirely sure the scandal caused him to lose, since Peters already had crossover support before that. Almost won is not the same as winning, all three lost and they only came close because of the climate.
77  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Convicted Sex Offender wins big scratch-off prize on: December 11, 2014, 09:56:27 am
He still should have been in prison, people who do such things to children shouldn't be back out on the streets. I know that's going to make a lot of people here angry, but that is my opinion and I am not sorry for it.
78  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: CA-Sen: California Quake on: December 10, 2014, 07:24:07 pm
Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.

It benefits all moderates, who, otherwise, had no chances against left-wing loonies in Democratic primaries, and right-wing ones - in Republican. This year election gave enough examples of that with more sensible Democrats (and in some cases - Republicans) elected, and most moonbats and wingers  - defeated. And, as a person, who greatly dislikes loonies of all types - i can only applaude.. Of course - there are opposite examples too, but first step must be made to correct partisan idiocy, which existed before (and utterly denied moderates any chances to influence political process).

There were hardly any left-wing loonies winning elections before the top two, that really has never been the case. The legislature made some of the deepest cuts to services anywhere to balance the budget before the top two was implemented. The top two didn't benefit "moderate" Republicans that much, as none of them running this year in California managed to pickup one single seat.
79  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: CA-Sen: California Quake on: December 10, 2014, 12:17:09 am
Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.
80  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: CA-Sen: California Quake on: December 08, 2014, 11:52:18 pm
Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.
81  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Landrieu Exceeded all Expectations, so will Hillary be Competitive? on: December 07, 2014, 12:18:56 am
Considering the over performances in Caddo and Jefferson parishes, perhaps so. Those are hardly what you would call ancestrally Democratic parishes, as the Republicans there are more suburban than rural.
82  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: President Obama checks into hospital, complaining of "sore throat" on: December 06, 2014, 06:50:20 pm
Where were John Boehner and Mitch McConnell at when he came down with this "sore throat"?
83  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Peter King on: December 04, 2014, 04:37:47 pm
Long Island, not Staten Island. And second, Democrats never field a credible challenger against him, which is a big mistake.
84  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rand Paul blames Garner's death on cigarette taxes on: December 04, 2014, 12:29:07 am
Taxes are not to blame for everything that goes wrong in the world. Rand Paul is incredibly stupid.

Democrats are so adorable. The drug war has failed but the creation of black markets for cigarettes is a great idea.

America is in awe of such intelligence.

Blaming Democrats for this crime is a big reach.
85  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rand Paul blames Garner's death on cigarette taxes on: December 03, 2014, 11:14:43 pm
Taxes are not to blame for everything that goes wrong in the world. Rand Paul is incredibly stupid.
86  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Abolish The Senate on: December 02, 2014, 08:35:27 pm
The reason the court ruled that state senate districts had to be drawn equally, was because the rural counties were getting a highly disproportionate amount of representation. In California, Los Angeles County had only one state Senator, while several rural counties were distributed into several low population districts.
87  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: NV-Sen: Ralston rates Reid foes on: December 02, 2014, 06:57:14 pm
Reid's main focus would be to drive Sandoval's favorables down early and he would have a good opportunity to do that. With Republicans in control of the Senate, that makes it a little easier for Reid to play defense and tie Sandoval to ineffective leadership.
88  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Abolish The Senate on: December 02, 2014, 06:54:57 pm
I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

That's not the reason, but people like Cory Gardner and Joni Ernst aren't exactly ringing endorsements for keeping it. There is no reason to have two houses when one house can do all the work that needs to be done.

No, there are plenty of reasons to keep the Senate. Have you taken a class in government? Not to mention your extremely partisan calling out of Gardner (really? Gardner seems alright...) and Ernst.



Gardner supports personhood and went back and forth about his ideology during the campaign. He is not all right. No one in a blue state who support Mitch McConnell leading the Senate is all right, they are too far right.

What are the reasons for keeping the Senate? It's redundant to have two houses passing the same bills and lacks efficiency.

He seems to have "evolved" on the issue. I trust him about Personhood about as much as Obama on gay marriage Wink
The Democratic Party failed in the midterms. It's our fault that McConnell is Majority Leader.

Yep... definitely not taken a class in government. Off the top of my head, it goes along with the theme of divided power in the United States government. Tyranny of the majority is prevented through the house, which is popularly elected, from gaining too much power, in essence providing moderation and a check on unbridled power from a too-powerful House of Reps. Imagine the 2010 wave but worse, with a radical congress that had the ability to override a veto. That's what our founders feared.

Gardner changed positions more than once, but that's up to Colorado to learn from since they elected him. But whatever you want to believe.

I've studied government for 20 years, you just started posting on this forum recently, so yeah, don't educate me. For one thing, all that talk about tyranny is pointless, since plenty of counties have one house and nothing bad has happened there. Even Nebraska has one legislative house and there has been no tyranny or unbridled power there. Cities only have one council and counties only have one board, and things work more effectively there than they do federally. Platitudes aren't a good answer, efficiency is the point and a unicameral Congress would be highly more efficient.

I believe that we share a fundamental difference in views here, then. It also nonsensical to try to apply the workings in somewhere like Nebraska or the country/local level with a nation of 300 million people. One thing you can't do is say there is no reason, as there are clear reasons to support the Senate whether you agree or disagree with them.
If efficiency is great, why don't we do away with it altogether and found a one-party state? Obviously division of powers is worthless, amirite?

A unicameral Congress would hardly be a one party state. It makes perfect sense to make comparisons between government, since efficiency is more prominent when you have one legislative body and one executive.
89  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Abolish The Senate on: December 02, 2014, 06:36:14 pm
I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

That's not the reason, but people like Cory Gardner and Joni Ernst aren't exactly ringing endorsements for keeping it. There is no reason to have two houses when one house can do all the work that needs to be done.

No, there are plenty of reasons to keep the Senate. Have you taken a class in government? Not to mention your extremely partisan calling out of Gardner (really? Gardner seems alright...) and Ernst.



Gardner supports personhood and went back and forth about his ideology during the campaign. He is not all right. No one in a blue state who support Mitch McConnell leading the Senate is all right, they are too far right.

What are the reasons for keeping the Senate? It's redundant to have two houses passing the same bills and lacks efficiency.

He seems to have "evolved" on the issue. I trust him about Personhood about as much as Obama on gay marriage Wink
The Democratic Party failed in the midterms. It's our fault that McConnell is Majority Leader.

Yep... definitely not taken a class in government. Off the top of my head, it goes along with the theme of divided power in the United States government. Tyranny of the majority is prevented through the house, which is popularly elected, from gaining too much power, in essence providing moderation and a check on unbridled power from a too-powerful House of Reps. Imagine the 2010 wave but worse, with a radical congress that had the ability to override a veto. That's what our founders feared.

Gardner changed positions more than once, but that's up to Colorado to learn from since they elected him. But whatever you want to believe.

I've studied government for 20 years, you just started posting on this forum recently, so yeah, don't educate me. For one thing, all that talk about tyranny is pointless, since plenty of counties have one house and nothing bad has happened there. Even Nebraska has one legislative house and there has been no tyranny or unbridled power there. Cities only have one council and counties only have one board, and things work more effectively there than they do federally. Platitudes aren't a good answer, efficiency is the point and a unicameral Congress would be highly more efficient.
90  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Abolish The Senate on: December 02, 2014, 06:20:25 pm
I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

That's not the reason, but people like Cory Gardner and Joni Ernst aren't exactly ringing endorsements for keeping it. There is no reason to have two houses when one house can do all the work that needs to be done.

No, there are plenty of reasons to keep the Senate. Have you taken a class in government? Not to mention your extremely partisan calling out of Gardner (really? Gardner seems alright...) and Ernst.



Gardner supports personhood and went back and forth about his ideology during the campaign. He is not all right. No one in a blue state who support Mitch McConnell leading the Senate is all right, they are too far right.

What are the reasons for keeping the Senate? It's redundant to have two houses passing the same bills and lacks efficiency.
91  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Abolish The Senate on: December 02, 2014, 06:03:58 pm
I have a feeling like left-wingers only want the Senate abolished because the Republicans won it this past midterm. Ya know, I never demanded the Senate to be abolished when Harry Reid was Majority Leader.

That's not the reason, but people like Cory Gardner and Joni Ernst aren't exactly ringing endorsements for keeping it. There is no reason to have two houses when one house can do all the work that needs to be done.
92  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Abolish The Senate on: December 02, 2014, 04:03:40 pm
Why is it that every time the left loses a big one, the proposals about how the nature of American Democracy need to change come out of the woodwork?

Are you unaware of the proposals by Republican legislatures to hand electoral votes to the Republican nominee based on gerrymandered districts?

Most countries get by with one chamber just fine, so there is no reason for this country to have two.

No different from the Democrats coming up with the national popular vote compact after 2000. There's quite a bit of daylight between that and abolishing 1/2 of a branch of government.

Not that going to the House alone would help the Dems much.

The popular vote compact isn't an attempt at gaming the system, but trying use heavily gerrymandered districts to guarantee your party the presidency is.

One house drawn fairly by a federal, independent commission would do just fine.
93  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Abolish The Senate on: December 02, 2014, 03:59:01 pm
Why is it that every time the left loses a big one, the proposals about how the nature of American Democracy need to change come out of the woodwork?

Are you unaware of the proposals by Republican legislatures to hand electoral votes to the Republican nominee based on gerrymandered districts?

Most countries get by with one chamber just fine, so there is no reason for this country to have two.
94  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Abolish The Senate on: December 02, 2014, 03:51:32 pm
Article: "Oh no, us poor socialists can't get elected in Wyoming. Abolish the rules!"
That's more that logic of Republicans who can't win in blue states and want to change how electoral voters are allocated. The Senate isn't needed anymore, period.
95  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Abolish The Senate on: December 02, 2014, 11:56:46 am
I've thought that this should happen for quite awhile. The Senate is quite obsolete and it really needs to go now that certain people have been elected to it. A unicameral house drawn by a federally appointed, independent commission is the way to go.
96  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama "blames Bush" on: November 30, 2014, 11:03:35 pm
He's never said it, but Republicans insist that he did. They think he is responsible for Iraq, the response to Katrina and everything that happened under Bush, polling shows this.
97  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Grand jury reaches decision in Ferguson case (Announcement Monday night) on: November 30, 2014, 11:00:56 pm
He's getting no severance or pension, which is a good thing. After all the trouble he's caused, he doesn't deserve any taxpayer dollars lining his pockets.
98  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Giuliani:White Policemen Won't Be There If Blacks Weren't Killing Each Other on: November 26, 2014, 10:55:13 pm
Anyone from the party of Byron Looper shouldn't be discussing crime at all.
99  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How will Hillary play in MI? on: November 23, 2014, 10:00:28 am
Scott Walker would lose badly, because he's anti-union and caused all that trouble in Wisconsin. Regardless of the nominee, Hillary will win Michigan without much trouble.

Rick Snyder pushed right-to-work through in an overnight lame duck session after saying he didn't support it and was still re-elected.

But yeah, Hillary should be fine in Michigan. At worst African American dropoff could hurt her a bit, but it wouldn't be anywhere near enough to make it competitive. I'm sure we'll see it in the "toss up" column from all the pundits again though, even though it's about as much of a toss up as Georgia or Arizona would be.

On midterm turnout, Republicans can get away with anything. With presidential turnout, the union would be able to turnout a lot voters.
100  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: RIP Mayor Marion Barry on: November 23, 2014, 09:13:59 am
Did he overdose on crack?
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 160


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines