Slashdot Mirror
Barack Obama Is One Step Closer To Being President
At 3:00 Eastern time on Monday Dec. 15, 538 electors in state capitols across the US cast the votes that actually elected Barack Obama the 44th President. Obama received, unofficially, 365 electoral votes (with 270 needed to win). The exact total will not be official — or Obama officially elected — until Congress certifies the count of electoral votes in a joint session on Jan. 6, 2009. The Electoral College was established in its present form in 1804 by the Twelfth Amendment to the US Constitution. Electors are not required to vote for the candidate who won their state — in fact, 24 states make it a criminal offense to vote otherwise, but no "faithless elector" has ever been charged with a crime. "On 158 occasions, electors have cast their votes for President or Vice President in a manner different from that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Two votes were not cast at all when electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The remaining 85 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was in 1836 when 23 Virginia electors changed their vote together. ... To date, faithless electors have never changed the otherwise expected outcome of the election."
And the point of this story is...?
How is this newsworthy? "United States electoral process proceeds as planned! In other news, sun rises. Film at 11."
What your saying is that McCain has an outside shot?
Why is this piece of tripe on Slashdot? You can read this stuff all you want on CNN.com or any other "news" channel. I thought Slashdot was "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."
This doesn't matter.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
So all is left is to clear up the right wing conspiracy theories about Oboma's birth origin. (However McCain was born in Panama so I am not sure who would be left...)
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I'm REALLY tempted to click that, just for old time's sake.
Also, it'd probably be more interesting/newsworthy than the article.
Lots was made about Sarah Palin being on the Republican ticket. In 1972, Roger MacBride--a faithless Republican elector from Virginia--decided that he could not in good conscience vote for Nixon. He cast his vote for John Hospers & Tonie Nathan on the Libertarian ticket, marking the first time a woman had ever received an electoral vote.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
they still had a little aristocratic doubt in the back of their minds, and put this ridiculous electoral college system in place. an arostocratic hedge. a little doubt in the power of democracy. a fuck up
al gore should have rightfully been president of the united states in 2000, and for all that you can accuse al gore of potentially screwing up (what, too much environmental regulation?), there's nothing he could have done to the usa as bad as what gw bush did. our economy, our international image, our own faith in our govt to protect our freedoms, torture, preemptive war, etc
of course, i understand in reality the chance of getting rid of the ec is incredibly difficult, its too entrenched. but maybe at least we can, on a state by state basis, convince the states that ec votes should be awarded proportional to popular vote, like maine and nebraska do now (i think). so texas will suddenly cough up a bunch of democratic votes, but so will new york suddenly cough up some republican votes. isn't it necessary that we star thinking less partisan? is it fair to people in austin that texas is viewed as a republican block? is it fair to people in upstate new york that new york is viewed as a democratic block? don't these people's voices deserve equal share in the vote for president?
of course, if texas passed such a law, but not new york, or new york passed such a law, but not texas, this obviously skews results for republicans or democrats. in which case, you'd still need to make sure the key swing states that traditionally, now, deliver breadbaskets of electoral votes for one party or another, all start delivering proportionally on the same presidential election, so it would have ot happen in one 4 year span
incredibly difficult still, but doable. and do we another gw bush presidency to convince you it needs to be done?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What your saying is that McCain has an outside shot?
Judging by some red-neck rants on Christian blogs he is not the only person who might have a shot at the president elect.
This is news for nerds because the difference between the way things are expected to work and the way they are actually implemented is a nerd interest.
The fact that this something that happens regularly every four years doesn't mean it isn't news. If that were the case, then we would not see stories with titles like "The worst/best/most/least ____ of 2008" in the upcoming weeks.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Okay kids - let's add some more!
Seriously, could we get any more fawning over President-elect Obama? I don't recall Slashdot carrying this level of minutiae for either of the prior Bush terms.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
There are instances in history where the electoral college went against the will of the people. This would be news in that instance. Otherwise it's just business as usual.
Mr. Hopey Changey is filling his cabinet with storied Washington insiders.
Woo hoo.
Can't wait to see how when we're having problems two years from now the Obamabots figure out ways to blame McChimpyHallibushHitlerCheney anyway.
Get this: Obama didn't inherit any problems. He turned off online contribution credit card validation and recording, sleazed his way to $300 million in contributions, and BOUGHT EVERY DAMN PROBLEM HE WILL FACE
Maybe bush will declare martial law, and then when this space station breaks away from earth, and destroys our whole fleet by employing cybernetically altered telepaths, he'll turn the earth's defense grid against the earth, and it will be up to Obama to save us all by destroying all the platforms before they can create a scorched earth scenario... ...or...
Maybe he'll just be another elected official, like all the previous presidents, and isn't really an evil puppet as some people have tried to fantasize...
Wouldn't it be something if bush was just a normal guy?
--Ray
http://www.beanleafpress.com
The real reason:
By the end of the day, you'll see hundreds of posts to this thread. Many rants about Bush. Comments about the evangelical Christians and their agenda. Comments about bailouts. Etc...
This will draw many many eyeballs to advertisements and clicks. The end of the quarter is coming up and they need try to make the numbers. Even then, I'm sure there's going to be layoffs at Slashdot next year, too. Then, we'll really see the dupes!
So, what you're saying is that this is just 1 more way that my vote doesn't count?
Listen, I understand the whole 'idiots can't be trusted to vote' thing, but the system is just one step short of only letting the rich vote. (I don't actually agree with the idiots thing, but I understand it.)
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
and your doubt will be fruitful and hav a point
otherwise, you still need to believe in democracy
churchill: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I don't agree with you. You should be modded down.
Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
Would there have to be a special election? ....?
Would Bush/Cheney stay in office until
The Speaker becomes President only a sitting President and VP are taken out?
Is this documented anywhere?
BTW, my question in no way hopes that such an event occur.
Get real, there is more slant here than on Digg at times. At least on Digg its mostly the users.
Normally I have politics unchecked but somehow my settings got forked.
The Capital is the city, Capitol is the actual building. They were not all in their Capitol buildings. It should say Capitals, since they were in their capital city.
we're talking about the presidential vote, the electoral college. hello?
we're not talking about execution by vote. this isn't a science fiction convention
can you keep your emotional propaganda in your pants please?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I remember during the 2000 election fiasco, I was watching some news call in show. A woman said that Gore had an unfair advantage, because he was a career politician and probably knew about this electoral college stuff, while she was sure Bush didn't. She apparently had never heard of it.
It doesn't hurt to remind people of the bizarre way that the US Presidential election works.
Obama planned his first public appearance since his presidential victory for Friday -- a meeting with economic advisers to discuss the nation's financial woes that Americans listed as their top concern on Election Day. Obama plans to talk to the news media Friday afternoon following the meeting, aides said. He and his wife, Michelle, will visit the White House on Monday at President Bush's invitation, aides said. http://kingpahat.blogspot.com/
Electors are not required to vote for the candidate who won their state -- in fact, 24 states make it a criminal offense to vote otherwise
Someone please explain that sentence to me, because to me it sounds like: "In the US, driving you car on the sidewalks is allowed -- in fact you'll go to jail in most states if you do so."
Ah, rednecks. All of those Sunday sermons they attended, for all of those years. "Turn the other cheek", "love thy neighbour" etc. And yet they want to shoot a black president. How Christian of them. If, of course, by "Christian", you mean "moron-tastic". Actually, try that substitution in other situations too. IT works well.
i'm glad you can spin scenarios where this is not true. and? supposition is not fact
the official record is al gore won the popular vote. please, show us contingencies and if-then conditions where this is not true. it doesn't mean anything
meanwhile, we also have the factual record of the abyssmal gw bush administration. can you tell me with a straight face al gore would have invaded iraq?
we need to remove the electoral college, to prevent another a gw bush: gw bush was not the democratic will of the american people, according to factual record (not your suppositions). yet he took the white house, and we paid dearly for this idiotic anachronistic tweak on our popular will called the ec
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Like most of the news articles on this, the date for counting the votes is wrong. It is January 8 - see House Joint Resolution 100.
Isn't that an EXACT Cut and Paste job trotted out by you and several other slashdot posters EVERY TIME an Obama story is raised here?
And, yes, the Pope DID get a lot of news even on slashdot.
And this story, such as it is, is not about Obama's breakfast repast.
Not include the first few presidents of the USA?
Either they were presidents or not.
Muslim Overlord.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
but it is an excellent point, and i thank you for it
yet another reason to get rid of the ec: its as outdated anachronism
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You take the first step, and then maybe I'll give up my gun in an urban environment. Post a sign on your apartment window that says "I believe in gun control. There are no firearms in this residence." The availability of firearms is a general, not specific deterrent. However if you let folks know of your views of how the world should be, then perhaps we can see how well it works out for you.
Good luck.
p.s. You might also help your cause by learning when to use capital letters. It really helps the reader determine when your next sentence begins, and also conveys a sense of pride in authorship.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
I was taught that it was because no one wanted to beat Washington's electoral record, but it is far more likely that Plumer simply did not like Monroe or his policies.
Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
as soon as we had a president "elected" who didn't actually win the popular vote.
Guess not.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
no? what's wrong with you?
then you need to put a sign on every door in your house saying "gun in here" or "gun not in here" to guide criminals, for being the inadequately enthusiastic gun owner you profess to be
have i successfully dismantled your bullshit propaganda about the a sign on my window yet?
think of an urban environment as a large house. on the street corners, are police. they are the guns that i need to keep me safe from crime. the gun is in safe, responsible, vigilant (and awake) hands. that it is in his hands, and not in my apartment, is the same as your gun being in your bedroom, but not your kitchen
see how that works?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You've posted this same exact comment before, haven't you? I know I've seen it. I'm not criticizing, just curious because I know I've read it.
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm
educate yourself, then open your ignorant hole
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How does have to do with anything people who read slash dot would even care about?
In 1972, Tonie Nathan became the first woman to receive an Electoral College vote (for Vice President).
She was the 1972 Libertarian VP candidate, on the ticket with John Hospers. Roger MacBride, a "faithless" Republican elector from Virginia, refused to vote for Richard Nixon, and cast the vote for Hospers and Nathan.
Ya, but what does this have to do with computing or technology in general?
Then again, Slashdot has really lost a lot of its focus since it started.
the popular vote is all that should matter
everything you said is 100% correct, in a bogus system. which renders your points pointless
i don't know why you think its important to lecture me on the facts of the status quo, when the whole issue here is the status quo is wrong
i get it. i get everything you said. i got it before you said it
do you get it that the way things work is wrong? or at least that that is the fucking subject matter?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I love the bat-shit crazies who think that dual-citizenship can bar someone from being president. With that logic, the UK can prevent everyone from being president, by declaring all US citizens are UK citizens as well. Idiots.
editted and worked over though:
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1021887&cid=25678743
people give me flak for this, i do it alot. but i don't understand what their problem is, there's no such thing as self-plagiarism. if the remark is applicable to the subject matter, which it is, what's the problem?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What? Did I miss hearing about that campaign promise? Do we get to choose? (I wouldn't mind a new Madone, Barack.)
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Are you paying attention to what has happened in "gun-free zones" and in cities with more restrictions on gun control in the US? Crime is higher than in cities and areas with gun control, as a general rule.
You also further restrict the freedom of the law-abiding, and put them at the mercy of criminals. A majority - a VAST majority, of gun owners in the USA are NOT criminals and will likely never commit a crime. Why take away their right to own a gun? What harm will it bring to you?
Another point - conceal-carry owners typically have better criminal records than the police. They DON'T commit crimes. Criminals don't commit crimes when they believe their life is on the line.
We don't live in Europe. We live in the USA. We need to err on the side of freedom, which may mean something people don't like - gun ownership.
so you go with what the ec decides, and you wind up convincing people that they are helpless cogs in a machine, their vote doesn't matter, its card tricks and fuzzy math, democracy is a joke
or you go with the tiniest perturbation in popular will, thereby convincing people they better damn well vote in the next election since every little vote counts so much, thereby reinstilling faith in democracy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It is almost like you are advocating the correct approach to let the states decide. Oddly enough, that was the exact solution presented in the constitution.
again, let me get this absolutely clear to you: for the sake of the current (flawed) interpretation of the second amendment, there are needless deaths every day in urban settings. right now, for the disproportionate influence of rural people, urban people die.
The Urban tendency is to blame objects for acts degenerates commit. This avoids any uncomfortable questions about the sick culture in the most violent American cities.
Further, your entire post is pretty much negated by the facts- that crime, and armed crime, go up whenever a gun ban is introduced.
Why? Lawful people follow the law, criminals don't, advantage: criminals. It's really, really, simple, and I don't see why so many folks have a hard time grasping this repeatedly demonstrated phenomenon.
i look forward to the day when a few rural folks die for having their gun rights curtailed, rather then the status quo we have today, in which a lot of urban folks die for the sake of irresponsible gun ownership.
Again, rural people don't guy to gun violence, urban people do. The 'irresponsible gun ownership' occurs in the urban environment, because you allow a subculture of entitlement, selfishness and shortsightedness to flourish there, AND the cities with the worst crime have banned guns, making honest people easy targets for criminals.
You have amoral degenerates running around your cities that you refuse to deal with. That is your problem. Not guns.
Rural voters don't deserve to have more rights than urban voters, which is exactly what you are asking for, no matter how you frame it, and it is still wrong. any, ANY disproportionate influence leads to injustice and abuse of power.
Simple fact: Take away the electoral college, and the influence of small states is irrelevant. There is no way they would sign off on that change, and there is no way they would have joined the union without it.
Maine, by splitting their electoral vote to the popular vote, has made themselves irrelevant in campaigning. Most contests are close- within a few percentage points. To get an extra electoral vote in Maine, you'd need to swing an additional >10% of the vote your way.
This would take a massive campaigning effort- if it was even possible- for one additional vote.
Easier to ignore the state instead and get your half, or half +1. States that follow your idea make themselves irrelevant to the campaign and can safely be ignored.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
The structure of a government body or an electoral process is a technology. These are artifacts that are designed to meet certain requirements. There are rich fields of mathematics describing what it and is not possible, and various designs (such as proportional representation or approval voting) which represent different tradeoffs between incompatible ends.
The electoral college is a case in point. The original idea was to moderate public passions by filtering them through elected representatives from each state. However once you do that, you are presented with a problem: under such a system, residents of less populous states would, in effect, have no say in an election that was entirely determined by a few large states. So they tweaked the weight of each state's vote to provide what, at the time, amounted to an equalization of power between residents of different states (as well as ensuring that no drastic measures were taken at the Federal level which would damage economies dependent on slave importation).
Of course, this leads to the "old lady who swallowed the fly" scenario: while ensuring equalization of influence between states of different sizes, it creates severe imbalances of influence between safe states and battleground states.
And that's a hallmark of an engineering problem: you can't have everything because fixes in one place create problems in other places.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Even in the city, the police can't be everywhere, and the argument that people should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves still stands. Besides, criminals would still find a way to get their hands on guns .
Many people, who have not carefully pondered the elctoral college system consider it an anachronism.
And it's true some of it's purposes, such as not requiringing candidates to make the perilous journey to all the states and to prevent religious institutions from swaying direct democratic vote have lost their original purposes. And indeed those aspects are gone. The electors are bound democraticly not by the legislative branch as was the norm.
But it's remaining features are of great interest to nerds. It's a very clever optimization problem with a very clever robust solution.
Some people think that the president should be chosen by a popular vote. But instead the design of the college is intended to optimize a different criteria. It's purpose is to choose the person who is best able to govern and is the most broadly representative, not the most popular.
here's the three central challenges it is addressing.
1) Whenever two candidates are sufficiently close in the popular vote as to both be highly popular, the best choice is not the one that eeks out a few extra votes, but rather the one that gathers the votes from the most geographically diverse base. The states form an excellent proxy for diversity.
2) the president is the man who must follow the will of the legislative branch. Like it or not we have a union formed around a senate which has a large small state bias. If you dislike the small state bias, then you should complain about the senate not the electoral college. The president has to work with the senate after he's elected so it makes a lot of sense to give the presidentially election a minor small state bias.
this 2=extra elector bias is quite small but insures that desiderata 1 and 2 are carried out.
3) the third function of the EC system is population normalization. The president is president of all the people, not just the ones that voted or even the ones that voted for for him. He's even the president of the ones that can't vote. (felons, children, women, and slaves all counted towards the population count since the begining). Thus no matter how many people cast votes, the total effect of tose votes is viewed as a sampling of the TOTAL population of the state. So the vote's effect is renormalized to the total state population by the EC system. Even if one person voted in CA, they get 45 electors.
As an example, in the last election, the turnout in Alaska was quite small for whatever reason. but they still get the full electoral count.
The real problem with the EC system is not that it does not perfectly track the popular vote--it's not trying to be an approximation of that criteria. It's really trying to bias the choice to someone who is both popular and diversely popular.
the real reason the EC system has some difficulties is the silly winner-take-all process.
instead of eliminating it here's a suggestion. remove the winner take-all division of electors. instead, take the top-two vote-getters and approtion the electors between them in each state according to the state's popular votes. Award a 2-elector bonus to the overall vote-getter.
this preserves the renormalization, the small state bias, and the diversity bonus. But it removes all the problems.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. IF absentee ballots were counted THEN gw bush would win the popular vote in 2000
verdict: maybe. maybe not. we'll never know. but its not a record of fact. maybe if i eat unicorns i'll fart rainbows. who knows? who cares? its all conjecture
2. IF the ec college were abolished THEN al gore would be president in 2000 and the usa would never have invaded iraq
verdict: about as certain as me farting after eating refried beans. pretty fucking solid fact
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It is too bad that there are so many people, so completely scared, that they think they need to "protect" themselves with a gun.
I don't even lock my door, why should I bother owning a gun? I don't worry about that stuff. Plus, if someone were to break in to my house, grabbing a gun is just about the stupidest thing to do. The criminal is probably 1) armed, 2) awake and alert, 3) ruthless, 4) ready to use his weapon to make sure he doesn't get caught. Who do you think is going to win that battle, you or the criminal? My bet is on the criminal.
By grabbing a gun, you have just elevated the chances of YOU dying by a great amount.
wat http://www.reddit.com/user/circletimessquare/
i'll grant you all of your pluses, and a few more conjectures if you like. now listen to my one big fat negative, and understand that your pluses are outweighed by an order of magnitude:
it weakens faith in democracy. if my vote doesn't matter, because i'm a democrat in texas or a republican in new york, why vote? why consider my government to be a representative of my will?
a democracy is strong because it manufactures legitimacy. if the people believe the government acts in their interests, then there is social stability, and therefore happiness and prosperity.
to the extent that people dislike what their government does, if they believe that there is some "medicine" in the system which warps their will, meaning their will has not been adequately and fully expressed, they ar eunhappy, there is social instability, we all suffer for that
all of your "pluses" of the ec are aristocratic instincts of your own. you don't trust the popular will. which means you yourself have anti-democratic impulses. which means you are part of the problem
other strong-arm governments depend upon force to impose the will of an aristocracy, a "special" class, onto the will of the majority. this of course creates injustice and unhappiness
you need to reexamine your instincts. you are flawed, because you don't trust the will of the people. the will of the people is infallible, because there is no way you can morally or intellectually stand apart from the people and judge them, because there is no morally or intellectually valid point of view that stands apart from the people
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You are correct, however that path has other destinations as well.
2.5 million deaths prevented per year by the defensive use of a gun, versus 13,000 preventable gun deaths. I'm sorry, you're going to have to work a lot harder.
flattered that someone puts all the effort in though
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Chicago. Detroit. DC. Poorer cities with high crime rates. New York is a relatively wealthy city - you're distancing the historical root of crime - poverty - and blaming it on inanimate objects and better police protection, which New York can afford. You want to restrict the freedom of the law-abiding needlessly, even within cities.
Conceal-carry states are relatively poorer than their neighbors and have relatively lower crime rates than states with more restrictive gun rights. You don't pay attention to what works and what doesn't in gun control. You ignore the matter that gun owners - particularly those with conceal-carry permits - don't commit crimes and want to punish them for something they aren't doing.
1. The rural population has power disproportionate to their population because they make the food you eat. The ag industry drives this country. If you think dependance on foreign energy sources is bad, meditate on the consequences of a dependance on foreign food.
Speaking of, the arguments I hear against ag subsidies tend to be as dumb and poorly framed as your arguments against personal gun ownership.
2. The electoral college was a deal made with every state as they entered the Union. Reneging on that deal would be justifiable grounds for separation from the Union, IMO.
As others have pointed out in this thread, something like an electoral college is necessary in an Enlightenment-style Republic. It is necessary because it prevents mob rule democracy.
3. "...the usa has been mostly rural throughout its history, but is shifting to majority urban in recent years..."
The US has been mostly urban since before the Great Depression. http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt
4. If you really want to get rid of personal gun ownership, start the process of amending the Constitution.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Taking away guns from law abiding citizens != Taking away guns from criminals.
Look at DC for instance.
Wow. I don't know where you pulled that unsubstantiated figure from, but it must really have hurt...
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
i actually favor a county-by-county approach. in new york state, guns should be illegal in manhattan, but should be legal in herkimer county in the adirondacks
of course, it would be impossible to enforce, so it doesn't matter
either rural folks have to suffer for the sake of urban folks, or urban folks have to suffer for the sake of rural folks. there are a lot more urban folks, and more and more every day. therefore, rural folks need to suffer for the sake of urban folks. currently, the opposite is true, and there are hundreds of deaths every year due to that injustice
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There are several misconceptions in the two parent posts.
First, abolishing the electoral college would _not_ favor rural voters. The electoral college, as it is set up now, favors non-urban areas because every state gets two electoral votes before population is affected*. Wyoming would get one vote purely on population.
There are several compelling (to my eye) reasons to give a little push in the favor of rural voters, but it is certainly debatable whether or not this is beneficial. The main reason is that, without this slight imbalance, cities/urban states could carry the vote by themselves, overriding the rural vote on every issue.
Ultimately, however, I'm cynical enough about politics to think that the specifics of how we elect our next president matter little, because our choice of president matters little, as long as some large amount of voting is used. Career politicians tend to act alike.
What I want to know is, with all this hullabaloo about the unfairness of the electoral system, why aren't we hearing about the unfairness of the Senate? As the upper body in our legislature, why are we content to let California, which gets 51 electoral votes from population, have equal representation with Wyoming? The fact that this is not disputed, whereas everyone recently hates the electoral college, indicates to me that the dispute is more or less over the hysteria over the power of the President, who after all, does not write any of our laws.
A distraction from the true nexus of power, indeed...
*Electoral votes= |Senators| (two per state) + |Representatives| (population).
for the sake of the current (flawed) interpretation of the second amendment, there are needless deaths every day in urban settings. right now, for the disproportionate influence of rural people, urban people die
I think this is a key assumption that you make in which your argument falls apart. gun control does not equal to less guns on the streets. It equals less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. D.C. until recently had the strictest gun control in the US, but somehow had an abnormally high homicide rate. A more drastic example is Brazil, which has extremely strict regulations on the legal purchase of firearms. The end result is a civilian population that is unarmed, and an ever bolder criminal population that knows there's nothing any civilian can do to stop them. Strict gun control is somewhat similar to DRM. It makes it a pain in the ass for people to purchase it for legitimate uses, while letting people have easy access to the same merchandise on the black market. I'm not a second amendment advocate, I'm actually one of the few "crazies" that still thinks that the second amendment referred specifically to state militias, not individuals. Either way, amendment or no amendment, I think that strict gun control only hurts society as a whole.
stupid.
Read radical news here
The gun rights debate is not a rural versus urban dynamic; it's a freedom vs slavery dynamic. You say urban blood is on the hands of legitimate gun owners; if you (and other city dwellers) truly believe that, I weep for our fleeting liberty as a country.
Freedom is more important than life. The end.
You do have a point... the weakness comes from the black market in guns. There are a lot of shady dealers who flaunt the ATF requirements on waiting periods, background checks and the like. I remember reading on a crackdown of dealers here in Massachusetts a few years ago (maybe 10, not sure). Gun violence dropped by a measurable amount. But knife violence went up. I don't recall if the murder rate dropped... I wish I could find a source...
Yes, my parents ran up against this. 8 years ago, my dad at least for some reason went to the caucus for bush. (I have no idea why.. he *finally* figured out bush is crap about 2 years ago. My mom started voting 3rd-party straight away.) They picked bush, despite religious loons who packed the place to pick like pat robinson. Time to pick an elector! Oh guess what, the religious types had someone they were SURE would be great in the electoral college. Well, a few overheard them talking, they were in fact intending to send an elector and then have them vote for Robinson *anyway*, and throw out the caucus-chosen agenda and bring the religious-nut-prepicked agenda with them instead (this agenda is essentially to decide what the "official" party line is). Once they lost the elector vote and it became time to then vote on the actual agenda the religious nuts all left, they were NOT interest in trying proper voting, once they found they couldn't subvert it they left.
which is why i fight gun ownership, as the curtailment on our freedom that it is
i am motivated by the same principles as you. the difference between you and me is that gun ownership in your mind is joined at the hip with freedom. this is an absurdity
not all limits to your freedom are imposed by the state. drug addiction is a form of slavery. fear in urban communities by gun toting thugs is a form of slavery
the gun is a tool of slavery much more than it is a tool of freedom
that in your mind, gun ownership is so tightly wound up with the notion of freedom, is outright wrong, and sad
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The first dark-skinned, inexperienced, black-power Leftist is almost in charge! I think I'll feint!
Really folks...voting for someone _because_ of his skin color without asking questions is just as stupid as voting _against_ him without asking questions.
We were pretty good; 4-6% growth, you can barely find a jalopy on the roads, Walmarts everywhere were full and unless you live in a place the Liberals controlled (Detroit, LA, NYC) chances are you didn't know anyone out of work.
But change is good. Does everyone remember where the Unemployment Office is? Everyone take your seats for the Jimmy Carter express!
(People: civics are important, even when they're not made by Honda.)
you repeatedly post the same crap. give it up and go steal a TV.
And I thought I was naive. Outlawing personal firearms does not protect you from crooks with guns. The crooks are most likely using a stolen gun in the first place, or other illegal firearm. In the UK, which has some of the strongest gun control laws out there, criminals don't have that hard of a time getting firearms.
Gun violence is down and knife violence is up due to all those 'crimes of passion' and the like where someone on the spur of the moment (well, maybe not literally the spur of the moment) decides to kill someone.
And no, the 2nd Amendment isn't just for Farmer John to have a gun because there are no police around. Certain quotes from the founding fathers sheds light on the purpose for it: so that the people can oppose the government if the government starts abusing their rights.
The scary bit is how close to that day we are going.
LA, NYC, and other large metro areas already ban concealed carry so there aren't any gun-totting cowboys walking around at high-noon looking for someone to shoot. The urban people dying at the wrong end of a barrel are not dying from legally owned firearms, but by criminals who use the weapons illegally. Banning guns in the country will not disarm such criminals- and this fact disproves your entire argument. It is an interesting concept- rural vs urban, but is incorrect. The right to self-defense is a philosophical one and not a geographical one.
You do realize that gun crime has skyrocketed in the UK since their gun ban right?
And that when Germany restricted handguns they only got back something like 20% of the weapons they were supposed to? Lord knows it's anarchy there.
And that states that not only have unrestrictive gun laws, but concealed carry have lower rates of violent crime than states that don't?
The problem with you, is that you don't draw any distinction between legal, law abiding gun owners, and criminals. In the last three months gun sales have skyrocketed and the economy is collapsing, which do you think causes more crime? Thankfully the supreme court disagrees with you.
It's amazing that easily disproved rumors and outright lies continue to be propagated by those who would subvert the democratic process.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
You started okay, but after the GP posted a perfectly reasonable reply, you went off half-cocked. Perhaps YOU cannot be trusted with a gun (I don't know that, but it's what you're implying), but I think that people like the GP and myself shouldn't be restricted because of your fear. What do you want after you come get my gun, to listen to my conversation to make sure I'm not platting something evil? Cut off all the natural gas to people's homes for fear of explosions?
No, if you look carefully, you'll realize that your rationalization for removing a freedom I enjoy is purely based on fear and speculation. I've seen you rally against this type of mindset before, what in this case puts you so firmly in the other camp?
And yet they want to shoot a black president.
Well of course - he's a black muslim terr'ist - think about it:
1. Obama is black, Jesus was white.
2. Obama is muslim, Jesus was Christian.
3. Obama is a terr'ist, Jesus preached love of thy fellow man.
Isn't it obvious to you that Obama is the modern-day antichrist?!?!
If you had the chance to go back in time and kill Hitler, wouldn't you take it? This is really no different!
your observations are spot on... in a rural land, where the law is too far away to matter
in an urban environment, there's something called POLICE
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck You're right, that was painful.
Still wrong, because claiming that "there were approximately 2.5 million crimes in which victims used guns for self-protection", as the Wiki page mentions, is entirely different from claiming that "if these 2.5 million victims had not had guns to protect themselves, each and every one of them would have been shot dead."
I think you're even more likely to get shot at if you try to use your gun, than if you just stay cool and passive. I'm not saying it's a pleasant experience either. Just my 2 euro cents.
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
The structure of a government body or an electoral process is a technology.
If the Electoral College process is a technology, then maybe someone should patent it, and refuse to license it to the U.S. Government. We would have to then elect our presidents directly, avoiding another 2000-like fiasco. Of course all the TV commentators with their red and blue maps would be out of a job.
Not to mention all the Israeli dual-citizens. AFAIK just being Jewish (by blood, not conversion?) makes you an Israeli citizen.
I thought that Congress and the Senate were made to keep both small and larger states happy. Congress Bigger (more people) get more representatives. While the Senate each state get two representatives. Laws must pass both houses of Congress to pass.
Personally, the electoral college should go away. If we are going to have a popularity contest for President, then have that. Or carry the electoral college idea all the way down to the state level. In order to 'win' a state you have to 'win' most of that state. Not just win the counties with more people, but actually win more counties of that state. Did anyone look at the state breakdown of who took each county? One state had like 32 counties. The winner of that state got 7 counties while the other person got the remaining 25 counties. Those seven counties were where the big cities were.
I'll be modded to -1,000,000,000 for this, but the system should be changed. Either go all popular vote or expand the electoral system all the way down to the state level. To win a state you need to win the majority of the counties in that state.
>
I would argue that the electoral college is designed that way because it's the states that elect the president, not the people. Remember, there was a real wariness about the federal government in general, probably more so than today. Nobody wanted the federal government to do anything exiting, like levy taxes on everyone.
Thus, the electoral college. The electors vote for the president, and those electors in turn are elected by the populace of the states. Those voters were essentially vetted by the states, since the electors were appointed by the current party structure(s)...and the voters, of course, had to pass certain criteria to vote.
It's yet another check. It hasn't really been used, but that doesn't mean it should be taken away.
If you see California and New York as a problem, then splitting the electoral vote of a state would be a solution. That would hurt the Democrats tremendously, so it won't happen; it would essentially marginalize all the cities.
The EC really works fine, for the most part. There's only been what, one issue in the last few hundred years, and that's hardly a reason to revise anything.
"Barack Obama Is One Step Closer To Being President"
Now if he can just clear that pesky 'American Citizenship' requirement.
AFAIK, McCain's citizenship was initially also questioned, but was resolved within a week when the McCain campaign released all relevant documents. Sadly, the Obama campaign has refused to do so, I genuinely don't know why. They don't want to credit the wingnuts with a response? True, I could understand that, but when there remain a number of valid questions about Obama's claimed citizenship, I'd hope that everyone would want to put these questions to rest ASAP:
- According to Obama's Kenyan Grandmother, and the Kenyan government, he was born in Kenya. Multiple other sources point to two different Hawaiian hospitals, and the campaign-supplied certificate has serious questions as to its provenance.
- The circumstances of his mother's precise status (wherever he happened to be born) and her ability to legally transfer citizenship to her son based on the law at the time of his birth, are certainly muddled.
- Subsequent questions of his claimed citizenship also shadow the discussion: what was his own claimed citizenship while he attended Harvard? When he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, he is recorded as having an Indonesian passport...a country which didn't allow dual citizenship.
And for those who'll aggressively mod me down 'troll' because they disagree, censorship != winning a debate. As Harvey Krumpet might point out: "fakt 48: fakts still exist even if they are ignored "
-Styopa
either rural folks have to suffer for the sake of urban folks, or urban folks have to suffer for the sake of rural folks. there are a lot more urban folks, and more and more every day. therefore, rural folks need to suffer for the sake of urban folks.
So, what you're saying, then, is that you support the tyranny of the majority?
So much for your "Low Budget HDV Filipino Horror Movie". The majority of us don't want to see it, so stop production. Immediately. You Filipinos will just have to suffer for the sake of the rest of us, so that we don't have to suffer through your crappy movie.
Oh, touched a nerve, did I? Good. Tyranny of the majority is never a good thing. Learn to live with, nay, even *love* your freedom.
In short, being *more free* is worth a little bloodshed. If the truth be told, I'd spill a little myself, to keep my freedoms, and the freedoms of my loved ones. Would you?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
"strong police: that's the path to low crime"
Wait...wait a moment...I am channeling a response from the Founding Fathers....
"BWAHAHAHHAHHHAHHHAHAHAHAHA!"
Individual liberty and social prosperity are the ONLY solutions to crime.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled delusions.
With that logic, the UK can prevent everyone from being president, by declaring all US citizens are UK citizens as well. Idiots.
Not since 1815 has this been true, but shine on you crazy diamond
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
She can parachute her in. :-)
This claim is the central theme of John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" and it is, at best, debatable. The Wikipedia page on Lott's book isn't a bad starting point on the controversy.
Even if true, this is quite likely a product of restrictive laws on granting concealed carry permits, rather than an argument for loosening those laws.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Love it.
That is all.
But Jesus was a black jew who kicked a bunch of money-lender's asses...
One thing about this whole Obama citizenship debate that bothers me - how the *hell* do we even wind up in a situation where, *after* the election, someone is questioning eligibility? In order to run for President, you have to register your candidacy with the Federal Election Commission, or something, don' you? Why aren't candidates required to prove eligibility as a requirement to even *be in the election*?
We should not have a system where it's even remotely possible that someone could be elected when they aren't eligible.
That said, there really is no question that Obama is a natural citizen. After all, we know who his mother and grandmother are, and we know they are natural born citizens. By definition, if either of your parents are US citizens, you are a natural born citizen. Unless you don't think the woman he claims as his mother really is his mother.
> He still has not releases his college records and birth certificate.
He still hasn't releases those things? I had thinks he had pledges to exposes or explains them. I wouldn't have votes for him otherwise.
What if he never wents to college? Or wasn't even borns?
The thing about a faithless elector - unless the election is so close that you can actually change it, there's no point to switching your ballot. If the guy you are voting against anyway is still going to be president, all you've done is slapped the President of the United States in the face and ticked off all of his partisans. Not a good place to be, I'm pretty sure. If you were able to change the outcome of your election, you better fear for your very life, because you will have made about 49 percent of the nation very, very angry. And according to the Supreme Court's recent ruling, we are a nation where the 2nd Amendment gives an individual right to bear arms.
That has far more to do with a corrupt and dishonest media than it does with democracy or our electoral system (or even the two parties). If the media actually covered the other candidates, or allowed them to participate in the media moderated and sponsored debates, people would know about them.
Actually, we don't have a true democracy here (thank goodness). We have a federal republic with checks and balances. And that's very fortunate, because democracy in its pure form is simply mob rule. We have some checks on the majority to keep it from just running rampant over minorities, which does technically break with pure democracy but is a very good idea. Ultimately, of course, at the end of the day super-majorities do have the ultimate say, because that's better than a king, but fortunately we do not have a pure democracy.
Now, if you are trying to claim that the will of the people is not properly represented within the system we currently have, I call bull and demand that you provide some evidence. Yes, our government is pretty terrible at the moment (and I think will be even worse when the new congress and administration come in), but it isn't because the government isn't reflecting us. Rather, it is because the government reflects us that it is so terrible. We as a society are becoming a bunch of lazy, uneducated, entitlement people who think we have a right to everything without actually working hard at learning and producing. We, as a society, don't bother to learn anything about economics, government (especially how ours is supposed to work), foreign affairs or anything else. Then we go to the polls and vote based on our ignorance (usually for whoever "looks presidential" or "will fix our lives" or "promised us X").
No, the sad fact is, our government is a VERY good reflection of what we are becoming as a society and a nation. Does congress look like a whiny, clueless island of misfit toys? Yes, but so do we.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
Not to nitpick overmuch, but every state also agreed on the mechanism by which the constitution, and thus the method of electing the president, could be altered. In order to remove the electoral college both houses of congress would have to agree to do so with two thirds majority and then three fourths of the states legislatures would have to agree by simple majority. Or, two thirds of the states legislatures would have to convene a constitutional convention, approve an amendment, and again three fourths of the state legislatures would have to agree by simple majority. Either way, the states agreed to this when they agreed to join the union.
Maybe I am just ignorant... But, why in the world do we even need an extra layer of complexity called the "electoral college"?
I honestly do not see the need for it. Everyone casted their vote. They picked Obama. He is the next president.
I can only justify the need for another round of voting, only if the average Joe's vote didn't count.
It is too bad that there are so many people, so completely scared, that they think they need to "protect" themselves with a gun.
I don't even lock my door, why should I bother owning a gun? I don't worry about that stuff. Plus, if someone were to break in to my house, grabbing a gun is just about the stupidest thing to do. The criminal is probably 1) armed, 2) awake and alert, 3) ruthless, 4) ready to use his weapon to make sure he doesn't get caught. Who do you think is going to win that battle, you or the criminal? My bet is on the criminal.
By grabbing a gun, you have just elevated the chances of YOU dying by a great amount.
It's not about being afraid, it's about being prepared.
You honestly believe the "1) armed, 2) awake and alert, 3) ruthless, 4) ready to use his weapon to make sure he doesn't get caught" criminal is going to have mercy on you because you are unarmed? You are merely easy prey.
It's been fun but you will have to excuse me, I am leading Kumbaya and also in charge of the gumdrops today. Maybe we can have a skip through the field with all the wild flowers someday.
Unfortunately your proverbial Beacon of Righteousness for the rest of us simple minded folk who don't live in New York city is in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. But you don't really care about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as a whole, only the parts you agree with. It is none of your fucking business why I legally own a gun. The point is that I have never committed a crime, yet people like you want to take away my rights.
Being Jewish by blood and meeting the qualifications, just guarantees that you can immigrate to Israel and live there. Current law and practice is that if you apply for citizenship you will get granted it, but it is not guaranteed or granted by the same law allowing immigration.
I wish to see the ban the electoral college except under the condition of death of a candidate or other unlikely happenings that cause the popular vote winning party not to be able to serve. I mean, most US citizens are educated enough to make their own decision and the voting systems are pretty much reliable (sort of), so the electoral college is unneeded except in those rare instances.
Minnesota does not allow this to happen after problems in the 2004 election. https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=208.08&year=2008 http://web.archive.org/web/20041217034158/http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5134791.html
When I said reneging, I thought it implied changing the system without ammending the Constitution. I'm clearly aware of Constitutional ammendments, if you read my fourth point.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Someone mod this up. There is one more implication of the "Take away the electoral college, and the influence of small states is irrelevant. There is no way they would sign off on that change..." bit. In order to remove the EC, you'd have to pass a constitutional ammendment. To do that you would need to get it to pass by 2/3 in hte House and Senate, and 3/4th of the States' legislatures. Unless the US Senators and State Legistlatures of the 24 smaller states suddenly decide to simply give away power, this will never happen. There is no reason to discuss this, it is simply impossible, unless California creates a mind ray to turn everyone in those states into complete morons.
But... states like Maine have already decided to throw away power by splitting their EC votes, as explained by the parent. So, who knows...
Clovis
^ Clovis, look! It's that guy you are!
The 20th Amendment lays out the process, though it may be argued that it's been modified by the 25th. However, the 25th doesn't specifically mention President-elect and VP-elect situations at all, only sitting officials.
Basically, in such a hypothetical situation, Congress gets to pick the successors, with a 2/3 vote probably being required.
The latest gimmick from the moveon.org folks is not to abolish the Electoral College (since the institution has proven quite resilient against such attacks), but rather to change state laws to join a compact that requires that the state's electoral vote be given to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of the vote in that state.
A handful of liberal states have already passed such laws.
I will be laughing myself silly at the next election won by a conservative (it isn't a question of "if", it is of "when", just as it is for liberal election victories) when an ultra-liberal state ends up giving its votes to that conservative because they joined this silly compact.
That, too, is not a question of "if", but rather of "when". Conservative-voting states are not likely to join this compact, so the only states that will have their people's vote overruled will be liberal-voting states.
Or, as I often put it, our representatives are far more representative than we'd like to admin.
It must have been posted here because Twitter won him the election.
The 14'th amendment was was created to be an option.
Arg, that's 'admit', not 'admin'. I hate typos.
The original wording the US Constitution stated the nominee with the most votes became the President. The person with the second highest vote count became the Vice President. That would make McCain the VP. This rule was eventually over-written in an Ammendment.
But... wouldn't that be interesting?
It's anarchy here in Germany? Ummmm... you ever actually BEEN here? You sir, are talking out of your posterior. I've lived in a lot of different countries and visited many more. Germany is definitely right near the top when it comes to "peaceful", "safe" and "organised". Sometimes I feel a bit more anarchy here would be a good thing just to stir it up a bit.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
My question for those who advocate gun control is this:
Do you not see the futility of measures such as Alcohol Prohibition or the War on Drugs? And, if you do, why do you think prohibitions against guns will be different and more successful?
-Grym
I'm sorry, I didn't get that, since the electoral college is in the constitution removing it would be just as hard as changing constitutional gun rights.
Look, I don't understand why it even matters to anyone.
Let's for a moment assume that due to some technicality - a misplaced paper, some obscure law, or other omission - Obama is actually not a lawful US citizen. However, what does it really changed? He had lived as one for all his adult life. He was successfully elected to the U.S. Senate as such, and served a term there. No legalistic trickery can change the fact that, for any purpose that matters, he is American.
The only reason to raise this topic that I can see is if one has a personal vendetta against the man. It certainly doesn't hold any place in any reasonable political discussion. In that sense, it's a bit like Godwin's Law - whenever someone raises the issue of Obama's citizenship in a discussion on him, it means that he lacks any substantial arguments, and is automatically disqualified.
1. Obama is black, Jesus was black.
2. Obama is Muslim, Jesus was a Jew.
3. Read some history, Christians have killed many more people than Hitler (Crusades?). And made much less effort to justify it to themselves - actually their justification was simple: if you are not christian, you die.
If Hitler was killed before his time, it is reasonable to assume someone else would have gone down that path. I wont get into how America is going down that path already - we just use $$ instead of bullets.
Actually, ANY country can grant you citizenship at will. Even if you don't want it! You don't have to recognise it, nor does anyone else, but if Botswana suddenly decided that I was a citizen of their country (despite having never been there, having no ties to it, or anything else), then I'd be a citizen of Botswana in addition to my other citizenships. Some countries have laws that say if you CHOOSE to become a citizen of another country, you must give up your claim to your current citizenship (and some that say if you CHOOSE to become a citizen of their country, you must renounce any other citizenships to do so), but as far as I know, there aren't any that would say if you're RECOGNISED as a citizen of another country you must give up others.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Now, if you are trying to claim that the will of the people is not properly represented within the system we currently have, I call bull and demand that you provide some evidence.
In other news, Illinois governer attempts to sell the senate seat... the will of the people have been met!
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Can we wait until after somebody claiming to be a religious person actually takes a shot at the president-elect before we condemn an entire ethnic group (rednecks) for cultivating an environment which produces our fictional assassin?
Judging by what a more-or-less sensible non-partisan Obama sounds like, and what an incredibly goofy left-wing tool Biden has shown himself to be, I'd say conservative nut-jobs would not only be among the last to shoot at Obama, they'd probably be among the first to take a bullet for him.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The last function is corruption/election rigging firewalling.
Imagine there's a corrupt governor in, oh, let's say Illinois. The governor decides that dead people, dogs, cats, and goldfish need the vote and has decided they all need to make the same choice -- they're very grateful for their suffrage after all. In the electoral college system, the only votes the governor can bring to the table are Illinois, while in a popular system, he could alter the entire outcome through his rigging.
Also, when there's a close election, you only have to do recounts in close states. Florida was a mess, but imagine how much worse a NATIONAL recount would've been. I don't think there's enough gov't officials in the US to supervise that.
Lastly, because of the firewall effect, states can have more independent election processes from other states since, at best, they're only altering the results from their states, not at a national level, which was their right to begin with.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
When I said reneging, I thought it implied changing the system without ammending the Constitution. I'm clearly aware of Constitutional ammendments, if you read my fourth point.
While I've heard many, many calls to get rid of the Electoral College, I have not heard a SINGLE ONE that suggested that we should just ignore the constitution, rather than amending it.
The proposal is to de facto abolish the electoral college by having states pass laws dictating that their electors votes match the popular vote--meaning that if a state has 100 electors, and the winner gets 60% of the popular vote, then 60 electors vote for the winner and 40 for the loser. It's not the case that all the state electors vote for the winner, giving him or her a unanimous victory in the electoral college.
It's a flawed proposal for several reasons, but it's not a liberal conspiracy. It's an attempt to eliminate the situation where someone wins the popular vote and loses the presidency.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
The arguments I hear against ag. subsidies are about how the subsidies reduce the fair market value of the food. If you are a farmer in another country, it becomes impossible to compete.
Ag. subsidies are great for the US, but it does hurt the rest of the world's farmers.
The case of New York is particularly interesting because premeditated policy decisions may have exported crime to surrounding areas:
Mod parent -1 pure, unfiltered horseshit.
He has released a state provided birth certificate proving that he was born in the U.S., and the state in question has come forward to validate it. He thus fulfills all the requirements of the 14th amendment to be considered a natural born citizen. College transcripts are irrelevant. Dual citizenship is irrelevant. He was not born in Kenya. He has proved otherwise.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
The fact that you compared Chicago to Detroit is insulting. Chicago is hardly a "poor" city - it's just very heavily segregated between rich and poor.
Wooosh!
That was exactly my point. The government tried to reign in guns, 80% were never returned, and nothing bad happened.
Umm... yeh, I just re-read your post and now feel like a fool... sorry... that "wooosh" was well deserved.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Shoes
Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were smart guys. Why did they not choose a government based by the people, of the people and for the people, who chose not to throw shoes at at particular candidate?
And it would be a hoot and a half, with Larry King moderating.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Just as soon as you wear a sign that says:
I have a concealed carry permit. Muggers, please put your own gun away and give me a minutes warning so I have time to get out my gun, cock it, and take the safety off. Burglars, please call in advance and leave your own guns at home. Otherwise I wont be able to use my Tiger Stone, I mean my hand gun. Thanks!
Missing the point.
People are running around and claiming that dual-citizenship makes you ineligible to be president.
It takes another sovereign nation granting you citizenship to make you a dual citizen. And they can grant that with or without your permission, for any reason they choose.
So by that logic, the UK, Iran, The Galactic Empire, etc, could sabotage our presidential elections by declaring all of us citizens (making us the dreaded dual-citizen). If you can't see the fatal flaw in the dual-citizen argument after that you, well... see my grandfather post...
Congress, state legislatures, and local municipalities have all put laws in place that restrict who may own guns and what type of guns you may own. They have done this without any ammendments to the Constitution.
It is definitely plausible that any or all of those groups would try to change the electoral college in a similar manner.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Point taken. It seems even the supreme court believes that registration, licensing, permits, and fees do not qualify as any infringements on the right to bear arms. The fact that a random local judge here in upstate NY can deny me my right to bear a handgun because I haven't given him a sufficiently good reason flies in the face of the second amendment.
On one hand the process of the electoral college is well laid out in the constitution, on the other hand there are a few spots that are vague enough that congress could use to force everyone to allocate their own states' electors proportionally to the votes of that state. Though whether that would be for better or worse is its own subject of debate.
This is NEWS, because I bet a majority of people who, either were NOT taught this, or, while in school, didn't pay attention, don't realize the beauty of the electoral college. By having such a design, this gives states with a low population, a stake in the election. Otherwise, you would only see those running for office, spending all their time in NY, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, California, Texas and a couple other states. USA, contrary to popular belief, is NOT a democracy, but a representative republic. It's more of the checks & balances that the founding fathers put in to our form of government.
Wrong. The proposal, the National Popular Vote, is essentially exactly what GP describes. One might legitimately dispute GPs characterization of which states are likely to pass the proposal, but GPs characterization of what the proposal is.
Thanks for the correction.
The early presidents who were not "natural born" were US citizens at the time of the Constitution's adoption.
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
"We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
I think that's a bit telling that every high school kid is taught what the Electoral College is, and how it works -- but of course the President didn't know until he was a candidate.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
. Pudge is the hero of dumb fat fucks everywhere - in one of his journals he talks about how Obama has the least amount of experience of any candidate in 70 years, obviously forgetting who's in the White House right now.
Bush was a two term governor of a large state before he was elected.
Who is the dumb fat fuck now?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Can we wait until after somebody claiming to be a religious person actually takes a shot at the president-elect before we condemn an entire ethnic group (rednecks) for cultivating an environment which produces our fictional assassin?
I hate to break it to you, but you only have to come to where I currently am to find a fairly large group of people who claim to be religious who would love to take a shot at Obama. I see them pretty much every day here and they aren't exactly quiet about their desires.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
It's tempting to see everything the founding fathers did as wonderfully wise and perfect. But while they were quite amazingly far-sighted, they were also politicians cutting deals to get things done within the partisan realities of the day.
This is not far from the same thing. We just happen to view the deal-cutting through rose-colored glasses because those deals have resulted in one of the most durable and successful democratic nations in history.
And, it is always a good opportunity to review the principles behind those deals. The President was not intended to be a "direct representative of the people." That was the nightmare scenario for the founding fathers as they feared the "mob rule" of direct democracy.
The president today is very much the most powerful and direct representative of the people, but is this a reason to ditch the EC? No, quite the opposite--the stronger the office of the president gets, the more important it is to maintain some abstraction between that office and the mob of direct democracy.
It doesn't ensure the President is "representative of a diverse electorate" - it encourages the opposite; a President who can appeal to a few very narrow key demographics to push them over the top in a handful of states.
This is a common view of people who really only pay attention to the end of elections, where differences are magnified. But by the time a candidate has won a major party primary, all the truly niche or narrowly focused candidates have been weeded out. For example Ron Paul, for all his narrow fanatical support, did not even come close to winning his primary or the general election.
John McCain sought to distinguish himself from Obama by exploiting narrow issues, but that was AFTER he had already established himself as the Republican with the broadest national base of support.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I have co-workers that didn't know there were other candidates for president besides McCain and Obama...
That has far more to do with a corrupt and dishonest media than it does with democracy or our electoral system (or even the two parties). If the media actually covered the other candidates, or allowed them to participate in the media moderated and sponsored debates, people would know about them.
Really?? You guys have never heard of Hillary Clinton?
I think it's more likely that you're only thinking of the presidential election after the conventions. But in reality it started long before. How many major-party candidates were there for president this cycle? 2? No, it was actually over 15. It's just that most of them conceded their defeat well before November 5.
There were 3 televised debates between McCain and Obama. But, in the Democratic Primary alone there were 26 debates, 14 of which were televised on major networks, each with 5-8 participants. Just among the major party candidates there was a broad diversity of opinion from which the nation could choose, and the media covered it. I don't think it's the media's fault that most people ignore the primaries.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Jesus was a Jew.
Not flaming against Christians or Jews, just a correcting.
Obama's paternal grandmother says she witnessed his birth in Kenya. The Kenyan ambassador, Peter Ogego, said his birthplace in Kenya is well known. (Ogego's later attempt to backtrack, by saying he was talking about Obama Sr., is wholly inconsistent with the audio recording.)
To say that Fukino and Onaka have "affirmed Obama was born in Hawaii" is a fabrication. They merely say that "the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record." Tellingly and coyly, they do not say whether the certificate in their vault is of Hawaiian or Kenyan origin.
It would be so simple to lay all this speculation to rest by showing the vault copy to the media. That Obama stubbornly refuses to do so is extremely suspicious.
you are a coward because you beleive that your life and safety are the responsibility of others, namely the 'strong police'.
you're also grossly underinformed. many civilian gun owners are more responsible with their weapons than some police officers. you have to remember that until the police arrive *you* are your own police, you do have that power.
it is widely reported that gun ownders are statistically 3 times more likely to be shot by their own weapon than shoot an intruder, which is true i believe, however this statistic only counts incidents in which shots are fired. you're tens of times more likely to subdue or scare away an intruder to your home than to have a single shot fired.
in short: when the shit hits the fan *you* are the only one who can protect yourself in those initial critical moments. you have the rights and the power constitutionally to do so and an obligation to the people you love to accept that responsibility.
lastly: the 2nd amendment isn't about protecting yourself from criminals and it isn't about hunting.
"i live in new york city. low gun ownership, low crime. strong police. my crime rate is probably lower than where you live."
Vermont has no restrictions on carrying concealed weapons yet has the second lowest crime rate in the union.
also, what is his favorite color?
did you copy that from wikipedia? seriously though, very informative, if obscure...
Ask Me About... The 80's!
The Electoral College was something of a necessity back in the day simply because of the lack of advanced communication. You ran in to a big problem of how do all the votes and the information get back to one place. I mean I suppose you could send all the phsyical ballots but that is riddled with problems (like the fact that they'd differ per state) and security risks. Well another option is to just send a guy to say how the people voted. That is more or less what the Electoral College system is. You elect a person who is going to go vote for who you want.
Ok, however that is all rather unnecessary now. We have instant communications. It is rather easy to accurately know how many votes a candidate received and indeed news networks report it all the time.
It is a huge relic, unfortunately I don't think it is going away. Part of the problem is that usually the popular candidate wins, so people just don't care. Had we actually had the Kerry situation, well then maybe people would give a shit. As it is nobody seems to. Heck, most of the Gore supporters just whined about how Bush "Stole" the election rather than concentrating on it as a reason to get rid of the Electoral College.
Since it is in the Constitution and needs an amendment to change, it'll take a lot of popular support before it can happen, and people just don't care. Thus I think we are stuck with it.
I would do that, but then again we in Aust were sensible ebough to get rid of most of the guns in our society years ago.
Why are you so scared you need to have a gun?
You do reaise that is complete rubbish dont you.
The gun murder rate in the US is much higher than countries where guns are strictly controlled.
When the majority of guns are removed there are less guns for criminals to steal, therefore less guns in the hands of criminals.
Gun ownership seems to be some kind of overcompensation to me.
Here's an interesting tidbit about the Birth Certificate non-issue.
Someone tracked down the birth announcement in the Honolulu paper. She then tracked down what was the procedure AT THE TIME of Obama's birth to GET A BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT in the paper.
Briefly, the hospitals collected all the live birth data and info and forwarded it to the Dept. of Vital Records, once a week, and the local papers picked up the copy provided by Vital Records and published it.
There's more solid proof that Obama was born in the U.S. in this one article, BY A SKEPTIC OF HIS U.S. BIRTH, and is a natural born citizen, than there is against his natural born birth status in ALL of the utter BS spewed by the "OMG! Scary Black Person with a Funny Name!!!!ELEVENTYONE" crowd.
He won. He's the President.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Ethnically, not so much in a religious sense. However, today he'd be considered Palestinian, although he was sent to deliver the gospel to the Children of Israel (not the same as the current Israel of today)
A far more likely prospect.
Democrats, bringing a new and exciting level of corruption to the White House!
California creates a mind ray to turn everyone in those states into complete morons.
You've discovered the true purpose behind Hollywood!
Switzerland is both a direct democracy *and* a federation, and I don't think it has been ruled by a mob.
There's more solid proof that Obama was born in the U.S. in this one article, BY A SKEPTIC OF HIS U.S. BIRTH, and is a natural born citizen, than there is against his natural born birth status in ALL of the utter BS spewed
Evidence, not proof, evidence. And, you are correct. After the Clinton campaign brought this up during the Primary, what would have been really nice is if Obama, with a derisive roll of the eyes towards those who deserve it, had simply said, "somebody take a reporter and get a copy of my birth certificate so we can end this idiocy." And then ended it.
But no, we have the usual non-response "ignore it and it will go away" attitude that we have learned to know and love under the current administration. His grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and he has some obvious ties there. Could her memory be faulty? Sure. But, since the issue has been raised, and it is one of those definitively defined things in that pesky little inconvenience known as the Constitution, it should be resolved by some Federal non-partisan authority.
Oh, and a document of live birth from Hawaii is not proof of a natural born citizen. It and a birth certificate are two different documents.
So, yeah, while I think the preponderance of evidence indicates Obama's natural-birth citizenship, I would have preferred a different response.
Thus far, my opinion is getting to be: meet the new boss, same as the old boss. (Which isn't exactly true. The totalitarian government of "Brave New World" was much nicer than the totalitarian government of "1984".)
Well done! Way to COMPLETELY IGNORE the facts of the discovery made by a skeptic about how birth announcements were handled in the early 1960s by the newspapers in Hawaii and continue to float the COLB diversion.
You've a future at Fox News Channel!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Congratulations on being a status-quo dumb ass. As I said, in general summation, I believe it to be a non-issue, especially the dual-citizen lawsuit nonsense. It is not the issue but the handling of it that is the problem. It did not show any of the "change", openness, decisive resolution, or good statesmanship that Obama promised to bring us. Judging by your ridiculous and presumably pejorative Fox News Channel comment, you likely are not a fan of the insular secrecy of the Bush administration but here you are acting outraged that people (who absolutely have an axe to grind) would question the secrecy and stonewalling of the issue by Obama when it should be so damn easy to resolve. A two minute phone call would do it.
When the majority of guns are removed there are less guns for criminals to steal, therefore less guns in the hands of criminals.
Explain to me why gun crime has skyrocket in the UK since their ban on handguns.
Crime is the result of poverty and opportunity, if you take away the guns there will still be crime, and there will still be gun crime. The fact that in Japan they do it with knives instead of guns doesn't make me feel the slightest bit better. Maybe I'm just a pragmatist, but I think we'd do more good in the world solving root causes than blaming inanimate objects for violence.
Over compensation for what?
Overcompesation for;
"Certain" Inadequacies