Humans are not adapted to survive when immersed in amniotic fluid, and when they are immersed in it they aren't a self-sustaining biological unit.
That isn't true. Babies can survive in either environment at a certain stage of development. Otherwise, how would they be able to transition from one environment to another so quickly?
Oh that's right, life starts AFTER the baby leaves the womb and not before.
Well, yes. Until that point it's only potential life,
Each and every presidency since I became aware of politics has left behind a debt greater than the presidency before it. The only exception was Clinton
Sadly, even that isn't true. The national debt still grew by around 1.5 trillion dollars under Clinton. To be fair, Clinton and the (then) fiscally responsible Republicans managed to get the deficit eliminated by the end of his term.
What really blows my mind is that it took Clinton eight years to accumulate that much debt. Obama is now doing nearly that much every year he has been in office...
If only there were some way that Obama could have eliminated those pesky Bush tax cuts. Oh, yeah, he could have eliminated them by doing... nothing. That's right, all he had to do was wait for them to expire and the Bush tax 'problem' would be gone. But he wanted to get re-elected, so he kept them in place so that he wouldn't be seen as a tax-and-spend liberal.
And if only there were some way we could put Obama in charge of the military so that he could order all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan...
...submitting that the group's albums were designed to be listened to from beginning to end
So, where was all the outrage when radio stations were playing one song at a time? You know, the one or two good songs that people actually wanted to listen to?
Because when the stock price declines to much, the stock holders vote in new people to run the company in hopes that new management will be able to make the company more profitable (and raise the stock price).
But once it becomes 'standard issue' for cops in a particular jurisdiction to be recording everything, juries are going to expect that there is a recording by default. The fact that the prosecution would fail to submit a recording into evidence would probably signal to the jury that something is fishy...
I suppose it's OK for all of Texas' votes to go to Romney, though?
Why would you suppose that's OK? I used California as an example. Was I suppose to list all 50 states with the breakdown of how the EVs should be distributed?
You're arguing about how many points a field goal should be after the final whistle's blown.
No, no I'm not. I'm arguing about how many points a field goal should be for all future games, using the most recent game as an...wait for it... example!
That means a city like Los Angeles, with its massive population, would get more attention than smaller swing states currently do
Fixed that for you. Elections would be all about population centers, not populous states. You live anywhere else in California, and you are just as ignored as before.
Dividing the electoral votes along districts would keep any one area from being anymore important than another, and candidates would have to (gasp) campaign across the entire country, rather than picking a few swing states (winner take all system) or a few large population centers (popular vote).
As I replied to another poster, this has to be the worst idea I have ever heard. As a California citizen, why in the holy hell should I care how OTHER states voted in determining how the electoral votes of my state are assigned?
This has to be the worst idea I have ever heard. As a California citizen, why in the holy hell should I care how OTHER states voted in determining how the electoral votes of my state are assigned?
In 2000, a guy with fewer votes than his competitor won the election. System broken.
George Bush won more electoral votes than Gore. He did not have 'fewer votes'. Popular vote is not required for passing laws. Are you saying that we should change that too?
Anything other than allocating votes per voter is plain wrong.
You realize that all of the laws that get passed in this country don't rely on having the majority of the population behind it? Why does electing a president suddenly require a majority of the population?
Splitting large elections into a series of smaller winner takes all elections does not give the same result as popular vote,
I'm not terribly interested in what the popular vote is. Remember, the US is NOT one big blob of a nation. We are a collection of states, each given a certain 'weight' of say in national decisions (Congress, electing the President, etc.) I would just like to see the states distribute their electoral votes more in line with the will of the people. The couple of million people that voted for Romney in California feel disenfranchised when they see zero of the fifty-five electoral votes going to their candidate.
...because it suppresses the minority vote in each district.
How does the winner take all approach we have now NOT suppress the minority vote?
I wish people would stop blaming the electoral college. The system is fine. It is the method in which the individual states assign the votes that is the problem. Florida in 2000 wouldn't have been such a big deal if they had distributed the electoral votes by district, rather than winner take all.
Win California by one vote? You get all 55 electoral votes! How stupid is that?
I don't think Florida has been called yet (although Obama currently has the slight edge there). And I could have sworn that he had Florida leaning slightly towards Romney for quite some time, but now his website shows a slight lean towards Obama?
Not to say that he still didn't do a hell of a job predicting the outcome (just like last election), but to say 'all' at this point seems to be jumping the gun a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Humans are not adapted to survive when immersed in amniotic fluid, and when they are immersed in it they aren't a self-sustaining biological unit.
That isn't true. Babies can survive in either environment at a certain stage of development. Otherwise, how would they be able to transition from one environment to another so quickly?
Oh that's right, life starts AFTER the baby leaves the womb and not before.
Well, yes. Until that point it's only potential life,
No, also not true. See above.
Each and every presidency since I became aware of politics has left behind a debt greater than the presidency before it. The only exception was Clinton
Sadly, even that isn't true. The national debt still grew by around 1.5 trillion dollars under Clinton. To be fair, Clinton and the (then) fiscally responsible Republicans managed to get the deficit eliminated by the end of his term.
What really blows my mind is that it took Clinton eight years to accumulate that much debt. Obama is now doing nearly that much every year he has been in office...
If only there were some way that Obama could have eliminated those pesky Bush tax cuts. Oh, yeah, he could have eliminated them by doing... nothing. That's right, all he had to do was wait for them to expire and the Bush tax 'problem' would be gone. But he wanted to get re-elected, so he kept them in place so that he wouldn't be seen as a tax-and-spend liberal.
And if only there were some way we could put Obama in charge of the military so that he could order all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan...
...submitting that the group's albums were designed to be listened to from beginning to end
So, where was all the outrage when radio stations were playing one song at a time? You know, the one or two good songs that people actually wanted to listen to?
He and OJ can team up to fight crime.
Given some of the dumb educational related 'ideas' coming out of the midwest US, I read that as 'Indiana'...
I've never understood why people use Paypal. All I ever hear is how horrible they are. Are credit cards so difficult to use?
Because when the stock price declines to much, the stock holders vote in new people to run the company in hopes that new management will be able to make the company more profitable (and raise the stock price).
But once it becomes 'standard issue' for cops in a particular jurisdiction to be recording everything, juries are going to expect that there is a recording by default. The fact that the prosecution would fail to submit a recording into evidence would probably signal to the jury that something is fishy...
The Mavs are considering moving to Tumblr or to new MySpace as primary site.
MySpace? Why don't you just threaten to setup your own geocities website while you're at it? It'll have about the same impact.
The Clone Wars are Clones vs. Robots. Duh.
I suppose it's OK for all of Texas' votes to go to Romney, though?
Why would you suppose that's OK? I used California as an example. Was I suppose to list all 50 states with the breakdown of how the EVs should be distributed?
You're arguing about how many points a field goal should be after the final whistle's blown.
No, no I'm not. I'm arguing about how many points a field goal should be for all future games, using the most recent game as an...wait for it... example!
That means a city like Los Angeles, with its massive population, would get more attention than smaller swing states currently do
Fixed that for you. Elections would be all about population centers, not populous states. You live anywhere else in California, and you are just as ignored as before.
Dividing the electoral votes along districts would keep any one area from being anymore important than another, and candidates would have to (gasp) campaign across the entire country, rather than picking a few swing states (winner take all system) or a few large population centers (popular vote).
As I replied to another poster, this has to be the worst idea I have ever heard. As a California citizen, why in the holy hell should I care how OTHER states voted in determining how the electoral votes of my state are assigned?
I'm saying your suggestion has the exact same flaws as the current system...
Current system: California gives all 55 EVs to Obama despite nearly 40% of the state/districts wanting Romney.
District system: California give rougly 35 EVs to Obama and 20 EVs to Romney, which is roughly in line with how the electorate voted.
You use this phrase 'exact same', but I'm not sure you understand what it means.
...and won't make people feel any less disenfranchised.
I think those people that voted for Romney who now see their vote having some effect on the outcome of the election would strongly disagree with you.
This has to be the worst idea I have ever heard. As a California citizen, why in the holy hell should I care how OTHER states voted in determining how the electoral votes of my state are assigned?
In 2000, a guy with fewer votes than his competitor won the election. System broken.
George Bush won more electoral votes than Gore. He did not have 'fewer votes'. Popular vote is not required for passing laws. Are you saying that we should change that too?
Anything other than allocating votes per voter is plain wrong.
You realize that all of the laws that get passed in this country don't rely on having the majority of the population behind it? Why does electing a president suddenly require a majority of the population?
Splitting large elections into a series of smaller winner takes all elections does not give the same result as popular vote,
I'm not terribly interested in what the popular vote is. Remember, the US is NOT one big blob of a nation. We are a collection of states, each given a certain 'weight' of say in national decisions (Congress, electing the President, etc.) I would just like to see the states distribute their electoral votes more in line with the will of the people. The couple of million people that voted for Romney in California feel disenfranchised when they see zero of the fifty-five electoral votes going to their candidate.
...because it suppresses the minority vote in each district.
How does the winner take all approach we have now NOT suppress the minority vote?
The USA is a federation of states.
That is true.
Each state decides which candidate it supports for the federal Chief Executive.
That is also true.
What exactly is your point as it relates to my post?
You get all the votes, and hence all the states and the election! How stupid is that?
So the person that gets more popular votes and electoral votes wins the election. I'm not sure I see what the problem is here.
I wish people would stop blaming the electoral college. The system is fine. It is the method in which the individual states assign the votes that is the problem. Florida in 2000 wouldn't have been such a big deal if they had distributed the electoral votes by district, rather than winner take all.
Win California by one vote? You get all 55 electoral votes! How stupid is that?
Not to say that he still didn't do a hell of a job predicting the outcome (just like last election), but to say 'all' at this point seems to be jumping the gun a bit.
It sounds like the Democrats have put a lot of effort into understanding their electorate.
They put a lot of effort into knowing what the electorate wants to hear. Once in office, they could give a crap what the electorate thinks.
I'd be careful about parking your car in a private parking structure then.
You want full control of your car? Own the garage that it is parked in.