Ask? Most area provide a provisional ballot when this happens and if the question is cleared up, it get counted. If not, it doesn't but the opportunity doesn't disappear.
90% of the people i see claiming Obama is a Muslim are democrats trying to make fun of people identifying with the tea party with little success. In fact, if it wasn't for most of the democrats keeping this alive, it would have likely died a long time ago.
I don't think it matters if the people being voted on are idiots.
I seriously just heard an interview from a congressional district candidate (she was going to be seated in congress) say that it was good that Ohio was expected to win a senate seat because we need representation in the senate. She was asked if she thoughts on Rob Portman and Sharrod Brown's race. This is someone who is now in government who was glad Ohio elected a senator or two because she thought Ohio didn't have enough senators in the federal government.
I'm not going to name names, many people from ohio are here and might have heard the same interview. The news caster was sort of stunned but went on as if he didn't hear it.
Actually, there will be a poll worker in charge who is supposed to do that stuff if they cannot point to a rule book and back the position up. The op made it up to stir crap up about the voter ID law.
The software doesn't change the tabulation, it creates a cvs file based from the tabulated results that allows county and state officials easier access to the results. This was already reviewed by a judge and found to be harmless.
Well, if your argument is lets do it because it wouldn't be as bad as we think then I reject the concept on the fact we don't need to do something for the sake of doing something.
The US political environment is completely different then other countries. In order to stop costs from rising, we would have to take control of all non elective medical procedure and facilities and have 0 waste. If we go the 25 percent waste as you suggested, we would within a year or so realize another 25% increase in costs from that alone. But because the US constitution would require just compensation for anything the government takes for it's own use, there would be an astronomically high costs associated with taking it over in the first place. This is without giving everything away in order for politicians to get elected or reelected- which they all do and is probably a big reason to why we are deficit spending in the first place.
Let me put it another way, no politician or system instituted would remain in office if the representative appointed to a district would be anything other then the candidate duly elected by the majority of the district. You would either have to take the republic form of government away or create extra seats in congress, both of which require a constitutional amendment.
Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes, not impose unelected officials over the populace for the sake of allowing third parties who can get elected a seat in government. Its not remotely the same.
That would be your assumed goal, not a political party's goal. There are ideological differences and people elect them because of that, not to cave and play democrat first chance they have.
The poor pay no taxes and actually receive more in refunds they they pay in. You cannot cut taxes that aren't paid. If you say "but they pay sales tax and other taxes" your an idiot because the feds don't control those taxes.
Spending on the military is insignificant to balancing the budget too. Your concept of monetary nonsense is just wrong. Here is a though experiment for you. What is 10% of $1000 and is it more or less than 8% of $2000.
Not at all. Politicians vote in favor of corporations because they know corporations provide jobs and keeping jobs available is a key for the success for the people. If you think that makes them beholden, you aren't thinking things through. If the people actually wanted something else, they would vote that way.
I've had this discussion before, it's not about the state's, but the people.
This reference is clearly to a proportional representation of the people's wishes.
That's our system, the people elect representatives on a district by district by state by state level for the federal government. That is the proportional system and that is what is in effect. If the populace wanted a third party, they would vote it in. If they want the democrat candidate, they vote them in. It's not rocket science.
Except that's exactly the loss of control we're suffering, since those artificial districts aren't exactly representative even at their best.
Then I suggest people participate in the election. Because there isn't a third party running in these elections is the exact reason why they aren't represented as much as they would like. The concept of ignoring the local will of the people in order to impose some other representative based on some BS about the party support in another race is exactly that, Bull Shit.
This is the closest to truth you come in your post, namely that it's unlikely to happen.
Because you close your eyes and wish does not make it true. Because you are clueless to how things work does not make it true. What I have said is completely true.
But your reasoning is incorrect. It's not the people that are the issue, it's the people who don't want the people to be in charge.
No, the issue is those people wanting to impose their will over the will the people have spoken. If any third party wants representation, all they have to do is run for office instead of running for president then crying that they have no representatives and senators so everything needs changed for them.
I'm positive the representative in my district was elected by my district. What you are talking about is hogwash for the vast majority of races. You might be able to claim gerrymandering in some, but i doubt there is much to it.
Where in the 12th amendment does it provide for the election of representatives? Are you really going to argue that a president can be split into different people? do you even know what proportional representation is?
You would need to amend the constitution because the representatives are supposed to represent the people that elected them, not some random person who was appointed because of an election malfunction you think is wise. And no, you will not amend the constitution even though it has been amended 27 times already because no one in the major parties will cede that kind of power to a third party. The only way to do it is for the third parties to get their acts together and get elected in lower elections- but then you wouldn't need this hair brained scheme.
This proportional representation system is already in place. In the US, we elect one president- can't really divide him up. W elect two senators per state and it could easily be divided if the people wanted a third party senator. As for the house of representatives, there are congressional districts and each and every representative is elected from them. If the Third part candidates wanted representation they could easily take one of those. It's happened in the past and can happen again.
There are plenty of options for third party participation if they actually cared enough to bother. They do not so I do not think just giving them seats is proper. It also doesn't even address the loss of electoral control the people actually do have by voting in their districts for their own representatives.
It will not ever happen at the federal level simply because you need to change the constitution in order for it to happen. That will not happen. If the people want it to happen, they will start electing third party candidates on the local levels. To say otherwise is ignoring the US electoral system, the US constitution and processes that existed since the beginning of the country.
I've only been listening for a couple minutes and I agree with the GP. You must be looking in the mirror when asking if someone was brainwashed. But reading the rest of your comment, I can see why you are offended.
The costs won't go down. The problem isn't that insurance companies are charging a lot. The problem is that the federal government attempted to regulate costs in the 1960's when a lot of single payer systems were building out their own government health care industry. The owning of the industry is what kept their costs down whereas with the HMO act and the government's Medicare reimbursements, created a situation that actually encourage inflation of costs. Government payments are not for the costs actually charged by the hospitals, they are to the tune of an average cost in the area. So if hospital A says it costs $50 for a band-aid and hospital B says it costs $100, the government would pay $75 to either. This actually encourages medical providers treating medicare and medicaid patients to inflate their costs in order to pump the average up. When insurance companies complained, these providers create a preferred network discount option that allows them to jack the costs up, but provide a discount to covered insurances. As long as the medical provider charges non-covered patients the full costs, it goes to the area average that the government pays out.
Combine this with differences in FDA drug and medical device approval procedures, scale wages and we get a lot of increased costs that will not disappear and could actually rise if a single payer system is implemented without introducing the competition of government owned medical facilities. The problem with replicating government owned facilities is the propensity for inefficiencies and waste. I mean we just had a big scandal where the GSA was squandering money and they are supposed to be the watchdogs on the other agencies. But it gets worse, some are trying to down play it as not as bad as other instances.
I don't hear anyone claiming Bush's problems was Clinton's fault. However, under Clinton with a republican controlled congress, they did place us back on world energy markets which is a reason for the wild fluctuations in Gas prices and so on. High energy costs certainly contributed to the slowing of the economy and the inability to pay for some mortgages as inflation caused less people to be in the market for new homes further complicating the collapse of the housing bubble. Under Clinton, with a republican controlled congress, they did repeal the glass steagall act and change the Community Reinvestment Act sufficiently enough to create or contribute to and allow a lot of the sub-prime BS and the too big to fail problems. And should we not mention the net effect of NAFTA and other Free Trade agreements.
But everyone will claim it was all Bush and not Clinton. This is likely because the problems of those actions were ignored for political expediency and favor. Not discovering, correcting, and rectifying the faults in them was Bush's fault. Likewise, Obama in the same position is Obama's fault.
Some people speculate this is intentional so the country can collapse and be rebuilt more like what they want it to be without the limitations of state's rights and so on. That is a problem that has plagued the implementation of social policies in the US for a long time.
Romney has brought it up numerous times. Obama makes comments like he's starting to like the name, it's Romney's plan and then changes the topic. He knows there are faults in it so avoids the issues altogether.
lol.. It's pointless to attempt to educate these idiots. I went to a tea party rally with a few friends and after it turned out to be completely opposite of their common contrived notions, they spent hours suggesting how good they were at hiding it.
When I discovered that all their notions were second hand rhetoric passed on by their enlightened idols, I suggested that perhaps whoever told them that was wrong and misleading them to become useful idiots for them and I spent the next two hours on the way home being ridiculed because I doubted their benevolent leaders. One peace loving liberal even challenged me to a fight when I repeatedly suggested that his reality doesn't match the same one we just experienced. I thought it was hilarious at the time- but in retrospect, it was just pathetic that they were brainwashed to that extent.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because some news stations called the election doesn't make it true, romney is leading in ohio right now..lol
Ask? Most area provide a provisional ballot when this happens and if the question is cleared up, it get counted. If not, it doesn't but the opportunity doesn't disappear.
I hope you know he was being facetious.
90% of the people i see claiming Obama is a Muslim are democrats trying to make fun of people identifying with the tea party with little success. In fact, if it wasn't for most of the democrats keeping this alive, it would have likely died a long time ago.
I don't think it matters if the people being voted on are idiots.
I seriously just heard an interview from a congressional district candidate (she was going to be seated in congress) say that it was good that Ohio was expected to win a senate seat because we need representation in the senate. She was asked if she thoughts on Rob Portman and Sharrod Brown's race. This is someone who is now in government who was glad Ohio elected a senator or two because she thought Ohio didn't have enough senators in the federal government.
I'm not going to name names, many people from ohio are here and might have heard the same interview. The news caster was sort of stunned but went on as if he didn't hear it.
Actually, there will be a poll worker in charge who is supposed to do that stuff if they cannot point to a rule book and back the position up. The op made it up to stir crap up about the voter ID law.
The software doesn't change the tabulation, it creates a cvs file based from the tabulated results that allows county and state officials easier access to the results. This was already reviewed by a judge and found to be harmless.
That was reviewed and said to be fine by a judge already. The salon article is biased inflammatory BS. You should look for meaningful news elsewhere.
Well, if your argument is lets do it because it wouldn't be as bad as we think then I reject the concept on the fact we don't need to do something for the sake of doing something.
The US political environment is completely different then other countries. In order to stop costs from rising, we would have to take control of all non elective medical procedure and facilities and have 0 waste. If we go the 25 percent waste as you suggested, we would within a year or so realize another 25% increase in costs from that alone. But because the US constitution would require just compensation for anything the government takes for it's own use, there would be an astronomically high costs associated with taking it over in the first place. This is without giving everything away in order for politicians to get elected or reelected- which they all do and is probably a big reason to why we are deficit spending in the first place.
It's more complicated then just doing it.
Let me put it another way, no politician or system instituted would remain in office if the representative appointed to a district would be anything other then the candidate duly elected by the majority of the district. You would either have to take the republic form of government away or create extra seats in congress, both of which require a constitutional amendment.
Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes, not impose unelected officials over the populace for the sake of allowing third parties who can get elected a seat in government. Its not remotely the same.
That would be your assumed goal, not a political party's goal. There are ideological differences and people elect them because of that, not to cave and play democrat first chance they have.
The poor pay no taxes and actually receive more in refunds they they pay in. You cannot cut taxes that aren't paid. If you say "but they pay sales tax and other taxes" your an idiot because the feds don't control those taxes.
Spending on the military is insignificant to balancing the budget too. Your concept of monetary nonsense is just wrong. Here is a though experiment for you. What is 10% of $1000 and is it more or less than 8% of $2000.
Not at all. Politicians vote in favor of corporations because they know corporations provide jobs and keeping jobs available is a key for the success for the people. If you think that makes them beholden, you aren't thinking things through. If the people actually wanted something else, they would vote that way.
That's our system, the people elect representatives on a district by district by state by state level for the federal government. That is the proportional system and that is what is in effect. If the populace wanted a third party, they would vote it in. If they want the democrat candidate, they vote them in. It's not rocket science.
Then I suggest people participate in the election. Because there isn't a third party running in these elections is the exact reason why they aren't represented as much as they would like. The concept of ignoring the local will of the people in order to impose some other representative based on some BS about the party support in another race is exactly that, Bull Shit.
Because you close your eyes and wish does not make it true. Because you are clueless to how things work does not make it true. What I have said is completely true.
No, the issue is those people wanting to impose their will over the will the people have spoken. If any third party wants representation, all they have to do is run for office instead of running for president then crying that they have no representatives and senators so everything needs changed for them.
I'm positive the representative in my district was elected by my district. What you are talking about is hogwash for the vast majority of races. You might be able to claim gerrymandering in some, but i doubt there is much to it.
Where in the 12th amendment does it provide for the election of representatives? Are you really going to argue that a president can be split into different people? do you even know what proportional representation is?
You would need to amend the constitution because the representatives are supposed to represent the people that elected them, not some random person who was appointed because of an election malfunction you think is wise. And no, you will not amend the constitution even though it has been amended 27 times already because no one in the major parties will cede that kind of power to a third party. The only way to do it is for the third parties to get their acts together and get elected in lower elections- but then you wouldn't need this hair brained scheme.
This proportional representation system is already in place. In the US, we elect one president- can't really divide him up. W elect two senators per state and it could easily be divided if the people wanted a third party senator. As for the house of representatives, there are congressional districts and each and every representative is elected from them. If the Third part candidates wanted representation they could easily take one of those. It's happened in the past and can happen again.
There are plenty of options for third party participation if they actually cared enough to bother. They do not so I do not think just giving them seats is proper. It also doesn't even address the loss of electoral control the people actually do have by voting in their districts for their own representatives.
It will not ever happen at the federal level simply because you need to change the constitution in order for it to happen. That will not happen. If the people want it to happen, they will start electing third party candidates on the local levels. To say otherwise is ignoring the US electoral system, the US constitution and processes that existed since the beginning of the country.
I've only been listening for a couple minutes and I agree with the GP. You must be looking in the mirror when asking if someone was brainwashed. But reading the rest of your comment, I can see why you are offended.
Wow.. the mod trolls wasted a point on that..lol they must be getting desperate.
The costs won't go down. The problem isn't that insurance companies are charging a lot. The problem is that the federal government attempted to regulate costs in the 1960's when a lot of single payer systems were building out their own government health care industry. The owning of the industry is what kept their costs down whereas with the HMO act and the government's Medicare reimbursements, created a situation that actually encourage inflation of costs. Government payments are not for the costs actually charged by the hospitals, they are to the tune of an average cost in the area. So if hospital A says it costs $50 for a band-aid and hospital B says it costs $100, the government would pay $75 to either. This actually encourages medical providers treating medicare and medicaid patients to inflate their costs in order to pump the average up. When insurance companies complained, these providers create a preferred network discount option that allows them to jack the costs up, but provide a discount to covered insurances. As long as the medical provider charges non-covered patients the full costs, it goes to the area average that the government pays out.
Combine this with differences in FDA drug and medical device approval procedures, scale wages and we get a lot of increased costs that will not disappear and could actually rise if a single payer system is implemented without introducing the competition of government owned medical facilities. The problem with replicating government owned facilities is the propensity for inefficiencies and waste. I mean we just had a big scandal where the GSA was squandering money and they are supposed to be the watchdogs on the other agencies. But it gets worse, some are trying to down play it as not as bad as other instances.
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/942/2832926/Analysis-GSAs-scandal-pales-in-comparison-to-historical-misdeeds
Isn't the assumed goal of any party is to prevent the apposing party from being elected or reelected?
You act like this is something new. Do you lack the largely unnecessary insight into party politics to know that? It's not a big problem.
That seems to be a lot of what got the last president elected. I don't see a problem with it.
I don't hear anyone claiming Bush's problems was Clinton's fault. However, under Clinton with a republican controlled congress, they did place us back on world energy markets which is a reason for the wild fluctuations in Gas prices and so on. High energy costs certainly contributed to the slowing of the economy and the inability to pay for some mortgages as inflation caused less people to be in the market for new homes further complicating the collapse of the housing bubble. Under Clinton, with a republican controlled congress, they did repeal the glass steagall act and change the Community Reinvestment Act sufficiently enough to create or contribute to and allow a lot of the sub-prime BS and the too big to fail problems. And should we not mention the net effect of NAFTA and other Free Trade agreements.
But everyone will claim it was all Bush and not Clinton. This is likely because the problems of those actions were ignored for political expediency and favor. Not discovering, correcting, and rectifying the faults in them was Bush's fault. Likewise, Obama in the same position is Obama's fault.
Some people speculate this is intentional so the country can collapse and be rebuilt more like what they want it to be without the limitations of state's rights and so on. That is a problem that has plagued the implementation of social policies in the US for a long time.
Romney has brought it up numerous times. Obama makes comments like he's starting to like the name, it's Romney's plan and then changes the topic. He knows there are faults in it so avoids the issues altogether.
lol.. It's pointless to attempt to educate these idiots. I went to a tea party rally with a few friends and after it turned out to be completely opposite of their common contrived notions, they spent hours suggesting how good they were at hiding it.
When I discovered that all their notions were second hand rhetoric passed on by their enlightened idols, I suggested that perhaps whoever told them that was wrong and misleading them to become useful idiots for them and I spent the next two hours on the way home being ridiculed because I doubted their benevolent leaders. One peace loving liberal even challenged me to a fight when I repeatedly suggested that his reality doesn't match the same one we just experienced. I thought it was hilarious at the time- but in retrospect, it was just pathetic that they were brainwashed to that extent.