According to "Eye of Newt" Herschel has a deep commitment to Christ?
Republicans are such low life scoundrels. Why don't you simply say that you want anyone other than the Democrat Warnock to retain the seat?
One thing about you guys, you mean business and are never above striking below the belt. Democrats continue to be naive in not recognizing the depths that Republicans would descend to.
Herschel is a self confessed bonehead, the very epitome of immorality in regards to his personal life on top of being a compulsive liar.
Now, Newt the Grinch, Gingrich is saying that in spite of Walker's repeated cerebral injuries associated with his sports activity, he is the preferred candidate as he is committed to Christ. Is he more so than an actual minister, Rafael Warnock? Herschel is just an empty head and empty suit to fill an empty seat.
https://news.yahoo.com/newt-gingrich-de … 57238.html
Newt, himself a notorious adulterer, asks us all to give poor Herschel a free pass.
The Republicans offend me by offering such a candidate when they could have chosen someone with better qualifications and less baggage. Am I supposed to be attracted to a nitwit candidate solely because he is black? That is the real reason that you would offer up such a candidate. Your people don't get it, thus it is imperative that your sort be defeated everywhere.Not a Republican, so probably should not respond, but isn't that what Biden pushed with his SCOTUS nominations? If you're black, you're in, if not then forget it. Why are you taking the Republican party to task for following the footsteps of your exalted leader and your own party?
You never addressed the question as to why it is ok to declare that you intend to appoint a woman for a Supreme Court seat (Reagan 1981) but have a problem with Biden making such a statement regarding a Black Woman?
You're not a Republican? What do you consider yourself? Very curious .
HELLOOOO.......Wilderness has elucidated my thoughts exactly. Criticizing the Republicans while the Democrats are far worse. It is analogous to a parent beating an unfavored child while that same parents turns a blind eye to a favorite child doing the exact same thing. Democrats aren't perfect either! Credence is stating that Herschel Walker is a nitwit, what about Biden. He is no rocket scientist; in fact the elevator stops at the lower floors as far as Biden is concerned.
"The Republicans offend me by offering such a candidate when they could have chosen someone with better qualifications and less baggage. "
I don't have too much to say about Walker, I find him sort of a "stereotype" black man -- 4 illegitimate children, and a reputation for according to his own flesh and blood being untruthful. So, not much that is being said about him surprises me. I will be honest, I find it despicable to put forth a candidate due to his color or gender. I prefer Qualified for the job above all when it comes to anyone who runs for Congress.
But I find your statement a bit high horse... You must know Warnock's wife in her own words claimed he was a wife beater and tried to run her over with a car, and was not paying child support But I am sure you can come up with some excuse why she should not be believed.
maybe better have a look at Warnock, he seems to be accused of immoralities by his wife. Neither one should even be considered to sit in congress... Both parties needed a black man, and it seems they could care less about anything else but their color.I will check on Warnock's record as you suggest.
I checked on it and yes, there are issues with Warnock and child support. Police say the beating thing is not proven.
So, Warnock has some tarnish on his record, but compared to Walker at least his is not totally rusted out.His wife gave an open live interview.
I think it sad we end up with the need to support people such as Walker or Warnock. I have come to the point I won't/The reality Sharlee is that the standard of perfection in any candidate or human being is not attainable.
My problem with conservatives is they consistently fail to take into account intensity and magnitude, the finer delineation of difference between things that they always consider to be identical. You, yourself said that you preferred DeSantis over Trump because although they both have your preferred political ideology, one has a cleaner record and background than the other.
A candidate that has multiple infractions, failings and shortcomings cannot be compared to a candidate with considerably less baggage. There isn't anyone on either side of the political divide that does not have skeletons in his or her closet.
They also tick me off when in many in their circles would be more than happy give Wyoming the same weight in electing the president as California.C'mon Cred, the EC thing again? Google tells me that California has 55 votes to cast for the election of the president, and Wyoming has 3. That certainly isn't equal weight in the election process.
You're 'ticked off' because you want to be ticked off.
GAI believe it's the 2 Senators per state that is the problem. The 2 senator rule violates a whole range of important democratic norms, including the idea of majority rule.
The 40 million people who live in the 22 smallest states get 44 senators to represent their views. The 40 million people in California get two.
This produces extremely unfair representation for American voters. This kind of unbalanced representation leads to minority rule.What is your solution? 40 senators from California?
Your view judges by the concept of pure democracy. That isn't relevant to the concept of our nation's construction or the operations of its presidential elections.
Your 'violations' aren't violations in that reality. Your logic isn't applicable to the Constitutional structure of our nation. I'm confident you know that. This can only mean your view is based on what you think our process should be, not what it is.
Your 'senator' point infers you also disagree with the purpose behind the creation of our bi-cameral Congress.
GASolutions to the problem of a grossly misrepresentative Senate? We could simply follow the example of many European democracies and just abolish the Senate. Senate-less democracies seem to get along fine without this extra legislative institution. Or less radical, we could greatly reduce the Senate’s powers, which many European countries have also done.
More creative suggestions? I've read it has also been suggested that we might break bigger states up into several smaller states to increase the number of Senators representing its citizens. California, for instance, might agree to be broken up into three or six separate states.
Or Senators having "weighted" votes depending on the population they represent.
Solving the problem of the egregious misrepresentation in the Senate has about the same odds as a snowballs chance in hell. Any road to reform would be littered with constitutional
obstacles.
I do believe that in the future, the misrepresentation in the Senate will become so absurd that it can no longer be ignored.I like the Senate/House set-up that we have. When it works the voice of the people is heard through the largest chamber—the House, and the deliberation of the state's decisions in the Senate.
Although it is overly general to say so, I don't want any European-style changes, (of the magnitude of deleting our Senate chamber), to our government's construction. The Senate is a valuable tool for helping maintain legislative stability.
GA
I am not making this up, Wilderness and I discussed some of this on another thread. I may be wrong but I got a distinct impression from him that tallying votes based on geographic location was preferable than that based on population.
Conservatives naturally resent the changes that come with changing population demographics, which generally trend Left. Am I wrong?
I did not like the idea that a state legislature can even contemplate ignoring the will of the popular vote and replacing it with their own preferred partisan voice. That is today's Republican Party. Yes, that very idea and desire will always stick in my craw.
Republicans nationwide has be "hard up" to want to obtain a state legislature that has much more autonomy in managing voting processes and procedures that could not be challenged even by state courts. Why would they want this capability?I don't get what you are talking about, (here), bud. Whatever you and Wilderness were discussing was probably what we would end up discussing, and one point of that would be your Wyoming 'weight' claim.
So let's start with your claim, why do you think 3 votes carry more weight than 55 votes?
GAHere is my beef, GA
"And speaking of the Cowboy State, my real objection to the electoral college is the way it allocates absurdly disproportionate weight to voters in small states. An elector in Wyoming represents around 150,000 voters, whereas a California elector represents the votes of some 500,000 residents. That makes their votes over 3 times more powerful than ours. Please explain how that makes any sense."
I am even willing to tolerate this, but no more, no further, as we need to pay more attention to increasing unmerited advantage.
What can be done? Leaving Wyoming at least a minimum of one elector, the arithmetic proportion of one representative for so many citizens needs to be revised to more fairly reflect population differences.Any chance The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be realized?
https://ballotpedia.org/National_Popula … te_CompactI don't think so.
I think that any change of that magnitude would involve a constitutional convention with 75 percent of the states. going along. It is to the advantage of small conservative states that are numerous not support such compact that would water down their relative influence.
I would change the requirement for an elector upwards toward 400,000 persons, where you can still have 435 representatives with a guarantee that every and any state will have at least 1 representive even if the population therein falls below 400,000 persons.
The state still get its representation but is fair and more closely reflect the actual numbers of voters within the state as apportioned relative to other states.I think it will quite likely be adopted...in Democrat controlled states. According to the chart in this link 15 states had passed legislation agreeing to it; all of them but one in a democrat controlled state and the one holdout had a Democrat congress override the Republican governors veto.
So yes, it could be adopted, completely destroying the votes of small, rural states.
Your "beef" has been discussed many times and each time it fails because it is not valid regarding the numbers it claims support it. The state is casting votes for the presidency, not its citizens. The citizens' election involvement is to tell the state who to vote for. That is the same 'vote power' California citizens have. Each citizen has one equal vote to tell their state who to vote for.
If that is the reason you think 3 votes carry more weight than 55 votes then you are mistaken.
GAObviously, this issue is not resolved. I am not destroying the Electoral College, the existence of which I understand and I tolerate.
However, what is the harm in raising the population number associated with having a single representative so that maybe, just maybe, we don't have the large disparity of 1 representive for 150,000 in one state verses 1 for 500,00o for another? Can we moderate that somewhat without the rightwing community virtually "having a cow" in response? I mean this is not rocket science, we have to had been doing this throughout the nation's history to accomodate demographic changes over time, people moving from the rust belt to the sun belt, for example.
Decisions should be decided by real voters and population and not empty and desolate regions of the virtually uninhabited patches.
So, as far as I concerned, let the good times roll.
The weight of a voter and the apportionment of representatives in the state of Wyoming is much more than that experienced in California and I want to see that corrected.
And also, like I said before the state is a non entity and only exists with the concurrence of its citizens. This idea that the state and the majority of its citizens have different objectives has ALWAYS been unacceptable. The representative is there to serve me, what is the "State" beyond that?It sounds like your preference would be to redesign our presidential elections by kicking the states out of it. This would mean that the the half-dozen most populous states would rule—forever.
You don't want the United States of America, you want the United Power-States of America. The little states are just the minion territories that should do as they are told.
GAWell those who find themselves in minion territories could always move, right? That was the remedy recently suggested by Secretary of State Merrilll to those in Alabama's heavily racially gerrymandered voting district that is now in front of SCOTUS. He said if they didn't like it, they had the freedom to move.
"I am not making this up, Wilderness and I discussed some of this on another thread. I may be wrong but I got a distinct impression from him that tallying votes based on geographic location was preferable than that based on population."
You are most definitely wrong. My comments were aimed at your declaration that all states must follow your idea of "fair", regardless of what the people want.
"Conservatives naturally resent the changes that come with changing population demographics, which generally trend Left. Am I wrong?"
You are. It is my impression that most conservatives take exception to another area (and it's culture) changing and then demanding that the smaller, conservative, area follow them down the same road. Liberals do have a rather nasty tendency to demand that the entire country live life as they think is "right". (So does the religious far right, but that's another story.)
"I did not like the idea that a state legislature can even contemplate ignoring the will of the popular vote and replacing it with their own preferred partisan voice. That is today's Republican Party."
Credence, this has me rolling on the floor. Do you not recall the primary vote, by the Democrat Party, that ignored the popular vote and put Hillary on the ballot for the presidency with party "super delegates" taking priority over the people?
"Why would they want this capability?"
I can't imagine anyone but liberals wanting to give government that kind of power. But regardless of my feelings, or yours, if the people want it then they want it and it is not your place (or mine) to declare they cannot have it.Which people would consent to being disenfranchised or have their vote not considered as the state legislature will prevail? The state is subordinate to the U.S. Constitution and must keep whatever changes they desire within that purview. You cannot disenfranchise me and mine Willy-nilly because the "people" want it.
I can't apologize for internal operations within the Democratic Party. I have not been particularly pleased about those operations in 2016 or 2020. But the same sort of internal politics occurs within the GOP. But again, this is not the general election where a higher standard is required between competing parties. The ultimate President of the US is not determined by internecine party politics.
How am I telling Wyoming what to Do? Wyoming is still Wyoming. But in the universe of majority rules, they are going to have to live with compromises that come with being the smaller part of the whole. So, what can be done?I confess I'm not following your train of thought. You insist that the people make the decisions, then turn around and deny them the right to do so. You support Big Government and all it's decision making right, then deny that the states can exercise the power the Constitution gives them.
"But again, this is not the general election where a higher standard is required between competing parties."
I would point out that the lowest standard is the one that sets the stage. The lowest is the determining factor. If D's choose their candidate via party vote rather than popular, and that candidate takes the office, then it was the party that put that candidate in. Don't excuse the machinations of the party.
If you think the Constitution describes how states must run their part of national elections, please point it out, for it does not (outside of sending electors to congress). And yes, should the majority of Floridians make a (Florida) constitution change to have DeSantis vote for the entire state, disenfranchising you and yours, then our Constitution has nothing to say about it.
What can be done is perhaps that liberals realize that the entire country does not share its madness (just as it does not share in the abortion madness currently sweeping the nation) and should not be required to participate in it. Neither the Democrat party nor Congress in general knows better than the people living in Wyoming how Wyoming should operate.Let me clarify
The majority of people in Mississippi can not vote to disenfranchise its Black residents as reflected by the State Legislature for a long time. It was only through enforcement of the 13th, 14th and 19th amendments to the Constitution with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that Mississippi is reminded that States Rights go only so far. So the states just cannot do whatever they want. It explicitely states one man-one vote.
The Constitution is clear that the President shall be elected through popular vote and EC. So neither De Santis nor any other Governor has the authority with state/popular approval or not to usurp this basic right by citizens to vote for those that run for President. That very idea is contradictory to the concept of Democracy and would never pass muster even within the rightwing tribunal of the current Supreme Court.
No ones authority or prerogatives is absolute, this what conservatives need to understand. I like it that way.
Wyoming can control Wyoming within the framework that is provided within the Constitution and that is not an absolute carte Blanche for Wyoming."The Constitution is clear that the President shall be elected through popular vote and EC. "
Oops, let me try to beat Wilderness to this. The Constitution is not clear that the president is elected through the popular vote. On the contrary, the 'faithless electors' part of the original EC allowed for states to, constitutionally, vote against the state's popular vote.
The Constitution's primary involvement is to declare that the president is elected by the vote of the states, that the states are constitutionally free to conduct their own elections, and that the electoral college is the mechanism of their votes. There is no "popular" vote aspect, regarding this issue, in the Constitution.
GADrat! I was going to mention that but the wife made me go grocery shopping and you beat me to it.
"Wyoming can control Wyoming within the framework that is provided within the Constitution and that is not an absolute carte Blanche for Wyoming."
LOL Wyoming can control Wyoming within the framework of what the feds allow them to. Do you remember when the 55 mph speed limit was put into play? Hardly in the Constitution (except that the states shall control what the Constitution does not give to the federal govt.), yet Wyoming had to follow suit.
Do you think the Constitution delineates how or what children shall learn, or how it is to be checked? No? But the states are forced to follow the feds orders there, too.
How about OSHA, MSHA, TSA and all the other safety matters? The constitution does not give that power to the feds, but they surely take it and force states to follow along.
Credence, if you think states can control within their borders whatever the Constitution allows them to you are sadly mistaken. Our federal government has taken, and continues to take, far more power than the Constitution every intended it to have.
"The Republicans offend me by offering such a candidate when they could have chosen someone with better qualifications and less baggage. "
I was just pointing out a bit of hypocrisy. Just pointing out that both sides offer candidates that have baggage. In the case of Walker and Warnock, they both have some baggage that includes possible baggage that includes disparaging women.
When choosing someone to vote for I certainly look for less baggage, but in today's political field one wades through mud, and must really weigh policies, and agenda over baggage, or sit on the sideline.
I think the EC is necessary. If the president were elected by unfiltered national vote, small and rural states would become irrelevant and have no voice at all. In essence, these American's would be being dictated to.
Candidates would not have the need to even campaign in these states.
They would spend their time in large, populous districts, ignoring the interests of "all the people".
Would you feel differently if you lived in Wyoming? We have a fair voting system, if we pick and choose who is heard we would lose our Democracy.Sharlee, if Wyoming wants a larger voice let it increase its population.
I accept EC and even the fact that it gives a slight advantage to smaller states, I just want to make sure that that advantage remains "slight".
----
"When choosing someone to vote for I certainly look for less baggage, but in today's political field one wades through mud, and must really weigh policies, and agenda over baggage, or sit on the sideline."
-----
Well said....
Related Discussions
- 17
The Right, Conservatives, Republicans prefer Autocracy over Democracy?
by Credence2 2 weeks ago
I find this topic most disturbing as it is a reflection of the goals and aspirations of the American Right wing movement. There is no such thing as it being "fringe" as Trump, Carlson and many Republican Senators avoided direct answers or said that the Orbanz authoritarian regime in...
- 27
Even UK Conservatives Cannot Support Mr Trump
by Greensleeves Hubs 8 years ago
The Conservative Party has always been the major right of centre party in the UK - the party of Churchill, Thatcher, Cameron and current Prime Minister Theresa May. A party which believes in strong fiscal policy and freedom of the individual. A party, most of whose members believe in immigration...
- 77
Why is the left okay with racial slurs against Senator Tim Scott?
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
It is an example of the hypocrisy of the left. They believe they protect black people, except for black conservatives. I know black conservatives who have been lectured by white, female, liberals about being black. If a white liberal says anything racist about a black...
- 36
Constitutionalists vs Anti-Constitutionalists
by Kathryn L Hill 7 years ago
I predict the parties will become either-or ... As in: Democrats/Progressives Liberals: Anti-Constitutionalists.vsConservative/Non Progressive Republicans: Constitutionalists.No?How about:Democrats/Progressives Liberals AND Conservative/Non(?)Progressive Republicans: Anti-Constitutionalists.vsThe...
- 36
If Barack Obama was the Republican candidate, would you have voted for him?
by T_Augustus 14 years ago
If Barack Obama was the Republican candidate, would you have voted for him?Very curious what an HONEST answer would be from both Republicans and Democrats alike...the operative word is "honest".
- 147
do you think that the republicans are becoming fascists?
by Lame stream media 13 years ago
Some may say that fascism is on the left of center but when you take all of the 14 points they seem to fit the republican leaders to a T. I believe that they started to try to get women in to thwart the obvious fact that they are extreme fascistsFascist issues and how it relates to...