Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 04-27-2011, 02:20 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
I support this idea as long as no candidate is barred from the ballot because he cannot pay a fee or submit enough petitions and as long as all votes for constitutionally eligible write-in candidates are counted.
We pay to print voting guides and print ballots. In Oregon a fee is charged to put a measure or a candidate on the ballot but it doesn't cover costs. Unless Joe Schmow has voters backing him he's just wasting our money by running.

As far as birthers Trump is just using it to get free publicity. Most of the birther and tea party noise is all about having a black President.
__________________

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 03:25 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99


Quote:
After the certificate was released, Trump, who has hinted he may intend to launch his own presidential bid, said Obama should have released the document a long time ago.

He also took credit for the fact the certificate was finally released and put a positive spin on the development.

"I am really honoured, frankly, to have played such a big role in hopefully, hopefully getting rid of this issue," Trump said in his own news conference.

The long form birth certificate is signed by the delivery doctor, Obama's mother and the local registrar.

The form says the child was born at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961.

The father is listed as Barack Hussein Obama, age 25, who was African and born in Kenya. It says his mother was Caucasian and born in Wichita, Kansas.

Hawaii's registrar certified the new photocopy of the document provided to the White House on April 25, 2011.
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ub=CalgaryHome
__________________

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 03:30 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 148 | Kudos: +11
Quote:
Originally Posted by blucher View Post
Smart. Tax those with nothing to tax and cut Big OIL, Big Pharma and Wall Street new tax breaks?
I didn't say one word about tax breaks for corporations.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 03:36 PM  
Lonely HUMMER Guy
 
M22KLARS's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 373 | Kudos: +18
Images: 5
I think he was just suggesting something equally silly.......
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 03:36 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 148 | Kudos: +11
Quote:
Originally Posted by blucher View Post
We pay to print voting guides and print ballots. In Oregon a fee is charged to put a measure or a candidate on the ballot but it doesn't cover costs. Unless Joe Schmow has voters backing him he's just wasting our money by running.
In Florida a candidate has to either pay a fee (something like 3% of a year's salary for the office sought) or submit petitions in order to get their name on the ballot and then pay for the election officials to verify the signatures or either give an affadavit pleading poverty. The verification fee is something like 10 cents per signature and it takes around 100,000 signatures to get your name on a state-wide ballot. Write-in votes are not allowed except for candidates who have registered with the government. Florida's election laws are written by Republicans/Democrats to keep non-Republicans/Democrats off the ballot.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 03:46 PM  
Senior Member
 
BCboy's Avatar

Shuswap, BC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 825 | Kudos: +30
It took him a long time to show it to the public, but I guess a quality forgery does take time.
__________________
We do NOT need to raise taxes on the people. The government needs to spend less is the answer.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 03:59 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by flaja View Post
I agree that we need a viable 3rd party. But without term limits career politicians would simply migrate to the 3rd party when they cannot win a Democrat or Republican primary.
Not *A* third party - *many* parties. Our current system guarantees that only two major parties are even feasible. Any third party has the primary effect of sabotaging one of the main parties where they share common ideals.
Quote:


A viable 3rd party would be conservative on social issues and center-left on economic issues. Few Americans base their vote on social issues even though social conservatives outnumber moderates and liberals. Being conservative on social issues will not hurt a candidate on election day in most places. Both Florida and California passed constitutional bans on gay marriage in 2008 and a majority of blacks in California voted for the ban. But at the same time both states supported Obama despite the fact that he supports gay marriage because Obama is an economic liberal. If McCain had been less libertarian on economic matters, he would have given Obama a run for his money.
That's one of many parties that would be viable under a proportional electoral system. The effect of such a system would be to push major issues to the forefront - two conservative parties differing on minor issues are going to support a number of major ones. And the minor issues get pushed down in importance. But without a proportional electoral system, those two parties just sabotage eachother and let the liberals win. The same is true on the other side of the fence as well.
Quote:


What do you consider to be minor issues?
What *I* consider minor issues is irrelevant. What the *people* consider minor issues is the important part. An issue where only 10% of the people have a strong opinion is less important than an issue where 50% of the people have a strong opinion. The problem now is that the majority of issues up for legislation are ones that the people have no strong opinion on, nor a significant consensus on how to proceed. Such an issue should be buried under all the red tape. Instead, it's elevated to the forefront by special interest groups manipulating the system to elevate their irrelevant position into a bargaining point.
Quote:

Gay marriage has been voted down every time it has been put on the ballot. State legislatures have voted it down even after state courts have said it is OK.

And polls released just after the 2008 election indicated a pro-life majority (for the first time in abortion-poll history). A majority of Americans do not support abortion on demand, but most Americans vote according to economic issues, rather than social issues.
Do a majority of *AMERICANS* support pro-life, or do a majority of Americans *WITH AN OPINION ON ABORTION* support pro life? I know a lot of people who are pro life. I know a lot of people who are pro choice. I don't personally know anyone who considers abortion a significant enough issue for congress to take action on it. This suggest to me the likelihood that a majority of *Americans* simply don't care. Which is fine. Personally, with all things being equal, I would support a party that took no stance on abortion over
one that took a strong stance on it either way.

You pointed out that most Americans vote on economic issues rather than social issues. This would suggest that social issues are "minor issues" that should generally be ignored by legislative bodies.

Quote:
You are calling for proportional representation. I support this idea as long as no candidate is barred from the ballot because he cannot pay a fee or submit enough petitions and as long as all votes for constitutionally eligible write-in candidates are counted.

But under the Constitution you do have the issue of choosing replacements when a Representative dies, resigns or goes to jail. A state-wide election for a single seat in the House, may not be all that practical.
It wouldn't necessarily be a state-wide election. A proportional system would allocate seats based on the party affiliations of voters in primary elections. Independent candidate "John Doe" would create the "John Doe Party" by way of running. Write-in candidate "Richard Roe" would be considered the founding member of the "Richard Roe Party" When 50% of the voters are republicans, republicans fill half the seats allocated to the state. If a republican leaves office, his seat must be filled be another republican.

Alternatively, the seat could stay vacant - the republicans in the state being represented by the remaining republican members of the state's congressional delegation.

As to the exact means of how replacement should be accomplished, I'm open to suggestions. It CAN be done fairly - we'd need to discuss how exactly to do it.
Quote:


I would also base how many seats a state gets in Congress on the number of votes that are cast. Say 1 representative for every 200,000 votes cast in the state?s last presidential election. Right now a state gets seats based only its population even when half or more of the state?s voters don?t bother to go to the polls.
I'd disagree wholeheartedly on this. Issues and candidates should not have their importance inflated. Let's say we're ordering a pizza for 4 people. 3 don't care what's on the pizza, one wants pepperoni and banana peppers. Everyone would be happy with pepperoni and banana peppers. But if we force a vote on it, three want a supreme pizza, one wants pepperoni and banana peppers, and is allergic to mushrooms. The majority is satisfied, of course, but this is hardly an optimal result.

The people must not be punished for choosing to abstain in any particular election. It is a person's DUTY to abstain when they have no opinion on the issue in question. These are laws that are going to affect other people. If you would be completely satisfied with the outcome either way, what business do you have in voting on it?

You recognize the need for this later when you discuss damage by will of the majority.


Quote:
I just turned 43. Apart from a few years I lived down state and out of state when I was a child, I have only had 3 U.S. Representatives because Florida used to be a one-party state and then my district has been racially gerrymandered since 1992. My mother, who moved to Florida in 1959 and is about to turn 60 has had these same 3 representatives.
Term limits won't help. Yes, you'll see new faces; no, you won't see new ideas.

Quote:

America is a republic, not a democracy. The Constitution was written for the express purpose of hampering the will of the majority so the nation as a whole cannot be damaged by the majority?s will.
America is a democratic republic. The purpose of the house of representatives is to represent the will of the people in the creation of legislation. That's why congressional districts are all supposed to contain the same number of people, or as close as is feasible. The purpose of the Senate is to represent the interest of the state in the creation of legislation, which is why each state has the same representation in the senate, regardless of the population of that state. The purpose of the bicameral legislature, the president's veto power and the judicial system is so that the nation as a whole cannot be damaged by the majority's will. While our system of government as a whole is best described as a republic, the offices we are referring to - the seats in the house of representatives - are undeniably democratic, and should be filled in such a manner as to best represent the will of the people. The intention of the founding fathers was for every 30,000 people to be represented in the house. There was significant opposition to a single man's representation of 40,000 constituents. At present, the average congressional district consists of 646,952 people, and legislation has far greater effects on these people than ever before. Since adding almost 9400 seats to the house is infeasible, we should look at our current methods of selecting representatives and ensure that they are in line with the intentions of our founding fathers to adequately represent the interests of the people. A proportional system may not be ideal, but it is far better than the current "winner take all" system we use at the district level.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 04:07 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by blucher View Post
Two terms in the House, one in the Senate. An attorney may only serve one term in either house (the place is a** deep in attorneys at present.
I'd say that attorneys should be barred from legislative positions, and former legislators should be barred from becoming attorneys, due to conflict of interest. There's something wrong about attorneys writing laws that will be argued by attorneys, in front of judges who are attorneys. Legal professionals are writing laws that laypersons are supposed to follow. This is asinine.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 04:09 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 148 | Kudos: +11
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
What *I* consider minor issues is irrelevant.

If you don?t consider your opinion to be worth anything, why should anyone take you seriously? If you are willing to subsume your personal views to whatever a national majority wants, why should anyone bother to discuss political matters with you?
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 04:54 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
The number of abortion providers in the USA also dropped to 1,787, representing a 2% decline from 2000.

?Just over one in five pregnancies in 2005 (22%) resulted in abortion, down from one in four pregnancies (25%) in 2000.

Carole Joffe, a sociology professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who has been studying abortion since 1976, says the abortion pill didn't increase the number of abortions nor did it necessarily increase access.

"There was a lot of naivet? that immediately many primary care doctors would start offering this and dramatically increase access to abortion," Joffe says. "In retrospect, that was very na?ve and didn't happen."

(After the article's publication, Joffe said the above quotation attributed to her in the online edition of USA TODAY was incomplete; she notes she also stated that "one of the most notable findings of this new study was precisely the steady growth over time in the number of providers offering mifepristone and the overall number of abortions performed using this method.")

Guttmacher's data is considered the more thorough of the two entities that monitor national data. The other source is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which relies on voluntary reporting by state health departments. Guttmacher supports abortion rights.
HTML Code:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-01-16-abortion-rates_N.htm
[quote]CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. April 9-10, 2011. N=824 adults nationwide. Margin of error ? 3.5.


"As you may know, the federal government currently provides funding to support some programs run by the organization called Planned Parenthood. Do you think federal funding for Planned Parenthood should be eliminated entirely, or do you think the federal government should continue to provide funding to Planned Parenthood?"

4/9-10/11
Eliminate 34%
Continue to provide funding 65%
Unsure 1%
[QUOTE]

"Generally speaking, are you in favor of using public funds for abortions when the woman cannot afford it, or are you opposed to that?"

4/9-10/11
Favor - 35%
Oppose - 61%
Indifferent - 3%
(vol.) Unsure - 1%

11/13-15/09
Favor - 37%
Oppose - 61%
Indifferent- 2%
vol.) Unsure - 1%

Abortion

The poll only asked 824 adults

Quote:
Religion
Women who obtain abortions represent every religious affiliation. 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians4; while 22% of U.S. women are Catholic,7 27% of abortion patients say they are Catholics.1
HTML Code:
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html
Pew Research Center. Feb. 22-March 1, 2011. N=1,504 adults nationwide. Margin of error ? 3.


"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"

All Cases ... Most cases ... Illegal in Most ... Illegal in all...unsure
2/22 - 3/1/11

18 36 26 16 4

7/21 - 8/5/10

17 33 27 17 7

8/11-27/09

16 31 27 17 8
__________________

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.