peoples votes should count, not the states electoral pts

[quote name='billyrox']wtf are you talking about. and also you are denying the uneducated from their vote? who do you consider uneducated. Is this an arbitrary label? if the founders didn't trust the people to make their own decisions. who the hell makes the decisions?


one person's vote should be the same as another's. thats democracy[/QUOTE]

The electoral college makes the decisions, that's what this thread is about. We vote and the electoral college decides.

We're not a democracy. We're a republic based on federalism. We don't have to follow the rules of democracy. ;)
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']The electoral college makes the decisions, that's what this thread is about. We vote and the electoral college decides.

We're not a democracy. We're a republic based on federalism. We don't have to follow the rules of democracy. ;)[/quote]

i know that a republic is based on a ruling class that governs by majority vote while a pure democracy has every citizen voting.

however, if you watch how our government has been progressing since the creation of the constitution... the United States has been slowly progressing into a democracy.

first by giving all white males the right to vote instead of only the whites that owned land. ... then it gave blacks the right to vote.... and then women the right to vote... then it gave young adults who turned 18 the right to vote... so we are slowly progressing into a democracy.

changing our election of a president to popular vote will continue this trend. it will make things more fair and equal for the common citizen.;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='ToadallyAwesome']If you make a comment telling people to "decide for themselves", you should at least try and give the whole story. The article I found is pro-life biased but I think it describes enough of it. It has an exact quote from Obama (taken from the senate transcript) which is what people should use to "decide for themselves". No? Check the Spoiler to avoid the article and go right to Obama's statements.

http://politicalreason.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/barack-obama-baby-killer/


It is not as extreme as some make it out to be (and as the article implies). He also voted present, not yes or no. This bill did have problems in the courts as was predicted.

[/QUOTE]

Silly me, I thought CBS News was an acceptable source for most people.

It is really as extreme as I make it out to be. Obama's objection was bullshit, as the bill had a provision put into it specifically at his request to say it wouldn't affect Roe v Wade, yet he still voted against it (in committee, as well as voting "present" on the floor, which is the same as "no" in all matters but semantics in the Illinois legislature). This is the same bill that passed Congress UNANIMOUSLY and Obama was the only person in the Illinois legislature to vote against it.

Obama has said he would approve the Freedom of Choice Act as president. That would wipe out any state restriction on abortion, no matter how widely favored (partial-birth abortion bans, parental notification, spousal notification, etc.). Obama opposes a partial-birth abortion ban, something supported by 70+% of Americans. And Obama voted in the Illinois legislature, as noted in the article, against requiring abortionists to care for babies who survived after an attempted abortion. If there is any issue where Obama is demonstrably extreme in every degree, it is abortion.

EDIT: sorry to get so off-topic here.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']so you just realized now that there is an electoral college, welcome to US history 101[/quote]


... huh?


i've been talking about it why we don't need it for the last 20 posts in this thread.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Shame on you. Stick to the facts: Obama attempted to stop a bill that would require medical care for children who survive abortions. Nobody said he "hates babies." I'm sure in his mind there was "justification" for his vote (bullshit rationalization, but justification in his mind).

No need to become an attack dog and ignore facts in favor of ad hominems. Obviously you can't come at the issue from any angle other than "the other side is unfairly attacking my Lord and Savior! Argh, I'm so ANGRY!" Please wake up and stop being a dick.[/quote]

Come on, if anybody here is ignoring facts it's you.

Illinois state law already required medical care for children who survive abortions before that bill was presented.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...FFENSES&ActName=Illinois+Abortion+Law+of+1975.

(b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.
Click to expand...


I know you don't like abortion, but that doesn't mean his rationale is invalid (that he wanted to protect abortion rights). There's already a law in place to protect the babies. The only difference is that the new bill would force them to do it for ones even if doctors knew they could not survive and Obama thought it was worded in a way that would hinder the right to have an abortion.

This kind of "he voted against that good thing" black-and-white bullshit is just as stupid in this case as it is when people say he voted against troop funding (which I think both sides have used against each other) or he voted to raise taxes 94 times or whatever. It's just misleading and dishonest. Don't troll that shit around here.
 
[quote name='SpazX']This kind of "he voted against that good thing" black-and-white bullshit is just as stupid in this case as it is when people say he voted against troop funding (which I think both sides have used against each other) or he voted to raise taxes 94 times or whatever. It's just misleading and dishonest. Don't troll that shit around here.[/QUOTE]

The only one posting shit is you. The fact is Obama voted against a bill supported by rabid anti-Roe people like Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and Barbara Mikulski. The fact is Obama is the only member of the Illinois legislature who spoke against such a bill. The fact is Obama asked for an amendment to the bill to make sure it didn't upset his slavish adherence to the doctrine of Roe, but then still tried to kill the bill even after it was added. In this case, it really is black and white. The rationalizations of Obama on this issue are bullshit, and he lied about his vote in the debate as well.
 
The most common fallacy is that a national popular vote would necessarily result in smaller states being visited less. First off, it's not "small states" that are being visited now. Look at the 'battle ground' states: according to the US Census estimites (July 2007) Florida (4th largest), Penn (6th), Ohio (7th), NC (10), Virginia (12). The smallest "battleground" seems to be New Mexico (36). The five smallest areas: WY, DC, Vermont, ND, and Alaska havent see any real action in either the primaries or the general pretty much because the outcomes have been predetermined well in advance (particulary for the general). I'd proffer that these states would see more action if the candidates had to fight for every vote. Additionally, you'd see Democrats, rallying the troops in very liberal Austin, TX. You'd see Republican rallies in Upstate NY too.

But the worst part of the electoral college is that citizens actually never vote for president anyway. They only for for "electors". Sure, these electors do vote for the ticket they are beholden too, but they are not *required* to do so. This is a layer of amplexity that is not needed.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']

But the worst part of the electoral college is that citizens actually never vote for president anyway. They only for for "electors". Sure, these electors do vote for the ticket they are beholden too, but they are not *required* to do so. This is a layer of amplexity that is not needed.[/quote]


well done! :applause:
 
[quote name='elprincipe']The only one posting shit is you. The fact is Obama voted against a bill supported by rabid anti-Roe people like Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and Barbara Mikulski. The fact is Obama is the only member of the Illinois legislature who spoke against such a bill. The fact is Obama asked for an amendment to the bill to make sure it didn't upset his slavish adherence to the doctrine of Roe, but then still tried to kill the bill even after it was added. In this case, it really is black and white. The rationalizations of Obama on this issue are bullshit, and he lied about his vote in the debate as well.[/quote]

If you don't believe Obama's rationalizations then what do you think his motives were?

These are the facts:

1. Babies were already required by law to be taken care of if still alive after an abortion so long as doctors though they were viable

2. Obama voted against a bill that was meant to define a still-alive aborted fetus as a child with all the legal protections of a child - something he thought would infringe on the rights upheld under Roe v. Wade. This law would extend those protections already covered under law to any abortion in which the fetus showed any sign of life, whether or not the doctors thought it was viable. It was not a bill specifically about protecting fetuses if still alive after an abortion, it was a bill about the definition of what a still-alive fetus was after that abortion and what rights they had. That's the important part.

3. It was amended in a way that would change the wording so as to protect abortion rights, but Obama still voted present and upholds his position that the bill would affect rights to abortions.

The entire reason this bill was used against him was to imply that he doesn't care about babies - that he would rather they be dead. Do you agree with those people?

I ask again, if you do not believe his motives, what do you think they were and how do you think it's relevant? How do you think this is any different from other attacks on him or McCain about some bullshit votes that are twisted to mean shit that they didn't?

EDIT: I'll stop talking about it now, as it's off topic. Feel free to start a new topic if you want, elprincipe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='billyrox']i know that a republic is based on a ruling class that governs by majority vote while a pure democracy has every citizen voting.

however, if you watch how our government has been progressing since the creation of the constitution... the United States has been slowly progressing into a democracy.

first by giving all white males the right to vote instead of only the whites that owned land. ... then it gave blacks the right to vote.... and then women the right to vote... then it gave young adults who turned 18 the right to vote... so we are slowly progressing into a democracy.

changing our election of a president to popular vote will continue this trend. it will make things more fair and equal for the common citizen.;)[/QUOTE]
I'm not an expert on government, but I have studied it a little bit, especially the constitution. And, I don't know about the electoral college, but everything else the founders put in to the constitution was pure genius, so I assume that they put the electoral college there for a reason. I believe there's a reason we've kept it for 200+ years.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']I'm not an expert on government, but I have studied it a little bit, especially the constitution. And, I don't know about the electoral college, but everything else the founders put in to the constitution was pure genius, so I assume that they put the electoral college there for a reason. I believe there's a reason we've kept it for 200+ years.[/quote]

well its time to amend it. like amending the fact that blacks used to be worth 3/5s of a human person in the Original Constitution.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']I'm not an expert on government, but I have studied it a little bit, especially the constitution. And, I don't know about the electoral college, but everything else the founders put in to the constitution was pure genius, so I assume that they put the electoral college there for a reason. I believe there's a reason we've kept it for 200+ years.[/quote]

well its time to amend it.

like amending the fact that blacks used to be worth 3/5s of a human person in the Original Constitution.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']I'm not an expert on government, but I have studied it a little bit, especially the constitution. And, I don't know about the electoral college, but everything else the founders put in to the constitution was pure genius, so I assume that they put the electoral college there for a reason. I believe there's a reason we've kept it for 200+ years.[/QUOTE]
The 3/5ths compromise of the Constitution is arguably the most shameful moment in our nation's history. The document is a great start, but by no means genius. I would say that the implementation of the Constitution has been far greater than the sum of its parts. Marbury v. Madison did more for the Constitution than the Constitution did for the Constitution.
 
[quote name='slidecage']just looking at the map for the 270 to win win

Cali has 55

compair to

indiana
kentucky
west vir.
colo.
new mexico
north and south dak.
maine
vermont
id.

total 53 votes


so 1 State is more important then 10... and you wonder why this country is so #$#$#$# up ...

it should be the people votes not that state votes[/quote]
Yeah, it is.

I'd even say that it's not fair to CA. They make up 12% of the US population wise yet only count for 10% of the electoral college.
 
[quote name='SpazX']If you don't believe Obama's rationalizations then what do you think his motives were?[/QUOTE]

His motives were political, obviously. We've both stated our points and are off topic, so I'll leave it here as well. I'd only say anyone concerned about abortions at all - even if you support legalized abortion but would like it to be "rare" a la Bill Clinton - owes it to themselves to look at Obama's extreme abortion positions.
 
[quote name='speedracer']The 3/5ths compromise of the Constitution is arguably the most shameful moment in our nation's history.[/quote]

While obviously nobody is going to defend the 3/5 on substance, you need to realize the context. There would be no United States of America without that being part of the original, most likely. What is more shameful is that too few worked to correct that evil in the years leading up to the Civil War.

[quote name='speedracer']The document is a great start, but by no means genius.[/QUOTE]

Totally, completely disagree. The Constitution was unique in its time, created by visionary men who established the best system of government that has yet been devised. If that isn't genius, what is?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']While obviously nobody is going to defend the 3/5 on substance, you need to realize the context. There would be no United States of America without that being part of the original, most likely. What is more shameful is that too few worked to correct that evil in the years leading up to the Civil War.[/quote]
It's a matter of opinion, but I believe that it isn't necessary for us all to be one country for us all to prosper and live as we'd like. Federalism politics has turned America into a two country battle for one country political supremacy. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that we should remain so or that we're better off together.
Totally, completely disagree. The Constitution was unique in its time, created by visionary men who established the best system of government that has yet been devised. If that isn't genius, what is?
Click to expand...
The Magna Carta was just as significant, arguably moreso. On the surface and at the time, sure, it kicked ass. But it's not like it was the first, or the best. I mean hell, the Greeks figured out something similar a couple of thousand years ago. Our step up from them was essentially incremental and if you include the time difference, not particularly inspiring on the part of humanity. Having said that, yea, it was a helluva document. But it wasn't what it is today the day it was written. Land holding white males was what the founders had in mind, not today's open society. The rhetoric of the Constitution and the reality of the codification of laws are different beasts and shouldn't be treated similiarly, even though they probably hoped for an outcome such as it is (in relative terms). The Supreme Court had no real power of review, as judicial review was only truly codified by Marbury v. Madison (those activist judges!). Executive power was extended and bypassing legislative means by the 3rd president. The 2nd president signed a law that essentially criminalized minority party politics.

I'm just saying that what we all worship now wasn't what they put on paper and they deserve credit for what they did do, not what they didn't.They built a frame, but they certainly didn't finish the house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top