|
Quote:
|
I hope they are eligible to vote...
I had to take this picture while I was stuck in traffic after a local homecoming stepshow...
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...5&id=517283275 |
Mission accomplished--and it felt good casting my vote too
I went to vote early today, waited in line 4 hours--but it was well worth the effort, especially after having to wait more than a year to do it. And it felt so good to cast my vote for someone whom I felt was the most qualified, irrespective of popular opinion, and without treating my ballot like a racing form.
And best of all, it was on a paper ballot. http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...y/IMG00073.jpg |
Yeah, I'd rather have paper ballots. The computer ballots seem as though they can be changed without tracking it.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Unlike a lot of voters, I vote with my heart, not with my head. Meaning, I don't analyze any extraneous factors other than which candidate's stance on the issues are most compatible with mine. Quote:
And I'll be slammed if I allow my vote to further the cause of tyranny and fascism in the United States, because I will be responsible in aiding and abetting the enemies of liberty. Consequently, Constitutionally speaking, that makes me an enemy of the state by default. Quote:
|
Quote:
As far as throwing away a vote goes I have done it. I did it when I voted last week. There was only one candidate to select and I did not like that candidate. My dislike was enough for me to write in the candidate I preferred or not vote at all for that position. In these cases the seats are local seats and the people do not have beliefs that I disagree with, they were just horrible people. |
Quote:
The man opposes federal hate crime laws because he feels they infringe on someone having "thoughts." How much sense does that make? Hate crime laws don't make it a crime to have "thoughts." Hate crime laws make it a crime to ACT on those thoughts. He also opposed making MLK day a holiday. That was not something written by a ghostwriter. He is against affirmative action as well. Not a good thing because too many people fail to realize that there is a reason affirmative action was needed in the first place. He opposed the celebration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, being the only one in Congress to do so. Again, that was not something written by a ghostwriter. It came from his own mouth, along with the words "forced integration." In this instance he once again tried to hide his racism by saying that he was against celebrating it because it forced integration and essentially did not allow people to make decisions for themselves. It could be argued that the man is terribly naive, but the fact remains that he opposed celebrating it. Why would he do so? And please explain how Obama supports tyranny and fascism? That's a new one on me. I don't think the majority of Americans would support him if that really happened to be the case. Finally, while you criticize voters who use their head instead of their heart, many times going by your heart will get you in trouble. It is far more wise to really use your head in making such a decision. That means you are actually thinking about the issues and what the candidates are saying. |
I.A.S.K. you made some excellent points in your above response to his post. :)
|
Quote:
It is for this reason, I am against the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and TSA, because they promote and perpetuate this very same line of reasoning, except it's under the guise of "the boogey man" is out to get us that they conveniently label as "terrorism", be it through Bin Laden, Al Queda, or some other elusive monster the government tries to brainwash us to fear. Quote:
Quote:
We put too much on the federal government to legislate what should be legislated at the state, county, and local levels, and it is for this reason that our nation is in the fouled up state of affairs that it is in. We need to stop relying on the federal government to baby us, breastfeed us, and hold our hands from cradle to grave and learn how to be self-sufficient while co-existing in a free market economy. The Civil Rights Act may ultimately prove to be a moot point, as our civil LIBERTIES are slowly being taken away through all these government-sanctioned Executive Orders and rogue lawmaking "acts". So why argue about someone voting against federally-mandated civil rights acts when the federal government as a whole are making subsequent laws that ultimately takes your civil rights away? That makes no sense. Quote:
Quote:
Good post. :) |
I agree with you that we have to be careful when it comes to the federal government on certain issues. However, my concern is that if you leave some of these issues to states, that would result in chaos. For instance, some of the more racist states would choose to avoid enacting legislation that would make things more equal. Do you get what I mean?
But I agree with you on the Patriot Act and other similar issues.:) |
Quote:
I said whom I feel is the most qualified. If I feel that being a white supremacist would disqualify him/her in my eyes, so be it. You vote should be based on YOUR OWN criteria of qualifications, no one else's. If we stopped letting the herd mentality dictate our election choices, then we are more than likely to get a better selection of candidates in the future. Quote:
Quote:
Quite the opposite; I would throw my desire away by settling for a standard far inferior to what I would like. By voting for the lesser of two evils, you voluntarily forfeit your true desire and settle for mediocrity by lowering your standards and accepting whatever agenda they push your way, which most likely will not be what you are truly looking for in a leader. I place my vote on a BALLOT, not on a lottery ticket, a racing form, or any other gambling form. Quote:
The beauty of Ron Paul is that he voted consistently with his belief system for over 30 years. His personal lifestyle also consistently aligns with his belief system, which aligns with his method of voting. One thing Ron Paul has never been accused of, and that is being a flip-flopper on the issues. Quote:
Poison is only guaranteed to be administered if you allow it to be. Again, it comes back to the herd mentality and peer pressure. If you settle for less, you will get less. If you vote based on outside influence and place glitter and fluff over substance, that is what you will get. I would much rather be force-fed poison than take it voluntarily, because it clearly indicates I will not accept poison in any form, nor will I find it an acceptable substitute for 100% food. By the same token, I will not allow the federal government to dictate how I should live my life nor will they dictate my belief system. If the herd mentality allows it, that doesn't make me dumb to disallow it, nor does that make my expression of such disallowance through voting a wasted effort. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I.A.S.K., you raise a lot of interesting points, and while I commend you for articulating them so eloquently, our convo is starting to generate a tit-for-tat post battle that given the intrinsic depth of some of the issues we have touched upon, time constraints won't permit us to sufficiently entertain a thorough thought-out discussion upon.
That said, we'll just have to declare a mutual disagreement on this topic. Bottom line, I voted MY WAY and I make absolutely no apologies for it or my reasoning thereof. But for those who take issue with it, that's too bad, it's their problem, not mine. (not addressing the following to you personally, just making a general statement) But I want to thank you and deepimpact for raising some good thought-provoking issues and being civil in so doing. |
KPN,
Why are people so much more comfortable with the *state* or the *local government* controlling them than the *federal government*? I have never understood this. What is the difference between the feds being in control and the states being in control? Does having the state be in control make you feel more comfortable? Why? IASK and DeepImpact, Also, I really wish that the electoral college idea would just go away. Essentially, if there are only a few outliers, the one person-one vote method works all the same, and majority rules. The problem with the electoral college is that the votes afforded to a state are in some cases not apportioned according to the population of the state relative to other states. For example, there is no way that the states like Montana and South Dakota should get the number of votes that they get - if we are simply going by population. This is, to me, really a problem b/c small states have an inappropriately large influence on the election of the President. I say, to heck with the electoral college voting process. If we can count all of the votes in each state to determine whether the state is going to go blue or red or another color, then we ALREADY have counted everyone's vote (theoretically). So why not just add up everyone's vote and let the popular vote rule? Makes sense to me. BTW, Georgia might go BLUUUUUUUUUUE!!!!!!! SC Quote:
|
Quote:
It is not a matter of the people being "controlled" by any governmental entity, but rather a proper and proportional balance of power by all parties involved: the people, the state, and the federal government. All Articles of the Constitution addresses the roles and powers of the Federal Government, while and the first 8 of the 10 Bills of Rights addresses the means by which the federal government exercises its powers. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments by default relegates any powers not addressed previously in the Constitution to the people (Ninth Amendment) or to the States (Tenth Amendment). Now as far as people being controlled by the State, if the State infringes on a person's rights or if the person has a grievance with the State, this is where the Eleventh Amendment supposedly comes into play. A citizen can sue the State in Federal court. A state does not have soverign immunity in such actions. Ideally, the Federal government was intended to serve as a mediator between the people and the state, allowing the States to govern themselves accordingly while allowing the people life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am oversimplifying this for the sake of brevity, but my point was that the federal government was NEVER intended to serve its own interests over that of its people or outside of the powers originally allowed to it by the United States Constitution, but was to serve at the pleasure of its people and to serve as referee between the people and the State, using the Constitution as a guide. Quote:
|
All I gotta say is he has constitutional right to vote for whomever he pleases without the need to justify it. At least he voted. (can't believe I am taking up for him :eek: )
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
BTW, I phone banked for Obama today and will probably do so tomorrow, too! :D |
Obama's grandmother dies after battle with cancer
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/...dma/index.html |
KPN,
Now, being an attorney and having studied constitutional law in depth, I don't agree completely with your characterization of the amendments, protections afforded therein or the balance between federal, state and people. However, my real question for you is simply what is the answer to the question that I posed? Is your answer that you are really not in favor of state control but against what you perceive as an overextension of federal control into area into which it does not belong - and you have your understanding of this perceived set of limitations on the federal government based on your personal understanding of the Constitution? Is that the answer? I ask not to challenge you - just to get a real common sense understanding as to why someone would feel more comfortable with the state governing than with the feds governing. What is the answer to that (b/c I think you feel more comfortable with states governing - I just really want to understand this). For example, Palin talks about how abortion should be left to states. Is she convinced that a state does more to protect the rights of an individual than the feds, for example? If not, what is this preference for the *state* to exercise power as compared to the feds? What is the basis for the preference? Thanks, SC Quote:
|
That's awful. She was so close to seeing him as potentially the next President of the United States. My prayers go out to his family. I'm sure the election is not exactly the most pressing thing on his mind right now.
SC Quote:
|
I'll be canvassing to get out the vote. Looking forward to it.
SC Quote:
|
But IASK,
My point exactly, is that the number of votes is not proportional to the population relative to the population in other states. Here's what I mean - take South Dakota, which had 781,000 people on the 2006 census, and take NY, which had 19,306,000. Ok, 781,000/19,306,000 = 0.4 HOWEVER, South Dakota gets 3 electoral college votes to New York's 31 --> 3/31 = 0.9. Maybe I'm missing something or it's just me. But it seems to me, that if I'm not off base here, the effect of using the electoral college to seemingly represent population when, in fact, it does not proportionately represent population, gives the people of South Dakota more say in the election than they should have. To some extent, it is somewhat of an equal protection problem whereby each vote in NY weighs less than each vote in South Dakota. However, if you take the sheer popular vote, then you get the true representation of who really won, and each person's vote is (theoretically) weighed the same, all across the nation. Get what I mean? Down with the electoral college. Those folk in South Dakota and North Dakota burn me up every election with their disproportionate say in who gets to be President. If my memory serves me correctly, the move toward the electoral college was actually an attempt to protect the voice of the small states. I don't know if I remember correctly, but I think they are getting way more say than they deserve. SC Quote:
|
Quote:
Each state automatically gets 2 electoral votes (for their senators). Then the number of electoral votes is 1 to 693,000 popular votes. Each person's vote no matter where they live is worth .000001 electoral votes. (1/693,000=.000001) The number of electoral votes after the first two is equal to the number of Reps in the house. So S.Dakota's people really only get 1 electoral vote where the people of N.Y. get 29. The EC was designed to mirror the house and senate votes. So a state has the same amount of reps in congress as it has votes in the EC. The EC's purpose was to keep the undereducated people of America from electing an idiot or someone otherwise unfit. The idea was that the average voter really is not educated enough to cast a ballot wisely. Since America is a democracy and the people have to be included in the process the EC was put in place just in case the people were too stupid to do the right thing. If the proportion was counted your way it would be: # of electoral votes/# of people in state= Value of each person's vote. S.D.= 1/781,000=.000001 N.Y.= 29/19,306,000=.000001 So the people of S.Dakota and the people of New York have exactly equal say in who becomes president. |
I definitely have issues with the electoral college. However, I doubt they will be doing away with it any time soon. :(
|
Quote:
Quote:
RIP Toot. :( |
Quote:
I've registered folks to vote; I've gone to the local headquarters and worked; most of the peole I know early voted or have their own way of getting to the polls, is that sufficient? :confused: I know...I know, but at least I've done SOMETHING! :D |
Quote:
Quote:
So, I was just browsing cnn.com as per usual and came across this video of a 76 y/o woman voting for the first time. She hearkens on deepimpact's point about thinking with your heart vs your head. I found it quite interesting. I don't have an opinion on this discussion other than I think people should vote. http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-133521 I'm volunteering as a poll watcher tomorrow, too. :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As far as the basis of my understanding of the Constitution and whether it is a personal understanding of the document, I'm not sure where you're coming from. My basis of understanding as opposed to what other basis? Quote:
Quote:
So this issue is all a matter of recognition and respect of our basic human rights through the freedoms and liberties we exercise as allowed by our United States Constitution, the balancing of power between federal and state to preserve such rights and freedoms, and the enforcement of the Constitution to prevent infringement of such rights. In 2008 the Constitution has been largely disregarded and/or manipulated to serve the federal government's own selfish ends, hence the numerous dilemmas our country is in today. My vote for Ron Paul served as an appeal for someone to actively (not passively or flippantly) restore our government to follow the laws as enumerated in our Constitution. I can say in all but absolute certainty that Obama and McCain has not addressed this core issue to a lot of America's problems at all. And THAT is my primary point of contention. Quote:
KAP |
Funny story, had to share from Paris:
On Sunday I told a guy at my church (yes, I went to church) that it wouldn't be a good election night unless I got to see at least one republican's face when Obama won. Petty, but true. His reaction at the time was to point out that there are probably a lot of republicans who will have voted the same way I did. Guess what I found out today? He just so happens to be the CHAIR of one of the Republicans Abroad orgs, and he bought me a ticket to the Voters Abroad election overnight party. So, to summarize, I have no tact, and he's got a lot of class. Or is super passive aggressive. Feel free to laugh. |
Quote:
Also, I don't think Obama and McCain have addressed this issue because I don't think Americans generally feel this way. There are definitely some issues with our constitutional rights being infringed upon, but overall I don't think Americans really feel as strongly about it as you do. I don't think anyone feels this is contributing to the problems of this country. On a side note, I get so tired of the abortion issue coming up. I don't think it should be a federal issue or a state issue. I think it should be a personal issue, meaning it is left up to the individual whether they want to do it or not. I don't understand where Palin is coming from on this. |
Quote:
Too many Americans grossly underestimate the true power of our Constitution, and because the federal government abused their power for so long, the majority of Americans have been indoctrinated to think that the system is working as intended, when in reality it is not, and hasn't been for most of the 20th century. Personally I cannot possibly fathom how our country would be in much worse shape if we still had states' rights for primary governmental power and limited government on the federal level, especially considering our country's current state of affairs right here right now in 2008. Everyone (well darn near) is upset with Bush for ruining our country, but Bush isn't the cause of our problems. His tenure certainly intensified our problems, but he is far from the cause. And IMHO a new president who doesn't have the Constitution first and foremost on his agenda will only serve to compound our problems. I think as far as the majority of Americans go, we have taken our freedoms and liberty for granted so long, that we fell asleep at the wheel and forgot to hold our governments accountable to follow the Constitution. And because we slept, the government decided to exploit certain incidents (1907 recession, Great Depression, every war since the Korean War) to justify the need to disregard the Constitution under the guise of "safety and security of our nation" and further bolster their unsanctioned power over the American people. Since collectively we didn't do our job as a people in holding our lawmakers accountable, we truly cannot blame our government for not doing their job in supporting and defending our Constitution. FWIW, while this certain doesn't excuse Bush's actions while in office, it most definately explains it. In my opinion only, for anyone to chastise me for placing a vote which if nothing else was to represent my desire to bring back accountability in our government would be to spit a wad of phlegm on our Constitution and our founding fathers who wrote it. This is not a ploy or plea for anyone to take any specific action on any matter, just expressing my thoughts. Now get out there and vote!! ;) |
I'm watching the coverage and with 195 votes all I can say is GO OBAMA! He is taking counties that in 2004, George Bush had.
If I was the Republican party strategiest, I would seriuosly look at the collaspe of Republican voters. I mean yeah, people know NOW that GW sucked, but still - is it really him that is driving people anyway? just me thinking out loud... I would love to be in Grant Park right now. |
I haven't logged on in forever, but I just want to say GO BARACK! Go get it babe!
Hey Tony, even your state worked it out. :D |
YES WE CAN!!!!
So how many of us will be in DC Jan 09. I will be there with bells on !!!!!!!
To see Jesse in tears, to see young black men at Spelman cheering. It's too much!! |
Whooo Hoooo!!! Obama-Biden!! 333 votes and counting
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.