- This topic has 510 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
My point being 6 major cities should not drive the outcome of a national election. That is why the Electorial College was installed in the first place. In colonial times they wanted to make sure Philly, NY, Boston, and Charleston did not elect the president.
Concern about the message not getting to rural and far-flung reaches of the country – resulting in an uninformed electorate and cities “driving the election” – might have been valid in the past, but that argument doesn’t hold water anymore. The red states and red voters were united by ideology if not proximity. The messages get out in numerous ways, that much became clear with this election alone.
“My point being 6 major cities should not drive the outcome of a national election.”
By saying “6” you minimize the votes of millions of people who live in those cities, and infer that suburban/rural votes are a more legitimate indication of the peoples’ will. City dwellers are citizens too, I don’t know why living in or near a city should disqualify their votes. LA, NYC, New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit, Seattle, Portland represent geographic areas across the United States and the inhabitants deserve representation. It’s the nature of the beast that metropolitan and outlying areas have different views. Even in Texas, the counties containing Austin, Dallas and Houston voted blue. In Florida it was Miami, Tallahassee, Orlando and Tampa. It just so happened that the rest of those states were sufficiently red to give the states to Trump. This holds true for a lot of the red states – and blue for that matter – most of the large cities voted blue, the rest of the state red.
OK Ply I’ll say it this way. Even with the electorial college 3 cities control 20% of the electorial college votes, and as it was it took a whole state’s vote to overcome Philly. If they were to modify anything I think the EC should be comprised by a combination of one vote by results in each congressional district and two votes per state but that’s just my take on it. If that were the case Trump would have really came out on top with over 400 votes. You can look at it however you want but one thing is certain for now, no amendment to do away with the EC is going to happen any day soon. At least not for 4 years unless both the house and the senate can become veto proof and I don’t see that as possible.
Smarter than the average bear
Racism by any other name is still not going to go over well. All waves of immigrants have eventually melted into the masses and this is how we have progressed. You are sounding like Steve Bannon.
Who are you accusing of racism?
If you are lobbing it at me, I could care less but I would ask that if you are accusing me please supply the burden of proof. In our culture the burden is on the accuser not the accused.
Define “progressed” if you would. That is a pretty open ended comment, covers a pretty wide amount of ground.
As for sounding like Steve Bannon, all I can say is thank you. I suppose the contra sounding would be that of John Podesta.
McCallum
If the shoe fits wear it. If you need a visa definition of progress look it up. All of your anxiety about immigrants is at least xenophobic bs.
Sorry RT, “progress” is NOT open borders, nor ignoring FEDERAL LAW. If you don’t like the law then you have a right to petition to change the law, but until then the LAW IS THE LAW. Obama took an OATH to enforce the laws of this country, he didn’t. And BTW you can’t just declare the law unconstitutional because you don’t like it. And no matter what label you try to assign to those of us who want the LAW enforced, the fact is if you take any actions to bypass enforcement then you are complicit in breaking the law, which means you’re breaking the law too.
Smarter than the average bear
I never said anything about disregarding laws, MC declared that the US is not a nation of immigrants. That is absurd. Why don’t you read first and think if you are solo smart.
Also, Obama has hired more ICE and deported more illegals than ANYONE. This is the undisputed facts and for you to say otherwise proves your bias and not smart.
The VAST MAJORITY of the citizens of the republic are not immigrants, to say otherwise is completely ideological.
It is very hard to dispute that unless you buy into the insane and flawed notion that the republic is a propositional nation.
Also, Obama has hired more ICE and deported more illegals than ANYONE. This is the undisputed facts and for you to say otherwise proves your bias and not smart.
Here we go, struck gold!!
McCallum
Obama’s deportation numbers are high because his administration redefined who got counted as deportees. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
Obama’s deportation numbers are high because his administration redefined who got counted as deportees. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
That article seems to be saying they’re actually formally deporting them instead of just bussing them back across the border. It’s a change of protocol, not a redefinition.
The VAST MAJORITY of the citizens of the republic are not immigrants, to say otherwise is completely ideological.
What’s the cutoff for immigrant/non-immigrant?
Off the cuff I’d say if your parents are citizens OR legal immigrants and you were both in the US then you aren’t an immigrant (i.e. you are a citizen of the US). My personal feelings are children of illegal immigrants should not be afforded US citizenship just by virtue of being born here.
Smarter than the average bear
The VAST MAJORITY of the citizens of the republic are not immigrants, to say otherwise is completely ideological.
What’s the cutoff for immigrant/non-immigrant?
Why even ask that question if the ideological position is that everyone is an immigrant?
400 years, 250 years, last week, that is the position of anyone that says the US is a nation of immigrants. Modern Germany is a nation of immigrants, India, Iran etc since at some point in history people moved there from somewhere.
Bizzaro world.
McCallum
According to this, Obama takes the cake…by a large margin:
https://cei.org/blog/obamas-2016-federal-register-just-topped-highest-page-count-all-time
And this is the problem I have with progressives they specialize in growing the reach and power of government.
While the extrapolated page numbers for 2016 may well come to pass, we won’t know for sure until it happens.
In the top 15 “most pages list”, W’s admin accounted for the highest increase in pages from year to year, going from 72,090 in 2007 to a then record 79,435 in 2008, about a 10% increase. Does that mean that W was ruling by pen and phone?
After 2008 the count has remained fairly steady in Obama’s administration, with the caveat that this year’s total remains to be seen. Obama’s total of 81,405 pages in 2015 is about 2.5% above W’s 2008 total of 79,435. That does not strike me as being egregious.
According to The Congressional Research Service document Counting Regulations: An Overview of
Rulemaking, Types of Federal Regulations, and Pages in the Federal Register:“The number of federal rules issued annually and the total number of pages in the Federal Register are often referred to as measures of the total federal regulatory burden. Certain methods of quantifying regulatory activity, however, may provide an imperfect portrayal of the total federal rulemaking burden.”
and
“However, the total number of Federal Register pages may not be an accurate way to measure regulatory activity for several reasons. In addition to publishing proposed and final rules in the Federal Register, agencies publish other items that may be related to regulations, such as notices of public meetings and extensions of comment periods. The Federal Register also
contains many other items related to non-regulatory activities, including presidential documents, notices, and corrections. In 2015, approximately 30% of the total pages in the Federal Register were in the “Rules and Regulations” section, the section in which final rules are published.”So do we lay “growing the reach and power of government” at the feet of Obama and progressives, or since W’s administration also accounted for plenty of additional pages do the number of pages reflect a problem with government and regulations in general, regardless of party or ideology?
Some light & quick reading. Gold Plated toilet line cracked me up
I guess if you want to be “technical” the line between immigrant and non-immigrant is official citizenship status, ever how one earns that.
Regarding the “Immigrant Spirit”… perhaps there’s a parallel…
“The first shall be last and the last shall be first”.
——————–Back home in North Carolina…
Pat called for an official statewide recount this afternoon.
Really.
#NCSU-North Carolina's #1 FOOTBALL school!Why even ask that question if the ideological position is that everyone is an immigrant?
400 years, 250 years, last week, that is the position of anyone that says the US is a nation of immigrants. Modern Germany is a nation of immigrants, India, Iran etc since at some point in history people moved there from somewhere.
Bizzaro world.
McCallum
So…..do you not have an answer or what?
The states historically determined who was a citizen but that was over turned by force of arms.
If you didn’t move your ass here from somewhere else then that would appear to be a fine cut off.
And no born on soil non-sense to illegal immigrants and the federal confirming of citizenship.
McCallum
If you didn’t move your ass here from somewhere else then that would appear to be a fine cut off.
Modern Germany is a nation of immigrants, India, Iran etc since at some point in history people moved there from somewhere.
?
Did I stutter?
One is answering you.
The other is the Socratic response to the immigrant ideological paradigm.
McCallum
Off the cuff I’d say if your parents are citizens OR legal immigrants and you were both in the US then you aren’t an immigrant (i.e. you are a citizen of the US). My personal feelings are children of illegal immigrants should not be afforded US citizenship just by virtue of being born here.
Under United States law, U.S. citizenship is automatically granted to any person born within and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This includes US territories and when both parents are US Citizens living outside US jurisdiction. We would have to change our laws regarding birthright citizenship to disallow children born in the US to immigrants who are not themselves legally here.
This is just my opinion:
I prefer the right of citizenship be conferred after each person satisfies a test that ensures they understand what the US Constitution means and how to be a proper fully participating citizen. I think this will ensure we have a fully qualified electorate and that they will make sure their representatives are working for the country’s best interests. All others including children who have not taken the test yet are categorized as Pre-Citizen/Immigrant (legal immigrant working toward citizenship), youth, State Subject/Mentally incapacitated or ward of the state, prisoner, or foreign visitor. None of these categories of people have a right to vote and have limited rights since they are not a voting citizen.Here’s a bit of light reading for the holidays:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/22/donald-trump-lost-most-of-the-american-economy-in-this-election/I know, lies and damn statistics. Can be interpreted a lot of ways. Correlation, causation. Can’t trust the Washington Post.
To me, those two things capture the election. They also signal some serious issues that face Trump as he comes into office. He’s going to have to figure out how to navigate in that reality.
The other real story of the election is the fact that the President Elec lost by 1.5M votes, yet won the Electoral College by a landslide. If one doesn’t believe that’s a sign of a broken system, I am not sure there’s a lot of common ground we’ll find in any sort of discussion.
As far as immigration, every last one of us that isn’t a “Native American” is an immigrant. This seems highly relevant:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
- The topic ‘NC Political Predictions’ is closed to new replies.
