Electoral college[W:862,1203]

Frank Apisa · Nov 25, 2015

Re: Electoral college

ObamacareFail said:
I really don't care wha is good by him, or you for that matter. The democrats have lost control of congress since obamcare was passed into law. The voters seem to be associating that ponzi scheme with Obama and the democrat party. Good by me. Personally, If I were a politician, I would not want to be tied to it.

No problem.

But I think FDR, if he were alive, would be proud to be associated with Social Security...another program the conservatives of that day opposed to the death.

Barack Obama will be delighted to be associated with OBAMAcare!

haymarket · Nov 25, 2015

Re: Electoral college

ObamacareFail said:
Obama and the democrats proposed it. The republicans did not agree with it. Obama and the democrats did not compromise at all. Starting the debate with a mythical claim that a conservative think tank originally came up with the idea is not compromise. The starting point does not equate to "compromise" There was no compromise whatsoever from that starting point. And let me clear up that myth that the original idea was a republican idea:

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate – USATODAY.com

I read your opinion article with great amusement. It reeks of somebody like Pontius Pilate attempting to publicly wash his hands of his guilt and complicity.

LetsGoBrandon · Nov 25, 2015

Re: Electoral college

Frank Apisa said:
No problem.

But I think FDR, if he were alive, would be proud to be associated with Social Security...another program the conservatives of that day opposed to the death.

Perhaps FDR would be proud of how Social Security started out, however he is likely rolling in his grave over what it has become.

Barack Obama will be delighted to be associated with OBAMAcare!

I don't think Obamacarere will survive the next few years much less his lifetime. And so far the only thing he can associate to it is the democrats losing control of congress over it.

LetsGoBrandon · Nov 25, 2015

Re: Electoral college

haymarket said:
I read your opinion article with great amusement. It reeks of somebody like Pontius Pilate attempting to publicly wash his hands of his guilt and complicity.

You are seeing only what you want to see. Some things are similar in what the gentleman from the heritage foundation proposed, however it is not a match much less a model for what Obamacare became. It did not for instance include an unconstitutional mandate to buy health insurance. or forfeit 2% of your annual earnings at tax time. You would have a better case comparing it to Romneycare, however that was one tiny state and it did not violate the state constitution. You are just strangely obsessed with tying the concept of obamacare to republicans. I completely understand your frustration. You know it's a vastly unpopular bill that has significantly damaged your party and you want the republicans to take some of the heat for it. Good luck.

Frank Apisa · Nov 25, 2015

Re: Electoral college

ObamacareFail said:
Perhaps FDR would be proud of how Social Security started out, however he is likely rolling in his grave over what it has become.

Oh, you mean because it has become the most popular safety net program ever? The most useful.

You guys live in denial.

I don't think Obamacarere will survive the next few years much less his lifetime. And so far the only thing he can associate to it is the democrats losing control of congress over it.

We will build on it...expand it...and finally use it to come abreast with the rest of the civilized world as far as health care is concerned...despite the objections of the American conservatives.

And when we do...American conservatives will talk about how Obama stole the idea from the Republicans.

haymarket · Nov 25, 2015

Re: Electoral college

ObamacareFail said:
You are seeing only what you want to see. Some things are similar in what the gentleman from the heritage foundation proposed, however it is not a match much less a model for what Obamacare became. It did not for instance include an unconstitutional mandate to buy health insurance. or forfeit 2% of your annual earnings at tax time. You would have a better case comparing it to Romneycare, however that was one tiny state and it did not violate the state constitution. You are just strangely obsessed with tying the concept of obamacare to republicans. I completely understand your frustration. You know it's a vastly unpopular bill that has significantly damaged your party and you want the republicans to take some of the heat for it. Good luck.

Who said it was a match? I certainly did not. What I said was the reality was that Obama got some of this plan from conservative and republican sources. And that defeated and negates your claim that he does not compromise.

I have not defended the bill nor blamed anyone for it.

My whole post was one simple point: you are dead wrong when you claim Obama does not compromise with Republicans and the health care issue proves it.

haymarket · Nov 25, 2015

Re: Electoral college

ObamacareFail said:
Perhaps FDR would be proud of how Social Security started out, however he is likely rolling in his grave over what it has become.

Quite the contrary. I suspect FDR would be beaming from ear to ear as he sits to the side of the Almighty looking down proud of how he has aided the American people.

LetsGoBrandon · Nov 25, 2015

Re: Electoral college

Frank Apisa said:
Oh, you mean because it has become the most popular safety net program ever? The most useful.

You guys live in denial.

I don't know how old you are, however I am close to retirement age....and I do not see anyone singing it's praises. And it backed up in the treasury by nothing more then IOUs. I am not sure how long it will survive. I will draw it because I paid into it all of my my working life, however I am not all that impressed with it. It's not all that much money. If you don't have other investments, you will need at least part time work to supplement it. That's why you see so many geriatric walmart greeters and fast food workers.[/QUOTE]

We will build on it...expand it...and finally use it to come abreast with the rest of the civilized world as far as health care is concerned...despite the objections of the American conservatives.

To make it palatable to rank and file Americans, it will have to be altered to the point where it no longer looks like obamacare. My bet is that it will either collapse under it's own weight or it will be outright repealed. Obamacare is an unworkable ponzi scheme that does not have much in common with Obamacare. Social Security in it's original form was somewhat workable. It did not turn into #$% until the politicians started stealing the funds from it and put those funds into the general fund to help finance pork barrel projects intend to do little more then buy votes. Had that money been protected and invested in interest drawing accounts, SS would be fine now....and the government would not have to keep moaning: "We better raise the retirement age or cut benefits'"

And when we do...American conservatives will talk about how Obama stole the idea from the Republicans.

The ole it will get better and catch on like social security claim. It's entertaining, however not realistic. Social Security was not vastly unpopular with rank and file Americans. It never led to a wholesale swap of the party in power in congress. Obamacare did.

Frank Apisa · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Electoral college

haymarket said:
Quite the contrary. I suspect FDR would be beaming from ear to ear as he sits to the side of the Almighty looking down proud of how he has aided the American people.

So do I, Haymarket. And PROUD he should be.

Frank Apisa · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Electoral college

ObamacareFail said:
I don't know how old you are, however I am close to retirement age....and I do not see anyone singing it's praises. And it backed up in the treasury by nothing more then IOUs. I am not sure how long it will survive. I will draw it because I paid into it all of my my working life, however I am not all that impressed with it. It's not all that much money. If you don't have other investments, you will need at least part time work to supplement it. That's why you see so many geriatric walmart greeters and fast food workers.

I'm 79, OF...and I am singing its praises.

I work two days a week as a starter at a golf course...and I earn gas money and get to play free at any of five spectacular county courses. I work because I want to work.

I AM singing its praises...and I know many who do. I suspect the reason you don't is because you are selectively deaf to it.

To make it palatable to rank and file Americans, it will have to be altered to the point where it no longer looks like obamacare. My bet is that it will either collapse under it's own weight or it will be outright repealed. Obamacare is an unworkable ponzi scheme that does not have much in common with Obamacare. Social Security in it's original form was somewhat workable. It did not turn into #$% until the politicians started stealing the funds from it and put those funds into the general fund to help finance pork barrel projects intend to do little more then buy votes. Had that money been protected and invested in interest drawing accounts, SS would be fine now....and the government would not have to keep moaning: "We better raise the retirement age or cut benefits'"

To make it palatable to people like you...it may have to look considerably different. But you do not speak for the rank and file of America. It will change...it will expand...and with any kind of luck in defeating the American conservatives who want to kill it...eventually we will join the ranks of the rest of the civilized, industrialized world in seeing that no one in our country has to worry about health care.

The ole it will get better and catch on like social security claim. It's entertaining, however not realistic. Social Security was not vastly unpopular with rank and file Americans. It never led to a wholesale swap of the party in power in congress. Obamacare did.

ALL of FDR's initiatives were abhorred by people like you when he first set them forth. People like you did their level best to stop them being implemented...and their best to destroy them after they were.

Obamacare will build into something very worthwhile...and will probably be infinitely more popular with most people than anything the American conservatives have ever done for them. (Which is damn near nothing.)

haymarket · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Electoral college

ObamacareFail said:
I don't know how old you are, however I am close to retirement age....and I do not see anyone singing it's praises. And it backed up in the treasury by nothing more then IOUs. I am not sure how long it will survive. I will draw it because I paid into it all of my my working life, however I am not all that impressed with it. It's not all that much money. If you don't have other investments, you will need at least part time work to supplement it. That's why you see so many geriatric walmart greeters and fast food workers.

My age is 66 and I have been collecting SS for almost two years now. I have always lived a very conservative life style and was told early on to save for retirement according to the three legged stool principle. One leg being your work pension, a second leg being what you could save, and the third being SS. With all three of those I am doing financially better today than at probably any other time in my life since the house is paid for, the kids have long ago moved on to their own families and homes, we drive little, the clothes I have are all I need except for some socks and underwear from time to time, and life is darn good.

I will gladly sing the praises of Social Security as a terrific program to which I paid into for some 45 years. Glad it was there and glad I did it.

Excon · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Electoral college

haymarket said:
Not one thing in your post spoke to the complete and utter destruction of your position,

iLOL

Funny.
You have destroyed nothing.
Your arguemt has already been shown to be wrong.
You can not use the two electors alloted to represent the State as a seperate entity in the Union of States to represent a population by numbers argument .

haymarket said:
All you are doing is resorting the silly mantra of I AM RIGHT I AM RIGHT I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG YOU ARE WRONG YOU ARE WRONG

iLOL
Again with the transferance I see. Sorry , but thas tdoesnlt work. What you said here only applies to you.

haymarket said:
You have not answered the objections and question.

Wrong. Stop telling untruths.

haymarket said:
You have not provided the posts where you have claimed to do so.

Youer questions were already answered. It is on you to read what was said and address it.
Not for me to direct you to what has already been said.
All you have done is waste time with this nonsense of yours. All you had to do was read and respond to what has been said. But you chose not to. That is on you, not me.
Secondly, much of what was said has already been answered and has even been repeated, yet you still have failed to address those points. Again, that is all on you.
So stop with the bs and dishonesty.

haymarket said:
I am merely using the Constitutional formula that is in effect. My use of it cannot be considered as wrong or unfair or fallacious since it is the official formula.

No you are not.
There are two separate formulas for the allotment of electors.
One formula is that every State gets two electors based on the two Senators each States receives to represent the State.
That formula is fair as to what it represents. Individual entities known as States.

The other formula for allotting electors is based on the number of representatives each state receives in the House of Representatives, which is based on the “Method of Equal Proportion”.
It also is fair and equitable.
As that method is based on population numbers, those are the only electors you could possibly use to represent a population by the numbers argument (even though that argument is wrongheaded to begin with).

You are attempting to use two electors who are allotted based on the State being an individual entity.
You can not use those two electors allotted to represent the State as a separate entity in the Union of States to represent a population by numbers argument .
They do not represent population as you already acknowledged and therefore can not be used in a population by numbers argument. Doing so is a fallacy.

haymarket said:
The fact that the formula DOES NOT properly reflect the population is the point and is the issue.

The fact that the formula DOES NOT properly represent the American population is the point and is the issue.

D'oh!
You made up a formula that does not apply. That makes it fallacious.
Again you can not use those electors who do not represent the population by the numbers in a population by the numbers argument.

haymarket said:
You are not making sense and are now chasing your tail. Anyone discussing the EC can only use the figures that are the method for the EC operation. There is no fallacy in using them.

Wrong. You are the one chasing tail with your fallacious argument.
You are not using their formula.
You are using your own formula.

They only have one formula which only by association represents population by the numbers.
They have another formula for allotting electors based on Senators, which is not a population by the numbers allotment.

You are wrongly trying to combine to two to represent that which only the one does.
That makes your argument/formula a fallacy.

Excon · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Electoral college

haymarket said:
To point out that those same figures in the formula result in a great inequity giving smaller states far more weight behind their electoral votes that largely populated states is no fallacy - it is merely a fact.

None of their formulas does so.

haymarket said:
Here is one you have been impotent to honestly answer: How can a Senator represent a state without representing the people of that same state?

Just more dishonesty on your part.

Again.

Your questions have already been answered.
It is your job to pay attention to what was said in reply and respond. So stop being untruthful and reply to what has already been provided.

haymarket said:
Your position is beyond absurd and makes no sense. It is so bad that you cannot even defend it except by invoking other absurdities.

More dishonest transference I see. Figures.

haymarket said:
is that we cannot use the actual Electoral College formula which gives 2 votes in every state which has nothing to do with population to show that the populations of different states is treated unfairly by the Electoral college formula which treats states differently because the population is not considered when those 2 votes are given to every state regardless of the population of that state.

And the information already provided shows just how wrong you are.
You are not using their formula, you are using one of your own making which does not represent reality.

You can not use those two electors who do not represent the population by the numbers in a populations by the numbers argument.
The only electors you can use in such an argument are those allotted based on the House representation which is based on population by the numbers, and then it is not directly, but only by association. But that association breaks down when one realizes that the EC represents an election by the States and not the population of those individual States, because how those electors vote can be totally opposite of what the population wants. Do you really not understand that? I suppose you do not, as that is what you keep showing. Care to show otherwise?

haymarket said:
If all that makes no sense to you - and it is designed to show you are making no sense - consider it this way

iLOL
I understand your argument just fine, that is why I am able to point out why it is fallacious as it is.

haymarket said:
consider it this way

[...]

That has already been addressed. Go back and read it.
As already shown, your arguments are, were, and continue to be, fallacious.

haymarket said:
Sadly the exchange with the poster has demonstrated in huge block letters written into the side of a mountain that neither matters to them, nor do the facts of the issue nor does the arguments presented.

All you get, all I get , is the same repeated absurdities over and over and over and over again.

The claim that we cannot use the fundamental unfairness of the electoral college formula to show the fundamental unfairness of the electoral college to the American people is one of the most amazing things I have ever seen put forth in all my years. It is beyond ridiculous.

Sadly you make fallacious arguments.

haymarket said:
I taught US History and Government for 33 years.

If you taught this wrong headed argument to them, you have actually caused harm by giving them false information.

haymarket said:
I will gladly sing the praises of Social Security as a terrific program to which I paid into for some 45 years. Glad it was there and glad I did it.

iLOL
D'oh!
Then you praise and support stupidity, as you could have earned far more by investing those funds than by letting the government take it.

Excon · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Electoral college

Frank Apisa said:
No, it is not. My argument is neither fallacious not untrue. The people who live in large population states ARE underrepresented in the EC compared with people who live in small population states.

Yes you are wrong Frank. Your argument is untrue and fallacious.
Continuing to state it doesn't make it any less fallacious than it already is.

You are wrong.
You can not use the two electors allotted to represent the State as a separate entity in the Union of States to represent a population by numbers argument .

Frank Apisa said:
Thank you for giving reason why the people who live in large population states ARE underrepresented in the EC compared with people who live in small population states.

Didn't happen Frank so stop being untruthful.
The provided information shows your argument to be wrong as well as wrong headed.

Frank Apisa said:
Neither wrong nor untrue...so it cannot have been proven so.

Wrong Frank. Your argument has already been proven to be fallacious. So stop with the lies.

Frank Apisa said:
You're even proven that I am correct up above. C'mon!

Another lie.
Again, stop with the untruths.
The information I provided shows your argument to be fallacious as well as wrong headed, as the EC never was a representation of the numbers of the total population.
That is just something you can not refute.

Frank Apisa said:
Nope, Excon...you have helped me by showing why the people who live in large population states ARE underrepresented in the EC compared with people who live in small population states.

I thank you for that...although I am baffled why you are insisting they are not...when we both see that they are.

If this is what you think than you clearly have a problem in understand what was presented as it shows you to be wrong.

Frank Apisa said:
Well said, Prometeus.

Bravo!

I doubt some of these people will ever be able to see or understand it...but there is no way any of us should be silent so that they win by default!

Well said? D'oh!
iLOL
That is hilarious.

Frank Apisa said:
The American conservatives have dragged this country to the right.

We must have a reference point to judge which way the country has shifted on a left and right scale.
And as there are always exceptions to the rule, the graduations of that scale should at least accommodate all those variations.

The foundation of this Country and the way they practiced what they put into our foundation and laws of the time should be the center reference point.

Now go ahead and prove that we have shifted to the right of that center.

I am pretty sure most folks would understand that our center reference point should be based upon our foundation as practiced, and that the collective "we" are left of that center at this point in time.
But please, here is your chance to prove what you hold forth.

Excon · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Electoral college

prometeus said:
It is only right that a civilized and advanced nation such as ours should have universal healthcare.

It is only right? D'oh!
It is only right that people in any advanced and civilized nation support their selves.

Taking from Peter to give to Paul is theft.
It is not a greater good to, or for, a society to take (steal) from the productive and give to the non productive.
Society should not engage in theft at all.

prometeus said:
Universal coverage is not a government mandate but actual health care for all. It benefits society.

No. It only benefits those who could not pay for treatment they wanted.
That isn't a benefit for the rest of society.

prometeus said:
Not really, there is nothing to support that. The whole notion that an intermediary can make astounding profits while not curing anyone is utterly stupid.

The ignorance of what you just said is astounding. Insurance

Insurance and the healthcare system are really two different things.
The intermediary in insurance is the one taking the risk, which is why they are entitled to their profits.

Health care is a service provided by another person's efforts.

You are no more entitled to healthcare than you are to another persons' efforts.

prometeus said:
No, the fact is that by any metric other developed nations are healthier ay a far lower cost.

Wrong.

prometeus said:
Universal healthcare works, that is a simple fact evidenced by scores of developed countries that have a healthier population and better longevity. A healthier society is more productive and thus more profitable. That is also a simple fact and your denial of these facts will not change reality.

Wrong. Healthcare works, and the US has the best the world has to offer. But we certainly don't need to be giving it away.

Frank Apisa · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Electoral college

Excon said:
Yes you are wrong Frank. Your argument is untrue and fallacious.
Continuing to state it doesn't make it any less fallacious than it already is.

You are wrong.
You can not use the two electors allotted to represent the State as a separate entity in the Union of States to represent a population by numbers argument .

Didn't happen Frank so stop being untruthful.
The provided information shows your argument to be wrong as well as wrong headed.

Wrong Frank. Your argument has already been proven to be fallacious. So stop with the lies.

Another lie.
Again, stop with the untruths.
The information I provided shows your argument to be fallacious as well as wrong headed, as the EC never was a representation of the numbers of the total population.
That is just something you can not refute.

If this is what you think than you clearly have a problem in understand what was presented as it shows you to be wrong.

Well said? D'oh!
iLOL
That is hilarious.

We must have a reference point to judge which way the country has shifted on a left and right scale.
And as there are always exceptions to the rule, the graduations of that scale should at least accommodate all those variations.

The foundation of this Country and the way they practiced what they put into our foundation and laws of the time should be the center reference point.

Now go ahead and prove that we have shifted to the right of that center.

I am pretty sure most folks would understand that our center reference point should be based upon our foundation as practiced, and that the collective "we" are left of that center at this point in time.
But please, here is your chance to prove what you hold forth.

The Democratic Party is the centrist party. The Republican Party has been hijacked by a bunch of crazies who are ruining it.

If you cannot see that...it is because you are closing your eyes.

Wake up.

Excon · Nov 27, 2015

Re: Electoral college

Frank Apisa said:
The Democratic Party is the centrist party.

No they are not.

Frank Apisa said:
The Republican Party has been hijacked by a bunch of crazies who are ruining it.

No it hasn't.

Frank Apisa said:
If you cannot see that...it is because you are closing your eyes.

Wake up.

iLOL You need to wake up and stop living in that fantasy of yours.

Frank Apisa · Nov 27, 2015

Re: Electoral college

Excon said:
No they are not.

No it hasn't.

iLOL You need to wake up and stop living in that fantasy of yours.

The Democratic Party IS a centrist party...and only looks leftist because the crazies on the far right make moderates look like leftists.

The Republican Party used to be a reasonable party...but it has been hijacked by nutcases intent on destroying any chance of reasonable governance.

Sorry you cannot see that. But part of the problem right now is that many people like you cannot!

Excon · Nov 27, 2015

Re: Electoral college

Frank Apisa said:
The Democratic Party IS a centrist party...and only looks leftist because the crazies on the far right make moderates look like leftists.

Wrong.

Frank Apisa said:
...but it has been hijacked by nutcases intent on destroying any chance of reasonable governance.

Wrong.

Frank Apisa said:
Sorry you cannot see that. But part of the problem right now is that many people like you cannot!

Wrong. Your claims are false.

Again.

We must have a reference point to judge which way the country has shifted on a left and right scale.
And as there are always exceptions to the rule, the graduations of that scale should at least accommodate all those variations.

The foundation of this Country and the way they practiced what they put into our foundation and laws of the time should be the center reference point.

Now go ahead and prove that we have shifted to the right of that center.

I am pretty sure most folks would understand that our center reference point should be based upon our foundation as practiced, and that the collective "we" are left of that center at this point in time.
But please, here is your chance to prove what you hold forth.

You have been asked to provided proof of your claim. You can not because you know we are left of the baseline of where this country was founded.
All you can do is point to exceptions of the rule just like someone else could point out the extreme loony left exceptions.

haymarket · Nov 27, 2015

Re: Electoral college

Excon said:
Funny.

Actually it is not even close to being funny.

If you want to actually debate the issue, kindly let me know when you will quite repeating nonsense that has already been destroyed.

Let me know when you will at least try to answer the important questions you have been asked.

Let me know when you can back up your allegations about me using a fallacy that you cannot name nor support.

Let me know when you will accept that we all know what the formula for a states electoral vote is and THAT is the problem applying it to the election of a President.

Until then, you have nothing of substance to reply to as it has all been trashed and smashed, crushed and flushed over and over and over again.

you did raise one thing in your latest repetitions that I had not seen before

There are two separate formulas for the allotment of electors.

That is FALSE. There is but one single formula: each state gets the number of electors equalling the number of people they have in Congress. Thats it.

For you to dishonestly attempt to pretend there are two formulas so you can perpetrate this intellectual fraud is disgusting - not to mention just plain wrong. And the United States Constitution proves you wrong

Article II
Section 1.

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

One sentence - one formula - one set of electors per state equal to it representation in Congress.

And it is that one formula that when applied to the states causes the inequality of the weight of electoral votes from one state to the next depending on if it is largely or less so populated.

You really need to read your Constitution.

prometeus · Nov 27, 2015

Re: Electoral college

Excon said:
It is only right?

Yes, which part do you have difficulty grasping?

It is only right that people in any advanced and civilized nation support their selves.

Please spare me the ignorant talking points. Come back when you can muster a rational argument instead of partisan hackery.

Frank Apisa · Nov 27, 2015

Re: Electoral college

Excon said:
Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong. Your claims are false.

Again.

We must have a reference point to judge which way the country has shifted on a left and right scale.
And as there are always exceptions to the rule, the graduations of that scale should at least accommodate all those variations.

The foundation of this Country and the way they practiced what they put into our foundation and laws of the time should be the center reference point.

Now go ahead and prove that we have shifted to the right of that center.

I am pretty sure most folks would understand that our center reference point should be based upon our foundation as practiced, and that the collective "we" are left of that center at this point in time.
But please, here is your chance to prove what you hold forth.

You have been asked to provided proof of your claim. You can not because you know we are left of the baseline of where this country was founded.
All you can do is point to exceptions of the rule just like someone else could point out the extreme loony left exceptions.

If you are unable to see that the Republican Party is dominated by the most extreme right wing elements of our country, Excon...you are simply blinding yourself to the obvious.

Anywhere in the world except in the right wing dominated United States...the Democratic Party would be considered the moderate, centrist party...and the Republican Party would be considered an extraordinarily far right wing party. And the reason for that is because the Democratic Party IS THE MODERATE, CENTRIST party...and the Republican Party is off the wall right wing.

jimbo · Nov 27, 2015

Re: Electoral college

Frank Apisa said:
The Democratic Party IS a centrist party...and only looks leftist because the crazies on the far right make moderates look like leftists.

The Republican Party used to be a reasonable party...but it has been hijacked by nutcases intent on destroying any chance of reasonable governance.

Sorry you cannot see that. But part of the problem right now is that many people like you cannot!

The problem, Frank, lies in the term "reasonable governance". Seems people differ on the definition.

Invariably, reasonable governance becomes an oxymoron.

haymarket · Nov 27, 2015

Re: Electoral college

prometeus said:
Yes, which part do you have difficulty grasping?

Please spare me the ignorant talking points. Come back when you can muster a rational argument instead of partisan hackery.

Several of us have been advising much the same thing. Good luck in that day arriving.

Frank Apisa · Nov 27, 2015

Re: Electoral college

jimbo said:
The problem, Frank, lies in the term "reasonable governance". Seems people differ on the definition.

Invariably, reasonable governance becomes an oxymoron.

Okay...I will grant that people can disagree on the term "reasonable governance," Jimbo.

But the Republican Party of today cannot even "govern" themselves. There is a significant portion of the party who seems unable to comprehend that society requires that individuality is not license.

Under any circumstances...I am a REGISTERED Independent (not a Democrat) and it is obvious to me that the Democratic Party is the moderate party in our country...and the Republican party an extreme party...so extreme that even members of it quarrel with other members about the nature and depth of the extremity.

If it will make it more palatable to you, I certainly will stipulate the OBVIOUS: IT IS MY OPINION that the Democratic Party is the moderate, centrist party in our country...and that the Republican Party has been hijacked by extremists who are injurious to governance of any kind.

Electoral college***[W:862,1203]***

Electoral college[W:862,1203]