• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Transcript: Obama's State Of The Union Address 2014

NIMBY said:
not by total votes--just gerry-mander
Click to expand...

Yes by total votes, because, shocker, we are a union of states which are a collection of representative districts. Gerrymandering works for ALL parties that have the majority in the state. Remember that democracy thing PMZ mentioned?
 
MrVicchio said:
That's not how it works, but thanks for showing us the latest spin. Where did you get that from? Dailykos?

If you took any college courses on American Government, get your money back
Click to expand...
show us you got your money's worth from community college. point out for all to see what you insist i got wrong
 
NIMBY said:
not by total votes--just gerry-mander
Click to expand...


More excuses from someone who continues to promote the failed ideology of liberalism. Fact more people voted for Republicans in 2010 and the People's House remains in Republican hands. You do realize that when someone runs unopposed that the votes aren't totally counted? You want to blame Republican wins o Gerrymandering but Democrat wins as the will of the people. Doubt seriously that the will of the people today supports Obama's economic results as the polls show.
 
NIMBY said:
Just the facts--your first two words were as far as a normal person needed to go when reading your ultra-partisan attacks .
Click to expand...


Very simple question, who controls the House of Representatives known as the People's House? When a Representative runs unopposed are those votes counted in the total? I believe if you bothered to pay attention to the 2010 and 2012 elections you will find that more people voted for Republicans than Democrats
 
Total votes in the USA--focus--no longer the people's House.
We now have two filibuster chambers, one official--one unofficial .
clownboy said:
Yes by total votes, because, shocker, we are a union of states which are a collection of representative districts. Gerrymandering works for ALL parties that have the majority in the state. Remember that democracy thing PMZ mentioned?
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
Very simple question, who controls the House of Representatives known as the People's House?
Click to expand...
Gerry-Mander
When a Representative runs unopposed are those votes counted in the total?
Click to expand...
No bearing but you already knew that.
I believe if you bothered to pay attention to the 2010 and 2012 elections you will find that more people voted for Republicans than Democrats
Click to expand...

Where did 2010 enter this discussion?
It was not in post #75 .
 
NIMBY said:
You are unaware of the total House votes for each party in 2012.
Color me surprised .
Click to expand...

No, I'm aware that electing representatives in this democracy doesn't work like that. To bad that surprises you, I'd have thought you better educated.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Enough with the swipes towards other posters education levels
 
NIMBY said:
Gerry-Mander No bearing but you already knew that.

Where did 2010 enter this discussion?
It was not in post #75 .
Click to expand...

Obviously the D matters more than the actual results of the Democrat Party, right? You don't seem to get it, results matter and far too many vote for the D than the results.
 
NIMBY said:
Total votes in the USA--focus--no longer the people's House.
We now have two filibuster chambers, one official--one unofficial .
Click to expand...

Again, electing representatives doesn't work like that. In fact that's why it's called the People's House.
 
We have the 17th amendment to do away with Republicans gerry-mandering the Senate before the age of Progress--ives starting in 1900.
clownboy said:
Again, electing representatives doesn't work like that. In fact that's why it's called the People's House.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
Gerry-Mander
Click to expand...

Balloons

Sorry, I thought we were writing random words instead of answering questions, my bad.

Yes, Gerry-Mandering exists. Gerry Mandering has existed in EVERY election dating back to before the 1800's and is practiced by both parties. Answering "who controls the House of Representatives" by saying "Gerry Mandering" basically suggests that the House should NEVER be referenced because there hasn't been a time in this countries history where it hasn't been touched by Gerry Mandering.
 
Yet there is a move afoot to get rid of the 17th, which now prevents gerry-mandered statehouses from appointing Senators.
Good thing we had Roosevelt and Bryan working together for progress--ive ideas .
Zyphlin said:
Balloons

Sorry, I thought we were writing random words instead of answering questions, my bad.

Yes, Gerry-Mandering exists. Gerry Mandering has existed in EVERY election dating back to before the 1800's and is practiced by both parties. Answering "who controls the House of Representatives" by saying "Gerry Mandering" basically suggests that the House should NEVER be referenced because there hasn't been a time in this countries history where it hasn't been touched by Gerry Mandering.
Click to expand...
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, Gerry-Mandering exists..
Click to expand...

And since it favors the GOP by a wide margin at this present moment of awareness in time, no problem right ?
 
But you don't feel that way about the R, which I didn't bring up and accuse.
Conservative said:
Obviously the D matters more than the actual results of the Democrat Party, right?
You don't seem to get it, results matter and far too many vote for the D than the results.
Click to expand...
Tell you what, since I didn't quote you and all you ever do is go after my posts, just skip on by huh ?
 
Zyphlin said:
Which is why I originally stated I liked the article that was linked. The article didn't deny or suggest that there wasn't a pay gap...it simply suggested that the steadfast use of $0.77 on the dollar is not as clear cut as it's made out to be and the implications made with it's continued use aren't exactly absolute. As you say, research and analysis regarding how much of an impact things like a "glass ceiling" play for it, and finding out what factors correlate with rather than cause the gap, is definitely needed. I liked the link because it basically highlighted how it's a complex situation with numerous factors and a wide range of ways to view it beyond the narrowly focused, but oft repeated, "$0.77" mantra that's used as justification for immediete congressional action.
Click to expand...

Yes, that my point. The .77 stat is the epitome of intellectual laziness or lack of critical thinking. "Equal pay for equal work" makes for a nice little bumper sticker but not anything that can work in the real world. Can you imagine what a regulatory boondoggle would be involved in defining ' equal work' ? And furthermore , can you imagine the absurdity demanding by Gov't decree that two people doing what appears to be 'equal work' getting the same pay ( ignoring the differing skill sets that we all bring to our jobs)? The sad part is- Obama surely has to know all this yet he still offers it up ( at the SOTU no less )as if he doesn't.
 
If I have ever trashed any of you posters for making fun of your education levels, please let me know so I can apologize.
This is not what retired teachers who still tutor students are supposed to be about.
We are all better than this .
 
NIMBY said:
But you don't feel that way about the R, which I didn't bring up and accuse.

Tell you what, since I didn't quote you and all you ever do is go after my posts, just skip on by huh ?
Click to expand...


No, I don't, my bet is I have voted for more Democrats than you have Republicans. Results matter to me but not the American Idol voter. You voted for Obama simply because of the rhetoric, now you are ignoring the results.
 
PMZ said:
We can't shut the country down just because the GOP is in a snit.
Click to expand...

Yes yes, we know your spin. Did you say the same thing when the House shut the government down 8 times while Reagan was President? Nah, didn't think so.
 
justabubba said:
show us you got your money's worth from community college. point out for all to see what you insist i got wrong
Click to expand...

Pointing out what you refuse to accept as reality is rather pointless.

The House and Senate pass the laws, the Executive approves the laws, or veto's them. Once passed, the President is supposed to make sure those laws are enforced. The LEGISLATIVE BRANCH holds the power to create law, the Executive EXECUTES those laws and the Judicial makes sure they adhere to the Constitution.

You're theory is that the President is "leader" and can make happen whatever he thinks is best.
 
This basically goes back to my statement regarding the EO issue on another thread suggesting that those who keep trying to defend/counter the complaint by saying "Well he's not done as many" are missing the point either intentionally or unintentionally. There are numerous factors to the issue and peoples complaints about it, and a person may find those complaints to be frivilous on their own merit that doesn't mean they don't exist...and as such SIMPLY boiling it down to total amount of EO's done is off base. Few people are actually full on challenging the legitimacy of EO's.

As I said in the other thread, look at it from a basketball analogy. People complain that player B is taking too many shots a game, and they counter saying "Yeah, well player A used to take more and no one complained!". Player B's been averaging 25 shots a game while Player A used to average 30 shots. JUST based on number, it would look like the defense of Player B is spot on...how can you complain about him if you didn't complain about Player A, when A shot 5 times more a game. But the reality is few things are ever a function of only one factor. What if Player A's shooting percentage was 10% higher than Player B? Suddenly, more shots aren't necessarily a bad thing. What if most of Player A's shots were high percentage shots near the basket while Player B's were long range shots? Perhaps the team around Player A was significantly worse than the team around Player B, and thus necessitated the hire amount of shots. SIMPLY boiling down the argument that Player B is "shooting too much" to "how many shots is he taking" basically is just using tunnel vision.

MrV brings up one of the issues people have with Obama's EO's specifically, and while you may disagree with his point it doesn't change the fact that going "Bush did more EO's" doesn't counter his point. MrV doesn't seem to be challenging the constitutionality of Executive Orderes, but rather challening the purpose for them. This is something I've heard brought up a number of times by some on the right. That rather than attempting to use them as a means of facilitating the faithful execution of the law, that they're being used to either STOP executing the law in some manner OR to take actions that have specifically been part of proposed laws that FAILED to actually pass.

Now that definitly can still be argued about on it's own merit, but it's why the "Well Bush did it more!" answer is so laughable and such a weak defense of what's actually being discussed in total with this issue.
 
MrVicchio said:
Pointing out what you refuse to accept as reality is rather pointless.

The House and Senate pass the laws, the Executive approves the laws, or veto's them. Once passed, the President is supposed to make sure those laws are enforced. The LEGISLATIVE BRANCH holds the power to create law, the Executive EXECUTES those laws and the Judicial makes sure they adhere to the Constitution.

You're theory is that the President is "leader" and can make happen whatever he thinks is best.
Click to expand...

still waiting to see the portion of my post you insisted was inaccurate. i look forward to seeing that inaccuracy presented by you
 
Conservative said:
So your opinion is that the GOP House shutdown the govt. and Obama along with the Senate had nothing to do with it? Have you ever taken a civics class?
Click to expand...

Any body who pays the least bit of attention to the news knows that what's changed is the conservative infestation of the GOP all doing their Rush Limbaugh impressions. The GOP knows it too and are struggling with finding the cure that costs them the fewest votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom