TexasCHLforum.com

Ron Paul certainly had my attention. I like the way he thinks on most issues.

What gripes me about him, tho, is that he received massive dollars during the most
recent prez election, then he didn't stay in the faces of the Dems and Repubs and make
them face the tough questions head on. He just slinked away and didn't hold their feet
to the fire.

Does anyone get the impression that the news media in this country are all "Bread and
circuses?" The Romans, during their empire days, used to keep the populace in line with
"bread and circuses". If the people had enough to eat, and they could kill a day at the
Coliseum with entertainment, they stayed off the ruling class' backs.

Half the news in the media is "infotainment". Public relations flacks help the media to
have something on 24 hours a day. Movie stars are America's royalty? Give me a break.
If some of those people weren't famous they'd just be PWT (poor white trash).

SIA

TxDrifter wrote:What would be interesting to see is if more states went the the Congressional District Method, similar to Maine and Nebraska. Then an entire state's populous vote would not decide which candidate gets all of the electoral college votes. They would split based on the winner of the district.

Well, this is sort of like State-izing congressional districts, no? Is the State really a unified entity at that point? And necessarily any state that divided based on congressional districts would be short two allocated votes.

If you look into this, never since Maine or Nebraska adopted this policy have they had any split of electoral votes. In other words, this change had no functional effect.

Gerrymandering of districts would be a far worse problem even than it is now, if this policy were to be put into place. I guarantee you that the districts would be manipulated in order to get a unified result. There would be no functional difference. But it does have the potential of creating contentious intrastate political problems, invites fraud, and may wind up sort of "Balkanizing" a state, particularly a state the size of Texas or California.

Making such a change is only advantageous if you subscribe to the idealization of the "direct popular vote" method of electing a President, and feel like this is an intermediate step or a compromise. State legislatures have the authority to enact whatever method they would like for nominating electors. If other states wanted to do it, there is nothing stopping them, except for of course the voters and the will of the government of that state.

Note that Maine only has two congressional districts, and only four electors total. Nebraska has three congressional districts and five electors. The effect of these states adopting this method of selecting electors is marginal. There are very few (maybe zero? I haven't done the math) scenarios where the non-unified electoral votes of these two states could potentially make a difference in the outcome of an election. However if you were to enact this policy in Texas, then it could potentially swing the entire election. You can be absolutely sure that if Texas were to adopt this policy it would benefit the Democrats by a huge margin because there are several districts in TX that are majority Democrat and those will be free electoral votes for the Democrat party.

It would require a constitutional amendment for the Fedaral Government to compel all states to adopt such a policy. Since only two states have decided to do this on their own, the odds of 3/4 of the states ratifying an amendment to force it onto the other 48 are pretty much zero. 2/3 vote in both houses of congress would be required to even propose the Amendment, absent the historical first of a constitutional convention enacted by the states.

chamberc wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Reading and understanding are so tedious... I want all of my info spoon-fed to me. Oh wait, that is Fox news!

Just because you don't like a message doesn't make it untrue. After watching MSM for so long, most people don't recognize unbiased news.

Tell a conservative a lie and that will anger them... tell a liberal the truth and that will anger them.

There is no difference between Fox and MSM other than content. They both spew propaganda.

chamberc wrote:Here here... at this point there is so little difference between what the Dimrats and the GOP is doing, it's hard to find anyone to support.

We need someone to come along and elminate 60% to 80% of the federal government.

That "someone" you refer to is US...you and me, the voters. Nobody esle is going to clean house for us.

According to this story, both Dems and Repubs in DC should be looking over their shoulders in 2010 and 2012.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090902/ap_ ... gress_poll

It's going to be interesting to see how many of those un-representing representatives migrate to new positions over the next few months, in an effort to keep their jobs.

pdubyoo wrote:

chamberc wrote:Here here... at this point there is so little difference between what the Dimrats and the GOP is doing, it's hard to find anyone to support.

We need someone to come along and elminate 60% to 80% of the federal government.

That "someone" you refer to is US...you and me, the voters. Nobody esle is going to clean house for us.

According to this story, both Dems and Repubs in DC should be looking over their shoulders in 2010 and 2012.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090902/ap_ ... gress_poll

It's going to be interesting to see how many of those un-representing representatives migrate to new positions over the next few months, in an effort to keep their jobs.

You got it. We especially need to vote out anyone that has been there more than 10 years. They have drawn to much power to themselves.

TxDrifter wrote: You got it. We especially need to vote out anyone that has been there more than 10 years. They have drawn to much power to themselves.

Riiight... Let's replace them with inexperienced legislators who don't know the process, are going to have to spend a few useless years making relationships and trying to learn to get along with their colleagues, etc.

Why not term limits for your job?

I recently read a report on the fallacy of the effectiveness of term limits that was intriguing and eye-opening. I will see if I can find the link to post here.

mr.72 wrote:

TxDrifter wrote: You got it. We especially need to vote out anyone that has been there more than 10 years. They have drawn to much power to themselves.

Riiight... Let's replace them with inexperienced legislators who don't know the process, are going to have to spend a few useless years making relationships and trying to learn to get along with their colleagues, etc.

Why not term limits for your job?

I recently read a report on the fallacy of the effectiveness of term limits that was intriguing and eye-opening. I will see if I can find the link to post here.

There is absolutely no skill in being a legislator. It is not an occupation that requires much intelligence or ability, as evidenced by most of those that "represent" us. Using current legislators as an example of effectiveness is not a valid argument, unless you think they've been effective.

The current bunch have already demonstrated no knowledge of basic economic principles or even a basic grasp of what the role of government is.

They are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. Just take a look at an IQ distribution and you'll know that the odds are most of them are average or worse.

All the really intelligent people have real jobs anyway and don't have to feed at the public trough.

bdickens wrote:All the really intelligent people have real jobs anyway and don't have to feed at the public trough.

Amen to that... This current bunch lives as legislators... that's their career... and we don't need any career politicians these days.

I think that that is amply evidenced by the not-uncommon practice of seating surviving spouses in Congress-members vacant seats.

"Hey, I slept with him/her so I must be qualified."

Purplehood wrote:I think that that is amply evidenced by the not-uncommon practice of seating surviving spouses in Congress-members vacant seats.

"Hey, I slept with him/her so I must be qualified."

Where I grew up we had that happen. When the husband passed away, the wife took his seat. She has actually been a very good Congresswoman. Very conscientious. (also helps my view of her that she is pretty conservative. LOL)

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:It's not the left vs. the right: It's the state versus you.

If we keep on the path of massive deficits, get ready to start speaking
Chinese and be mandated to buy some Chinese rice wagon deathtrap car.
SIA

Can everyone say "HUMMER"?

mr.72 wrote:

TxDrifter wrote: You got it. We especially need to vote out anyone that has been there more than 10 years. They have drawn to much power to themselves.

Riiight... Let's replace them with inexperienced legislators who don't know the process, are going to have to spend a few useless years making relationships and trying to learn to get along with their colleagues, etc.

Why not term limits for your job?

I recently read a report on the fallacy of the effectiveness of term limits that was intriguing and eye-opening. I will see if I can find the link to post here.

In my opinion, it is very easy for politicians to get poluted by the machine, and they stop representing their constiuents and start representing their own personal interests. The longer they are there, the more likely it is that they are focused inwardly, feeding their own interests...useless to their constituents. Too many voters are creatures of habit, and aren't equipped with the knowledge needed to boot these non-representing representatives out. That's why we're in the mess we are in now.

I disagree that newbies don't know the process (some maybe), as most DC legislators are experienced politicians from state gov, etc. I certainly don't buy the notion that they are useless until they build relationships and get along with their colleagues. They are there to represent their constituents. Friendships and alliances will be formed over time with colleagues, but their focus needs to on the needs and desires of the folks they represent back home. Wishful thinking, I know.

While crossing Nevada a couple of weeks ago, signs were everywheresaying,"Elect anyone BUT Harry Ried".

mr.72 wrote:

TxDrifter wrote: You got it. We especially need to vote out anyone that has been there more than 10 years. They have drawn to much power to themselves.

Riiight... Let's replace them with inexperienced legislators who don't know the process, are going to have to spend a few useless years making relationships and trying to learn to get along with their colleagues, etc.

Sounds good to me!! If they don't know what they're doing, they can't pass more laws to restrict our freedom to carry on our own business.