Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 could have national implications. A carpetbagger from the Philly Main Line has moved to the Lehigh valley in an attempt to win a seat in the Congress. Naturally, he's a Democrat. His name is Joe Driscoll. His Republican competition is in the form of one Charlie Dent. Has this story received any coverage outside of my area, because I think it could be huge in the house if this parasite wins ala Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 I haven't heard of it, but you could have just as easily said, ala Elizabeth Dole or Alan Keyes. What difference does it make where they come from, they're Americans, and if the voters in their area think they best respresent their views among the candidates running, so be it. If they don't, then they won't win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 could have national implications. A carpetbagger from the Philly Main Line has moved to the Lehigh valley in an attempt to win a seat in the Congress. Naturally, he's a Democrat. His name is Joe Driscoll. His Republican competition is in the form of one Charlie Dent. Has this story received any coverage outside of my area, because I think it could be huge in the house if this parasite wins ala Hillary. 40875[/snapback] A carpetbagger moved to the SOUTH from the North to take advantage of the vacuum in the Southern political power base after the Civil War. Moving across a state doesn't make him a carpetbagger. Maybe a smart guy, but not a carpetbagger, or a parasite. If the voters VOTE for him, then they want him, plain and simple... in the Electoral College system however, we got Bush, and a majority of us wanted Gore. That's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 If the voters VOTE for him, then they want him, plain and simple... in the Electoral College system however, we got Bush, and a majority of us wanted Gore. That's wrong. 41567[/snapback] Sorry, that's not wrong. It's Constitutional and brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 a majority of us wanted Gore. That's wrong. I agree, that was wrong. Disturbing even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Sorry, that's not wrong. It's Constitutional and brilliant. 41579[/snapback] Brilliant in the fact that the few control then many. I don't think it is wrong. Just the way 18th century elitists feared the choice of the people. The only thing wrong today is that it is working backwards. Now we actually have the "Joe Smuckatellys" dictating what the many will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Brilliant in the fact that the few control then many.I don't think it is wrong. Just the way 18th century elitists feared the choice of the people. The only thing wrong today is that it is working backwards. Now we actually have the "Joe Smuckatellys" dictating what the many will do. 41702[/snapback] The few don't control the many. Less than half of eligible voters even bother anymore. Al Gore didn't win the popular vote by more than a point or two. Had he won by 10 or more there might actually be an argument. Personally, I don't want urban areas controlling the government. That will only ensure it gets bigger and more powerful, trampling our individual liberty even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidey Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Sorry, that's not wrong. It's Constitutional and brilliant. 41579[/snapback] Sorry at one time I thought the Electoral college was they way to go. However with these now FIXED red and blue states your vote only counts if you live in a battelground state. It is time for some major revamping of our political system. We must get rid of Bills that have all types of other things attached it should be single issue bills prevents the pork pile on. With current system I vote for a new law and tacked on somewhere in fine print is support for/against ( fill in blanks) Voting records of folks in congress can be twisted in any ways, I can attack the most conservative folks by saying they voted against a conservative thing etc. The Electoral college is no longer a proper mechanism it should be a simple majority which will encourage folks in non battleground states to express their liberty and vote. Today voter turnout is at its lowest since many folks feel their vote doesnt count. We must also institute term limits, the founding fathers didnt ever think folks would be career ploticians the idea was to serve and than return home. The two party system we have today and control it has over the process makes it impossible to reform to a modern form of government that is more reflective of the information age etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Sorry at one time I thought the Electoral college was they way to go. However with these now FIXED red and blue states your vote only counts if you live in a battelground state. It is time for some major revamping of our political system. We must get rid of Bills that have all types of other things attached it should be single issue bills prevents the pork pile on. With current system I vote for a new law and tacked on somewhere in fine print is support for/against ( fill in blanks) Voting records of folks in congress can be twisted in any ways, I can attack the most conservative folks by saying they voted against a conservative thing etc. The Electoral college is no longer a proper mechanism it should be a simple majority which will encourage folks in non battleground states to express their liberty and vote. Today voter turnout is at its lowest since many folks feel their vote doesnt count. We must also institute term limits, the founding fathers didnt ever think folks would be career ploticians the idea was to serve and than return home. The two party system we have today and control it has over the process makes it impossible to reform to a modern form of government that is more reflective of the information age etc. 41999[/snapback] It is brilliant because it works for Alaska. They get to feed off federal money and have political power when joined with the other "small" rural states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Sorry at one time I thought the Electoral college was they way to go. However with these now FIXED red and blue states your vote only counts if you live in a battelground state. It is time for some major revamping of our political system. We must get rid of Bills that have all types of other things attached it should be single issue bills prevents the pork pile on. With current system I vote for a new law and tacked on somewhere in fine print is support for/against ( fill in blanks) Voting records of folks in congress can be twisted in any ways, I can attack the most conservative folks by saying they voted against a conservative thing etc. The Electoral college is no longer a proper mechanism it should be a simple majority which will encourage folks in non battleground states to express their liberty and vote. Today voter turnout is at its lowest since many folks feel their vote doesnt count. We must also institute term limits, the founding fathers didnt ever think folks would be career ploticians the idea was to serve and than return home. The two party system we have today and control it has over the process makes it impossible to reform to a modern form of government that is more reflective of the information age etc. 41999[/snapback] The Electoral College has nothing to do with voter turnout or the feeling that their vote doesn't matter. It has to do with the transferrance of power from the individual to the government at every level. A simple majority is an absolute disaster of an idea in just about every instance. I agree with the sentiment that Bills need to be limited to the subject at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidey Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 A simple majority is an absolute disaster of an idea in just about every instance. 42012[/snapback] Why do you say simple majority is a disaster? In each state today Governor is majority, senator majority, congress person majority, city mayor majority, dog catcher majority. So if it works for EVERY other elected office in this country why not president and vice president? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 The Electoral College has nothing to do with voter turnout or the feeling that their vote doesn't matter. It has to do with the transferrance of power from the individual to the government at every level. A simple majority is an absolute disaster of an idea in just about every instance. I agree with the sentiment that Bills need to be limited to the subject at hand. 42012[/snapback] Why... We are totally "Federalized" in this day and age. I don't think regional issues are that important anymore. We are interdependent, not independent. Just my belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidey Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Why... We are totally "Federalized" in this day and age. I don't think regional issues are that important anymore. We are interdependent, not independent. Just my belief. 42050[/snapback] Right when was the last time that a regional issue had anything to do with the outcome of a presidential election. OOOPS I forgot about an antiquated process in florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Why... We are totally "Federalized" in this day and age. I don't think regional issues are that important anymore. We are interdependent, not independent. Just my belief. 42050[/snapback] Confucious say two wrongs don't make a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Why do you say simple majority is a disaster? In each state today Governor is majority, senator majority, congress person majority, city mayor majority, dog catcher majority. So if it works for EVERY other elected office in this country why not president and vice president? 42045[/snapback] Because a simple majority ensures that if one party caters to at over half of one large economic group, they'll always be in power. Washington D.C. is a terrific example. Tons of government employees, crime ridden, terrible education system, drug infested, and almost 90% of the population votes Democrat in every election. You can't get 90% of the people to agree on the weather... No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Sorry at one time I thought the Electoral college was they way to go. However with these now FIXED red and blue states your vote only counts if you live in a battelground state. It is time for some major revamping of our political system. We must get rid of Bills that have all types of other things attached it should be single issue bills prevents the pork pile on. With current system I vote for a new law and tacked on somewhere in fine print is support for/against ( fill in blanks) Voting records of folks in congress can be twisted in any ways, I can attack the most conservative folks by saying they voted against a conservative thing etc. The Electoral college is no longer a proper mechanism it should be a simple majority which will encourage folks in non battleground states to express their liberty and vote. Today voter turnout is at its lowest since many folks feel their vote doesnt count. We must also institute term limits, the founding fathers didnt ever think folks would be career ploticians the idea was to serve and than return home. The two party system we have today and control it has over the process makes it impossible to reform to a modern form of government that is more reflective of the information age etc. 41999[/snapback] Would you also like to eliminate the US Senate? That is the mechanism for dividing States' powers in the legislative branch. How do you think Maine and North Dakota would like that? Should they still have the right to secede since the terms on which they joined the union have been changed? Should we just remove their right to secede while we're at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts