French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
All that gives us is "There are reports...".
All that gives us is "There are reports...".
If Pennsylvania is an outrage, then I'm sure you've been up in arms about Maine and Nebraska for a while, yes? Colorado too back in 2004 when they tried to change theirs?
I made a simple comment...you seem more outraged than I.
But Nebraska moved to proportional representation...not because the Dems took over the govt and were trying to weaken its influence...but because the state bilaterally thought it was best to actually be proportional. Since, Nebraska found that the move was BAD for the state (what a shocker) and is looking to backtrack the move.
So with those learnings...why would a blue state with a rare GOP majority and 20 electoral votes want to limit their electoral votes in all probability to single digits? Part of me would like to see that plan succeed...the electorate would severely punish the party far beyond the 20 votes at stake.
So in your fantasy land, if Gore had been leading in Florida by a few hundred votes and Bush was asking for recount after recount with differing standards in various precincts that were clearly going to extend past deadlines established by the legislature, there would be no Gore vs. Bush case at SCOTUS? Riiiiight....I wasn't clear. Going to the courts on legal principles is as American as apple pie. The behavior I am objecting to is litigating for the sole purpose of overturning elections.
You see no difference between a recount and an impeachment? It's a good thing you're not a lawyer.So in your fantasy land, if Gore had been leading in Florida by a few hundred votes and Bush was asking for recount after recount with differing standards in various precincts that were clearly going to extend past deadlines established by the legislature, there would be no Gore vs. Bush case at SCOTUS? Riiiiight....
I just find it hilarious that you make a post trashing the electoral college... and then in the same post criticize Pennsylvania for for having the temerity to mess with the electoral college. Okay then.
Again, if you want to grouse about their plan, you better have been grousing about Maine, Nebraska, and Colorado before them. I suspect you weren't.
Your original complaint was that "they try to overturn the election in the courts" (post 763). That's not about impeachment (nor a recount) - impeachment doesn't occur in court. Bush vs. Gore is clearly the most prominent example of a Republican suing in court to affect/overturn (depending on your point of view) an election. My point is that both sides use extra-electoral processes and procedures, including the courts, recounts, recalls, etc, to advance their agendas.You see no difference between a recount and an impeachment? It's a good thing you're not a lawyer.
(It's actually always a good thing when someone is not a lawyer.)
Fair point. I did mean impeachment (after all, it was a response to the typical "Conservative angry. Conservative seek to impeach. Grunt." story (post 759) we always see when things don't go their way. But as you say, that is not a court issue, so the misunderstanding is entirely my fault.Your original complaint was that "they try to overturn the election in the courts" (post 763). That's not about impeachment (nor a recount) - impeachment doesn't occur in court.
No worries - to be fair, there do seem to have been quite a lot of cases lately where Republicans *have* turned to the courts (often for stupid or illogical reasons, IMHO), so even if your complaint had been about the courts, you would have had a legitimate beef. I was just playing the "we're no worse than you are" race-to-the-bottom game.Fair point. I did mean impeachment (after all, it was a response to the typical "Conservative angry. Conservative seek to impeach. Grunt." story (post 759) we always see when things don't go their way. But as you say, that is not a court issue, so the misunderstanding is entirely my fault.
I know. Just so you understand that even though the mistake was mine I do think you're worse than we are.I was just playing the "we're no worse than you are" race-to-the-bottom game.
Again, I don't want to hear "its been reported"....
WHO is the source of this and if its not govt money being used why should we care?
So in your fantasy land, if Gore had been leading in Florida by a few hundred votes and Bush was asking for recount after recount with differing standards in various precincts that were clearly going to extend past deadlines established by the legislature, there would be no Gore vs. Bush case at SCOTUS? Riiiiight....
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...-again-over-GOP-redistricting-map-2080080.php
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/recall18-8g3r7ui-137489833.html
etc.
Coming soon, Romney and Obama wrestling over a members only jacket at Goodwill in an attempt to show each is more frugal than the other. Meanwhile, Rome is burning.
I know. Just so you understand that even though the mistake was mine I do think you're worse than we are.
Actually, I don't think you're worse than we are, because you're one of that rare breed, conservatives sans derp, that exist only on college campuses and in European parliaments these days. I do wish you would get a move on and take your party back, though. We flushed most of our morons in the 70's. (Granted, a lot of them washed up on your shore.)
Fair point. I did mean impeachment (after all, it was a response to the typical "Conservative angry. Conservative seek to impeach. Grunt." story (post 759) we always see when things don't go their way. But as you say, that is not a court issue, so the misunderstanding is entirely my fault.
Actually the GOP is doing things a little different than that. Here in Minnesota they passed a voter ID law that was vetoed by the Governor. So, they're now attempting to pass a Constitutional Amendment and get that on the ballot.
They also already have a Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment on the Minnesota ballot this fall.
Legislation done by ballot majority is a horrible way to govern and is NOT what the founding fathers believed in or wanted. Yet, here's the party of the Founding Fathers legislating by Constitutional Amendment.