American Politics during the Bush Presidency

[QUOTE=Sidney Riley] < snip >

What's happening with the National Popular Vote initiative is being done in strict accordance with the Constitution. It is being passed state by state, in the respective legislatures, just as the Constitution envisioned. < snip > [/QUOTE]I don't have the legal smarts to be debating this. But it seems to me like an attempt to alter the way we elect presidents without altering the constitution. And I have always thought that it's the purview of the constitution to determine how we elect presidents. Why not ACTUALLY alter the constitution? And what will happen if this passes in all 50 states and then one state changes it mind?

I'm from a state (NY) which does not allow for referendums. So if / when I learn that this is being discussed in the NY state legislature, I will be asking my state representatives how it is that this measure which gives the people more power to determine the president is not being put before the people.

I'm surprised, but glad, that I learned about this here. Thanks to whoever brought it up.

Bob

[QUOTE=AllIWantisLove]. It seems to me like an attempt to alter the way we elect presidents without altering the constitution. And I have always thought that it's the purview of the constitution to determine how we elect presidents. Why not ACTUALLY alter the constitution? [/QUOTE]Once more, Article II, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution states: [I] Each State shall appoint, [u]in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct[/u], a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress[/i].

In other words, the Constitution gave us a [I]flexible[/i] means of changing the way we appoint electors (to elect the President) without having to change the Constitution itself.

Up until now, we've generally used the winner-take-all system. If someone wins 51% of the state's popular vote, they get all that state's electors. But there's nothing sacred about that. The Constitution does not say that's how it has to be done.

[QUOTE=AllIWantisLove]And what will happen if this passes in all 50 states and then one state changes it mind?[/QUOTE]First, it doesn't need all 50 states to work. It only need enough states so that the sum total of electoral vote equals or exceeds 270. If and when enough states pass the legislation to achieve that, it's almost certain the rest of the country will go along. But again, any state can appoint electors in the manner they see it.

Right now Maine and Nebraska each appoint electors in a manner that differs from how the other 48 states do. No problem.

[QUOTE=AllIWantisLove]I'm from a state (NY) which does not allow for referendums. So if / when I learn that this is being discussed in the NY state legislature.[/QUOTE]This legislation has been introduced to the New York state (by Republicans)

[url]http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=NY[/url]

I don't know the status.

[quote=Sidney]Once again, I call for the impeachment of Bush, the all time worst President![/QUOTE]Sid, just hold your breath and wait 11 months and you'll have your wish - evil Bush will be gone and (this is probably not your wish) President McCain will be inaugurated.

(P.S. - Do you have any doubt that if you got your wish and the Democrats were in control the budget would be $4.5 trillion and not $3 trillion? Your desires seem to be rather contradictory - which is OK, because nobody pretends that BDS sufferers have a normal, logical thought process. ;) )

Hunt-

I will give you 2/1 on a $100 USD bet that McCain WILL NOT be elected president in November.

Hunt, as an educated and successful man, I really do not understand how you could think that Bush has done EVEN ONE thing to enhance the direction / future / condition of the US. The reputation of the US abroad is ruined, the country is nearing bankruptcy internally, and a few mis-events could realistically cause a chain-reaction leading to the collapse of the dollar. Bush and his cronies have successfully re-set the environment in the US to the days when the robber-baron capitalists exploited the middle and lesser classes to an embarrassing degree. The over-invoiced government domestic contracts of 100 years ago have been replaced by no-bid military-industrial complex agreements overseas in which the no bids are awarded to companies owned by the Presidents's own friends and colleagues. Start, a war, award taxpayer-funded contracts to your friends, let those friends over-charge the taxpayer for services (or lack thereof) they provide, then have those friends fund your next election campaign.

Suerte,

Dirk Diggler

Karl Rove to join FOX Newschannel. Why don't they just superimpose a big elephant head on the tv screen when this show starts? LOL.

[QUOTE=Sidney]Much more savings with less military procurement. More savings with more isolationism. A simple oil conservation would do much for the dollar. I can't go on--it is just too irritating-- the top level conspiracy that helps the Bush constituency (oil, military, industrial) that supports every evil oil dictator in the world, mas, mas mas![/QUOTE]If it's all a crooked conspiracy to favor Big Oil, how come Bush can't seem to get his cronies the clearance to drill even one well in that barren wasteland called ANWR, the one that has 20 billion barrels of oil sitting underground? And it's not a whole lot of trouble up there, either - a few dozen polar bears are a lot less dangerous than a few thousand crazed Muslim terrorists like they have in Iraq.

If it was all a crooked conspiracy, Sid, opening up ANWR would have been done already: Representatives and Senators buy very cheap, as the Chinese have found out. Only a few million in "contributions" to a half dozen recipients would do the trick. (Oh - and there's no oil at all in Afghanistan, so why the fuck did Evil Bush dispatch the Army over there? Perhaps because some desperadoes based there killed 3,000 people six years ago? Nah! Because we know that was an inside job by McChimpyBushalliburton, wasn't it?)

And Dirk, I don't agree with your assessments but I agree to take on your bet. Get Jackson your $200 and I'll send him my $100 and we'll settle up on the morning of November 5th!

Peace to you both, my friends - we may disagree on things, but I like you both. And I will be doubly pleased to take my friend Dirk's money! ;)

[QUOTE=Sidney]Once again, I call for the impeachment of Bush, the all time worst President![/QUOTE]You should thank your lucky stars for Bush. His incompetence, ineptitude, cronyism, and partisanship have energized the country as it hasn't been energized in years, and it has done more to revitalize the Democratic Party than anyone could have imagined.

The current Democratic Congress is a harbinger; a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate is a distinct possibility come this November,.

And, with Ann Coulter threatening to campaign for Hillary if McCain gets the nomination:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc[/url]

And Susan Eisenhower leading the Republican crossover to Obama:

[url]http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476[/url]

A Democratic President is almost assured. Results:

* The Federal bench is going to be re-liberalized for sure.

* Some manner of national health care will take root.

* Taxes are going to get rebalanced and the deficit is going to get a little bit more under control.

* Don't expect any sort of immediate pullout from either Iraq or Afghanistan. No matter what anyone says, we're not going to pull the plug (nor should we)

The far right blogsphere and the Limbaughs and Coulters of the country will whine and bray, but it won't be with the same power that they had when Bill Clinton was President. The Republican Party has pretty much shot its wad (as the current presidential lineup reflects. ..as the mass Republican exodus from Congress reflects...as the color of various statehouses reflects) and it will be a while until they get their act back together. The Republicans are pretty much in the same boat the Democrats were in in '68 or thereabouts. At this point, leadership of the country is the Democrats' to lose.

And in large part, this is all because of George Bush.

So don't be too hard on the guy. He delivered for us. Heh...heh...

[QUOTE=Sidney]Much more savings with less military procurement. More savings with more isolationism. A simple oil conservation would do much for the dollar. I can't go on--it is just too irritating-- the top level conspiracy that helps the Bush constituency (oil, military, industrial) that supports every evil oil dictator in the world, mas, mas mas![/QUOTE]I think we will lose a lot more if we simply get out of Iraq and AF now. I highly doubt a nation could lose money after winning the war. AF is for it's location, Iraq has natural resouces, and Iran is in the middle of AF and Iraq.

[QUOTE=Sidney]We have been doing this idiocy for almost 200 years. Let the Taliban and Drug Lords fight it out! Get the fuk out!

-------------------------

Bushies want high prices for existing oil! They don't want new supply (ANWR) Answer this Hunt--why has there been zero effort to conserve petrol products? Why has there been only minimal tokenism in the effort to develop alternative energy sources? Why are sugar cane imports severely restricted?

-------------

Congressmen can be bought for a very few thousand dollars. I have been there and witnessed them begging for donations and giving their votes for peanuts.[/QUOTE]Sid, you say we're in Afghanistan in order to Christianize it? Are you serious? :eek:

As for conserving oil, I'll give you the answer to your question, which is based on supply and demand. In the long term, "conservation" doesn't work. If you conserve oil and use less of it and the price drops, you discourage production and exploration of new supplies. If you have high demand and high prices, you encourage production and exploration of new supplies. It's the iron law of supply and demand at work, writ large.

All the CAFE standards and oil conservation requirements will do not one thing to produce a new barrel of oil. On the other hand, $100 or $200 a barrel oil will not only encourage development of new supplies, it will also set the market loose on development of true alternative energy sources - something no government program or dictate will ever do.

I'm disappointed your macroeconomics professor was so ineffectual that he didn't imprint this lesson on your brain stem. But worry not, most politicians forgot their supply and demand lessons as well.