Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 7 months ago
    The long version.

    "As MacDuff’s young son remarked in the Shakespeare play MacBeth, a traitor is one who lies. Swearing to uphold the Constitution and then intentionally assist in undermining is to lie.

    These words may sound harsh, but Americans must decide whether they think the Constitution is worth speaking unpleasant truth. It goes without saying that many of the people who wrote the Constitution took far more drastic measures to secure our independence.

    If we aren’t willing to call out those who violate their oath to defend Constitution, then all we do is make ourselves liars for claiming to care about its preservation. People enforce rules they believe in. If we won’t insist on constitutional fidelity, then we can’t honestly claim to care much about it. We have reached this point because the nation as a whole has lacked the courage to call out oath-breakers for one reason or another." from the source URL

    The Short Version

    Stop enabling
    Take Control
    Make Changes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by letfreedomring10 7 years, 7 months ago
      Absolutely! Then when the women gets in then what will they say, "When hey are enslaved?" My oath is still in effect since 55' and will be until. . .
      12M will do it just like the first one, where not all were involved. God bless all our efforts in that direction.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
      Well said. Sobering truth. Most are complicit either by choice or, in the sense of elections, lack of choice.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 7 months ago
        In the fiinal analysis to quote just about everyone. Vote or Don't Vote. Register or Don't Register. Not doing so means you reject the system When near 50% sometimes over 50% reject the system isn't there a lesson in there somewhere?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 7 months ago
          It might have once. Now all it means is that someone else's vote counts and your doesn't - hastening the progression towards tyranny.

          Instead, vote by write-in. That is where you can register your opposition.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 7 months ago
            But first check to see if you are in a winner take all state. If that is true your write in will automatically flip to the winner with the most votes Clinton or Trump or whomever.

            In that case leave the presidential blocks unchecked and DO NOT do a write in.

            As for other issues on the ballot it depends on the state if voting for any of those and not voting the complete ballot will cause an automatic vote. You should check with your local precinct or country elections officials.

            Winner Steal All is responsible for a lot of the mess we're in today. If you have it think about backing a move to get rid of it. Without 'Winner Steal All is useful for a number of things one of them claiming landslides and mandatres when squeaker is more accurate.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by jabuttrick 7 years, 7 months ago
              All states except Maine and Nebraska are winner take all electoral votes in the general election. If you are referring to write in votes, I know of no state where "flipping" (i.e. reassignment of write in votes) takes place. Am I wrong about that? Which states are you talking about? Many states simply do not count write in votes unless the write in candidate has filed some sort of certificate before the election. Is that what you are talking about?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by robertmbeard 7 years, 7 months ago
                Jabuttrick, you are correct. There is no "vote flipping." I was an election officer for 4 straight elections in Virginia, including Bush vs. Gore.

                Write-in vote totals are recorded separately from candidate votes. The Board of Elections later counts the Mickey Mouse votes and documents that separately but never adds it to the winner's vote tally. If the election is razor-thin close, within the statistical margin of accuracy of the voting system I would add, Write-In votes are scrutinized more carefully. But still, they are never arbitrarily added to the winner's vote tally.

                Mike is simply confusing winner-take-all electoral votes with the popular vote. It's a common mistake among those who don't fully understand the mechanics of the vote counting system, along with its flaws.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 7 months ago
                  So how do they get to winner take all if they don't take all the votes. For example 35% vote for A 30% for B and 25% for C and 10% for D. For a total of 100% of votes cast or one with a majority of 55% vs 45% or one with 50% vs 50%. That's popular has nothing to do with electoral . What is the true meaning of winner take all? Take all what? there is nothing to take. unless it's popular votes.

                  Electoral time Regardless of popular vote you vote for Candidate A, B, or C.; one says I'm the Demo electoral vote, the other says I'm the Reublican electoral vote and a third says i'm the independent and I'll vote for whomeever will do best for our state. Most of those people complete unknowns and no one knows how they get ont he ballot to begin with. assuming the party or partys select them .

                  Assume three electoral votes are the ALL. does it mean the plurality winner takes all three regardless and regardless the popular vote or the popular vote rules and only that one delegate who stood for that one party or thre are three delegates with three votes but all from the same party. or if a majority of popular votes occur for one candidate and there are fifteen electoral votes then are fifteen from one party sent regardless of the others? Must be some rhyme or reason to saying winner take all and to California moving to a percentage system.

                  i understand the original version and he 12th amendment version what I don't understand besides 'winner take all' is how the delegates are chosen and since the state law is meaningless at the federal level how they are controlled. Yes I am confused. I had simply assumed if 1000 voted and one got 501 or more they would get credit for 1000.

                  Your state does better than mind I only wanted to know how many voted libertarian and how many independent or any other party and was told those figures weren't kept.

                  Why do I suddenly feel like I've been rolled and hosed and fllim flammed by the former two party system all these decades?

                  More I thinki about it more I think to thell with Democrats and Republicans what we need is a good house cleaning.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by robertmbeard 7 years, 7 months ago
                    Mike,

                    Any Electoral Board member that told you that Libertarian, independent, or write-in votes aren't kept is lying to you because he/she is a lazy, incompetent bureaucrat (redundant, I know...).

                    Many years ago, when I was active in the GOP, I learned that electors are chosen by the party from the most faithful, party activists. The State GOP groups determine the exact internal process by which this works.

                    So, about the vote totals on election night. Let's say GOP candidate gets 4,900,000 votes (49%), Dem candidate gets 4,800,000 votes (48%), and Libertarian candidate gets 200,000 votes (2%). Other assorted declared independent candidates split the remaining 100,000 votes (1%) with Mickey Mouse Write-in votes of 400 (0.004%).

                    For the above hypothetical state with 10,000,000 total votes (basically Texas, assuming 40% of the state voted...), there are 36 electoral votes to allocate. It's winner-take-all for electoral votes, so the state reports the following results:

                    1) GOP winner of all 36 electoral votes
                    with popular vote of 4,900,000 votes
                    2) Dem loser with 0 electoral votes
                    with popular vote of 4,800,000 votes
                    3) Libertarian loser with 0 electoral votes
                    with popular vote of 200,000 votes
                    4) Other declared independent candidate losers
                    with 99,600 popular votes split among them
                    5) Mickey Mouse Write-In loser
                    with 400 popular votes
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 7 months ago
                      Appreciate that so it's the State doing the winner take all which in turn mean delegate or delegates from the winning party and in your hypothetical 49% a plurality end up controlling all 36 electoral college delegtate positions so that is where the votes of the 51% were flipped into 100% of the delegates.

                      I'm still going to call it Winner Steal All but now I can see how it works I can see why California started the move to change it to something more representative of the popular vote. which would make the hypothetical roughly 18 17 1 or there abouts.

                      To me it means 4,800,000 Democrats got their vote changed which to me is tampering. applying some ethics. I imagine roughly the same procedure was used within each party to apportion delegates for their primary and convention other than caucus states.

                      Very instructive and thanks for the assist.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by robertmbeard 7 years, 7 months ago
                        I also do not agree with Winner-Take-All-Statewide for electoral votes. There are some practical problems with Proportional allocation (19 vs. 17 in the example above), like the need for statewide recounts in certain cases where it would swing 1 or 2 electoral votes.

                        I prefer the Hybrid allocation: Winner-Take-Most, technically called Winner-Take-All-By-Congressional-District. In this arrangement, recounts only happen at the contested congressional district level, not statewide. The winner in each congressional district gets that 1 electoral vote. The statewide winner gets the 2 electoral votes allocated to represent senators (state's interest). In this Hybrid system, it matches how Congress and the Senate are apportioned. It's not perfect either, but much better than a statewide Winner-Take-All. Maine and Nebraska are the only 2 states with this Hybrid allocation.

                        In my opinion, large states like California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Illinois are the biggest offenders to voters in the minority, in terms of the scale of disenfranchisement. You would think the Dems would be appalled by this; but since it usually benefits them more, they say nothing...
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 7 months ago
                          Do we really need the electoral system anymore. I see it's only use as keeping incumbents in power.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by robertmbeard 7 years, 7 months ago
                            Yes, we should keep the electoral college system for electing presidents, since it is one of several features of American Federalism. The President is elected by 2 constituencies, the people and the sovereign states, as represented by the Electoral College.

                            The people's interests are represented by the number of House Representatives (435), while the state's interests are represented by the number of Senators (100). The number of electoral votes is the sum of the 2 numbers above: 535. The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution gives the District of Columbia 3 electoral votes in presidential elections, which it would have if it were a sovereign state. So, the total number of electoral votes is 538. To win the presidency, a majority of electoral votes is needed: 270.

                            So, out of the President's 2 voting constituencies, the people's interests total 436 out of 538 (81%), while state's interests total 102 out 538 (19%). This is how, in a razor tight election like in 2000, a presidential nominee can sometimes lose the popular vote but win a majority of states and thereby win the presidency.

                            Dems, ever since the days of Andrew Jackson, have opposed all elements of American Federalism and have wanted to consolidate all power in the Federal government in Washington DC, making state governments basically irrelevant puppet governments. Dems have frequently wanted to eliminate the Electoral College and have Presidents elected only by the national popular vote, because they have always opposed all features of Federalism in the balance of power between the Feds in DC and the Sovereign States.

                            Republicans, throughout most of their history, have in the party platform continued to support American Federalism, to one extent or another. The RINO statist elements of the GOP do not, obviously. But rank-and-file GOP'ers and most conservatives do want less power in DC and more issues handled at the state level. So, while there isn't strong uniformity in defense of all elements of Federalism by the GOP, they have been the 1 major party coalition that many of us constitutionalists had some ability to influence up until 2016.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 7 months ago
                Florida for sure takes the fact you voted and turns all of those into the winner take all column. Unless they are rejected ballots. But you have to have at least one vote more than the other guy which is what the supreme court determiend on Gore vs. Bush. Even so Bush got the important vote the Electoral IN Florida so the popular really didn't matter.

                Now as to voting on other candidates in other races or on measures and questions and propositions I am not sure at all if leaving the Presidential line blank would still cause the autoflip. Still looking. Information on that part is not forthcoming but indications are the vote is flipped FOR ALL candidate races more often than not.

                I did find this Make Our Vote Count Act which is the back up for having to face up to a None Of The Above election with a clear less than fifty % not registering and not voting. That would be Consent Withdrawn.

                California Could Break Country's Electoral College System
                democracychronicles.com › ALL NEWS › AMERICA
                If it got on the ballot and passed, California would apportion electoral votes ... the votes of just a few thousand voters in a couple of smaller states, while largely ... Moreover, the “winner take-all” system of awarding electoral votes does not ... Once California enacts the Make Our Vote Count Act, Presidential candidates will ...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by jabuttrick 7 years, 7 months ago
                  Are you saying that election law in Florida mandates that if I write in Mitt Romney or Mickey Mouse for President that this will be counted as a vote for Clinton (assuming she scores more votes than any other non-write in candidate)? This sounds incredible and illogical to me since it would never effect the outcome unless, of course, Mickey Mouse or Romney won. Why not simply not count any write ins? That would achieve the same result without the need for "flipping." If it's not too much trouble, could you give us a citation to that law. Thank you.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 7 months ago
                    No The Mickey 'Mouse Ballot would be rejected in it's entirety. The Mitt Romney write in would be given to whom ever had the most votes That came straight from the Duval County Elections Clerk in Jacksonville Florida as to how they handle the ballots when I asked the number of voters who had voted third party or write in. I was told they didn't keep that information as they were all given to winner take all except the Mickey Mouse - you both picked the same example - She also said it was state wide

                    The winner take all law so far uncontested doesn't require anything more than A who got the most votes and b. Total votes cast. Consequently I asked about the measures or propositions both referral and intiative if there was nothing in the presdential area listed or written in. She indicated those would be counted and not changed as it 'was local business.

                    Since then i always tell people check your own precinct and county.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by jabuttrick 7 years, 7 months ago
                      Hmmm. In Arizona, Mickey's vote would not be counted and neither would Mitt's unless he had filed a certificate as a write in candidate. If he had, the vote would be counted and recorded. Maybe your local bureaucrat was trying to say that the Romney vote would count as one of the total votes cast for President for tabulation purposes. I still find it hard to believe that the vote would be "flipped" to some other specific candidate.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 7 months ago
                        Why? That's the meaning of winner take all. Tabulate see who has the most they get the entire amount. Doesn't apply at federal level in the General Election and int Primary it's up to the Party's and each one is supposedly different though the usual cave to the left is occuring.

                        Establishment Republicans AKA Rinos and NeoCons had two wars going on internally. One was waged by the Rules Committee who were determined to follow the rules. They had received a significant number of complaints about Winner Take All as stealing votes by actually counting them in favor of one - other than - the voter had selected.

                        Remember the party and only the party controls it's own selection procedures In advance the Rules Committee stated they would honor all challenges for WTA and others as it did affect who were the proper delegates.

                        While Trump got more it was with the help of Winner Take All Without those extras it looked like Cruz was the actual winner based on the votes taken from Mario, Cruz and some establishment dude who were 2, 3, @4. ALL of their votes were more than Trumps. They also could not afford to alienate Trump voters the biggest plurality block and ignored their own rule at the RNC level.

                        Then comes the onslaught from the left followed by RNC is going to cave and drop Trum using - guess what? Winner take all.

                        The question now is ....at what point in the selection process does the control switch from State/Party to Federal.

                        At this point in time If they do that they destroy the Republican Party a chance the establishment is willing to take. If they leave Trump in place they will probably also be history.

                        So the next step was announcing the GOP Establishment is going to urge it's version of party faithful to vote for Libertarians. as the lesser of two left wing evils. Sort of what I had suggested until the Lib Candidates tipped their cards and showed their true side.

                        If they, the establishment are not allowed to change candidates under federal rules they would rather toss bones to the Libs than lose their entire party. instead they'll a good chunk of it but not to the libs. They shot their wad all powder no minie balls.

                        What you might see then is Trump having been nominated and accepted and intact as a legal candidate form and announce the Constitutional Republic Party or some other name. and still offer a coalition style deal. Whyipick that name. Biggest draw includeing from the 46% unregistered of the eligble voters pool.

                        Bingo a clear majority and perhaps a clear electoral majority while the other two founder.

                        That is one of many scenarios.

                        But at that point Trump ante's up as does KochBrothers and Waltons and money as free speech goes into fourth rubber with nasty chirps in fifth.

                        What about Hillary? The Sec Progs are dumping her on the one end for the Greens nd the Blue Dog types on the other end.

                        Everyone hates Hillary.

                        Ain't life grand!d It's not a race between candidates nor even two distinct political philosophies. It's a race between the general public and the Government Party

                        ha haha
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by jabuttrick 7 years, 7 months ago
                          Okay, let's define some terms. The "winner" in the phrase "winner takes all" refers to the individual who gets a plurality (not necessarily the majority) of the total votes cast. The "all" refers to the electoral votes in the general election or the delegates in the primaries. In the general election all states other than Maine and Nebraska use "winner takes all." That means that if Clinton gets 40% of the total votes cast for president in, say, Florida, Trump gets 35%, Johnson gets 15%, Stein gets 7%, Romney gets a 2% write in vote and Mickey Mouse gets a 1% write in vote, then all of Florida's electoral votes (the sum of its Senators and representatives in Congress) will go to Clinton. Since she is the "winner" she gets "all" the electoral votes. [I am leaving out the unusual case of "faithless" electors] Presidential primaries are a different case entirely since both old parties allow each state to select their own method for selecting delegates and a variety of methods are used including conventions, caucuses, closed primaries and open primaries. Where primaries are chosen they can award delegates proportionately, "winner take all," or some hybrid system. Most of the Democratic primaries were proportional but many of the Republican were winner take all or hybrid systems. In no case that I no of was there any vote flipping as you describe, but of course, I could be wrong. I really really doubt this could be the case in a general election which is why I asked for a citation to your state law. In the example given above you are saying the Mouse votes would be disregarded but the Romney votes would be transferred to Clinton. Not only would this be pointless since it would almost never change the result, it may be Constitutionally offensive since is arbitrarily changes your preference.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 7 months ago
                            The plurality business only works at state level and if they stipulate. At federal level with the electoral college or SCOTUS or whomever involved The Presidential election requires a strict majority.

                            Otherwise your rendition is a as good as mine so I'll still say check with your local priceinct or county clerks to see how it word locally.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by jabuttrick 7 years, 7 months ago
                              The electoral college does, as you suggest, require a majority, but the allocation of electors from the states (again with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska) are all winner take all. I would not suggest people rely upon the verbal assurance of county or precinct officials regarding state law. Check the statutes directly. I doubt you will find any "vote flipping" procedures.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 7 months ago
                                Good suggestion. The way they explained it in Duval County it was an automatic process at some point in the normal election proceedings.

                                To be fair on the Florida loss for Gore the votes were not stolen by Nader those were his fair and square . One almost might say they were inappropriately tampered with in advance. by, as you suggested by local officials.

                                Our voting booklet was spiral bound. which means when laid open flat one page did not match the other by a half line or more.

                                This confused many of our very much older people with vision problems. they would find one candidate and run their finger sort of across ot the other page where the choices were indicated and if not catching the difference go either up or down to the next set of X marks the spot squares. If you can envision that description.

                                This in some cases caused voting in the wrong block. due to the misalignment. the next time around that condition did n't occur. It IS entirely possible if not probable that caused a number of miscast ballots.

                                I heard nothing of it being considered in the count or the recount and as each count gave Bush a wider margin it MAY have been overlooked.

                                If it was not overlooked and accounted for that was at Supreme Couirt Level who determined Bush had the lead in both Popular and Electoral.

                                So we got tweedle dee instead of tweedle dum.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by jabuttrick 7 years, 7 months ago
                                  There is little doubt that the "butterfly ballot" you describe caused some inadvertent voting due to the misalignment, vision impairment or outright confusion. Pat Buchanon seemed to have been the chief beneficiary of those votes but it is, of course, impossible to prove with mathematical certainty. But, to get back to our main point, I don't believe there was any reassignment of any write in votes.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • MichaelAarethun replied 7 years, 7 months ago
            • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 7 months ago
              Agreed. I still think the Twelfth Amendment was the start of it all - from political parties to a tyrannical Executive.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 7 months ago
                The Constitution does not mention political parties

                12th changed the Vice President Jefferson
                Twelfth Amendment. an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1804, providing for election of the president and vice president by the electoral college: should there be no majority vote for one person, the House of Representatives (one vote per state) chooses the president and the Senate the vice president.


                Political Parties are not mentioned in the constitution and the federal government has no input into how they select candidates nor does the constitution specify how vice president as a candidate are to be chosen. This is left up to each political party and to some extent state laws on the choosing of electors.

                Most have fallen into the common usage system of the Presidential Canddate choosing his or her running mate meaning only one vote is needed

                The States have no power over that either but may have some power on the selection of electors. However once elected the States have no power over who they select as President.

                Of connected interest the post civil war amendments were under three Presidents with three different purposes.

                13th Abolished Slavery and Involuntary Servitude Lincoln.

                14th Gave the Federal Government veto power over State laws Johnson

                15th first vetoed by Johnson was under Grant.

                The fight after the Civil War was on how to treat the returning States. 1. As a former Nation and 2. as returning to USA rebellious states.

                One sticking point was the North's come home to roost insistence on the 3/5ths rule. This resulted in the Northern and Southern Democrats uniting and protected the Souths Jim Crow Laws and the North's Black Laws until the Civil Rights Act of 1966. That was the only time the Democrats have supported Civil Rights. .

                The second connection has to do with power. 16th and 17th Amendments in 1913. One gave control of citizens to the Federal Government through Income tax and the other dismantled the checks and balances system in favor of the federal government.

                Summing it up the 12th was certainly the starting point in that it allowed the parties to run uncontrolled and ended up with the mulitple becoming two becoming one to the detriment of the citizens.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
                  While it does not mention political parties the federalist papers weighs in on Factions (aka todays lobbyists). What else, if not a Faction, is a political party?

                  The resolution to Factions, according to the Federalist papers, is more Factions....

                  A free market approach to political party's is the only realistic solution - we need a dozen more more parties in ever election.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 7 months ago
                  No, the Constitution doesn't mention political parties and our first President, Washington, was opposed to them. But in addition to the changes you mentioned, the Twelfth Amendment also changed the election of the Executive Branch. It had been that the second-place vote-getter in the Presidential race became Vice-President. There was no selection of running mates and the likelihood of two individuals from the same party occupying both Executive Branch positions was slim to none. The Twelfth Amendment changed it to explicitly make the Vice President of the same party as the President - eliminating the value of getting runner-up and destroying the non-partisan nature of the original Executive Branch.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 7 months ago
                    The Twelfth Amendment changed it to explicitly make the Vice President of the same party as the President I find the VP must be from another State but nothing else.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 7 months ago
            That might be true if those who do not vote would have voted against tyranny. They may be the ones voting against tyranny by not voting when all candidates lead toward tyranny. Both main parties today lead to tyranny but just from different directions. Both, at the present time, want just a little more control over the people, thus less liberty. Today's Libertarians are not any better.
            In the far future when citizens learn to get out of their adolescent period adulthood can be obtained. Childhood was left with the establishment of the USA but with a lot of crybaby noise until settling into the present adolescent BS of today. Becoming an adult nation of liberty does not look very hopeful at present with so much desire to be further imprisoned with walls and more and more intrusive laws due to an endemic (sic) distrust of liberty for all.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 7 months ago
    With an administration that doesn't even believe in the Constitution, how can you expect them to uphold it? They claim to respect it and accuse others of disregarding it while as far as they are concerned, it might just as well never been written.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I did get something on that from the State. Nothing is done at the local level the big change happens when the winner is announced statewide. any winner take all changes are done at that point. Then winner take all is applied. In effect it changes all ballots cast but affects the electoral delegates if anything. I checked more than one state they were doing the same

    however the feds don't recognize winner take all and don't recognize any state control over the delegates and none have been charged or prosecuted for voting differently that I could find and it rarely mattered.

    It's a muddy area looking at the 48 that do it that way but seems to have affected something in California where the Proposition or Question is to go back to delegates by percentage.

    But like HE said the 12th was the start of it in an effort to account for the parties as other or something more than factions.

    It's kind of like the choosing the VP which is often thought to be required to be the same party but only stipulates from another State with nothing about the Presidential choice being the sole and only decision maker but then that is a rule of the party's in their primaries, it is custormary but only the partys or factions have the power to decide how it is done.Looking at original wording, 12th and 25th.

    The main issues are the control of who can get on the state ballot and why the parties don't pay for that cost to begin with, the winner take all issue and of course the money as free speech issue.

    Incumbents are not going to change what keeps them in power no matter what the citizens think. That's what makes them Government Over Citizens in natue and therefore leftist not matter how slight. The exception is those who keep one foot firmly attached to the center which is the Constitution. Damn few of them left these days.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 7 months ago
    Methinks many a politician these days views the swearing in process as some antiquated ceremonious hoop to jump through that at least serves well for a photo op.
    In old dino's improved version for a real "We The People" government, I'd be using such photos and videos as criminal court evidence.
    King Barry would be my first defendant. The evil hag will be in line.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 7 years, 7 months ago
    AJ,
    each and every president has over stepped their authority and as time has gone by the pres has over stepped more and more. OUR problem is the congress which WE elect just cowers to who ever the pres is. in the long run we have been are being and will continue to be screwed by who ever sits in the oval office. so much for the 10th.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
      The 10th is the foundation by which we we wrest control from the fed government. Just because the populace has elected those who do not honor their oaths doesn't mean, if they wisen up, they will continue to do so; At that time, the 10th will be the constitutional vehicle for reclamation.

      To rectify, how would you suggest proceed? Armed revolution? Running away, hiding, and starting anew? Vote and hope for change?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo