One person one vote
-
Kind of a bullshit and misleading name for the ad campaign which could easily come back and bite the Liberals in the ass as it has happened before changing the 60% to a simple majority. Changing the Constitution in a perfect world should be harder then just riding the whim of the media. That's why the 60% was adopted.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
The argument against issue 1 - "so and so wouldn't have passed" doesn't mean diddley when you consider that bad things can also be passed, like partial birth abortion, etc etc etc.
On principle - if a state can't get 60% approval of an issue, the issue should not be approved.
In a red state, the left will demand 51%. In a blue state, they will demand the 60% - whatever gives them the advantage.
So, I support issue one. Hard-core democrap cities should not be the deciding factor in the 51% vote.
Sixty percent is a cushion against corruption.
Vote for Issue one.
-
Kind of a bullshit and misleading name for the ad campaign which could easily come back and bite the Liberals in the ass as it has happened before changing the 60% to a simple majority. Changing the Constitution in a perfect world should be harder then just riding the whim of the media. That's why the 60% was adopted.
WSS
Kind of a bullshit and misleading name for the ad campaign which could easily come back and bite the Liberals in the ass as it has happened before changing the 60% to a simple majority. Changing the Constitution in a perfect world should be harder then just riding the whim of the media. That's why the 60% was adopted.
WSS
Steve, serious question. Did you actually read through the whole article you posted and the ONLY objection you had / thing you found concerning was the liberal campaign name?
-
Kind of a bullshit and misleading name for the ad campaign which could easily come back and bite the Liberals in the ass as it has happened before changing the 60% to a simple majority. Changing the Constitution in a perfect world should be harder then just riding the whim of the media. That's why the 60% was adopted.
WSS
Steve, serious question. Did you actually read through the whole article you posted and the ONLY objection you had / thing you found concerning was the liberal campaign name?
Steve, serious question. Did you actually read through the whole article you posted and the ONLY objection you had / thing you found concerning was the liberal campaign name?
No I didn't, I've been following it on the news and just looked until I could find a link. Am I incorrect in my assumption that the issue will make it easier for a 51 vote majority to pass amendments to the Ohio Constitution?
The liberal money is on the vote no campaigns.
But my point Remains the Same that it should be harder to amend a constitution even if it benefits my side once in awhile.
WSS
-
Steve, serious question. Did you actually read through the whole article you posted and the ONLY objection you had / thing you found concerning was the liberal campaign name?
No I didn't, I've been following it on the news and just looked until I could find a link. Am I incorrect in my assumption that the issue will make it easier for a 51 vote majority to pass amendments to the Ohio Constitution?
The liberal money is on the vote no campaigns.
But my point Remains the Same that it should be harder to amend a constitution even if it benefits my side once in awhile.
WSS
No I didn't, I've been following it on the news and just looked until I could find a link. Am I incorrect in my assumption that the issue will make it easier for a 51 vote majority to pass amendments to the Ohio Constitution?
The liberal money is on the vote no campaigns.
But my point Remains the Same that it should be harder to amend a constitution even if it benefits my side once in awhile.
WSS
I would read the article you posted. It clearly lays out some of the hypocrisy coming from the Republican side
Ex. Last year pushing against special August elections and then this year being all for it to ran Issue 1 through.
Ultimately, the Republicans / conservatives want to ban abortion as much as possible. In reality, that isn't the will of the majority of people in Ohio. As a result, an amendment is going around that's up in November (I think) to protect reproductive rights. As is, the Reps seeing this passing. So, in a desperate attempt at stopping it, they're changing the rules. They're making it harder to pass things like this specifically because they want to block this potential amendment (and they've admitted that). So after being against these special elections they're now using it to get their way and go around the will of the majority. And they're making up some stuff about out of state interests to give their base a better talking point.
Ultimately, they were against these elections, and now they're for it, because it suite them.
They say this is about out of state influence, but it's an attempt to block things they don't like (reproductive rights, weed, etc.).
Just another attempt by conservatives to go around what the majority of folks actually want.
It's incredibly transparent.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Vote NO on issue 1. Well, that's what I'm doing anyway.
Ohio was founded in 1803, so 220 years later they (GOP) wants to change it.
You can be understandably upset with liberal views. In this case, it's actually the sensible view.
Karlis Missed -
No I didn't, I've been following it on the news and just looked until I could find a link. Am I incorrect in my assumption that the issue will make it easier for a 51 vote majority to pass amendments to the Ohio Constitution?
The liberal money is on the vote no campaigns.
But my point Remains the Same that it should be harder to amend a constitution even if it benefits my side once in awhile.
WSS
I would read the article you posted. It clearly lays out some of the hypocrisy coming from the Republican side
Ex. Last year pushing against special August elections and then this year being all for it to ran Issue 1 through.
Ultimately, the Republicans / conservatives want to ban abortion as much as possible. In reality, that isn't the will of the majority of people in Ohio. As a result, an amendment is going around that's up in November (I think) to protect reproductive rights. As is, the Reps seeing this passing. So, in a desperate attempt at stopping it, they're changing the rules. They're making it harder to pass things like this specifically because they want to block this potential amendment (and they've admitted that). So after being against these special elections they're now using it to get their way and go around the will of the majority. And they're making up some stuff about out of state interests to give their base a better talking point.
Ultimately, they were against these elections, and now they're for it, because it suite them.
They say this is about out of state influence, but it's an attempt to block things they don't like (reproductive rights, weed, etc.).
Just another attempt by conservatives to go around what the majority of folks actually want.
It's incredibly transparent.
I would read the article you posted. It clearly lays out some of the hypocrisy coming from the Republican side
Ex. Last year pushing against special August elections and then this year being all for it to ran Issue 1 through.
Ultimately, the Republicans / conservatives want to ban abortion as much as possible. In reality, that isn't the will of the majority of people in Ohio. As a result, an amendment is going around that's up in November (I think) to protect reproductive rights. As is, the Reps seeing this passing. So, in a desperate attempt at stopping it, they're changing the rules. They're making it harder to pass things like this specifically because they want to block this potential amendment (and they've admitted that). So after being against these special elections they're now using it to get their way and go around the will of the majority. And they're making up some stuff about out of state interests to give their base a better talking point.
Ultimately, they were against these elections, and now they're for it, because it suite them.
They say this is about out of state influence, but it's an attempt to block things they don't like (killing babies, weed, etc.).
Just another attempt by conservatives to go around what the majority of folks actually want.
It's incredibly transparent.
Why do you want to murder children in the womb so badly?
guns don't kill kids-pitt bulls do. -
No I didn't, I've been following it on the news and just looked until I could find a link. Am I incorrect in my assumption that the issue will make it easier for a 51 vote majority to pass amendments to the Ohio Constitution?
The liberal money is on the vote no campaigns.
But my point Remains the Same that it should be harder to amend a constitution even if it benefits my side once in awhile.
WSS
I would read the article you posted. It clearly lays out some of the hypocrisy coming from the Republican side
Ex. Last year pushing against special August elections and then this year being all for it to ran Issue 1 through.
Ultimately, the Republicans / conservatives want to ban abortion as much as possible. In reality, that isn't the will of the majority of people in Ohio. As a result, an amendment is going around that's up in November (I think) to protect reproductive rights. As is, the Reps seeing this passing. So, in a desperate attempt at stopping it, they're changing the rules. They're making it harder to pass things like this specifically because they want to block this potential amendment (and they've admitted that). So after being against these special elections they're now using it to get their way and go around the will of the majority. And they're making up some stuff about out of state interests to give their base a better talking point.
Ultimately, they were against these elections, and now they're for it, because it suite them.
They say this is about out of state influence, but it's an attempt to block things they don't like (reproductive rights, weed, etc.).
Just another attempt by conservatives to go around what the majority of folks actually want.
It's incredibly transparent.
I would read the article you posted. It clearly lays out some of the hypocrisy coming from the Republican side
Ex. Last year pushing against special August elections and then this year being all for it to ran Issue 1 through.
Ultimately, the Republicans / conservatives want to ban abortion as much as possible. In reality, that isn't the will of the majority of people in Ohio. As a result, an amendment is going around that's up in November (I think) to protect reproductive rights. As is, the Reps seeing this passing. So, in a desperate attempt at stopping it, they're changing the rules. They're making it harder to pass things like this specifically because they want to block this potential amendment (and they've admitted that). So after being against these special elections they're now using it to get their way and go around the will of the majority. And they're making up some stuff about out of state interests to give their base a better talking point.
Ultimately, they were against these elections, and now they're for it, because it suite them.
They say this is about out of state influence, but it's an attempt to block things they don't like (reproductive rights, weed, etc.).
Just another attempt by conservatives to go around what the majority of folks actually want.
It's incredibly transparent.
Exactly as I said the Liberals want to make it easier for the whim of the news media to change the Constitution and the conservatives want to make it harder. Why? Well in this case abortion on demand anywhere anytime for any reason looks like it's on the line. Transparent? Sure. That if the shoe were on the other foot and the amendment was going to ban abortion for any reason in the state of Ohio you would want that 60% margin chiseled in stone. Let's not be coy.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Vote NO on issue 1. Well, that's what I'm doing anyway.
Ohio was founded in 1803, so 220 years later they (GOP) wants to change it.
You can be understandably upset with liberal views. In this case, it's actually the sensible view.
Vote NO on issue 1. Well, that's what I'm doing anyway.
Ohio was founded in 1803, so 220 years later they (GOP) wants to change it.
You can be understandably upset with liberal views. In this case, it's actually the sensible view.
Speaking of transparent. I bet a lot of people would be in favor of a 51% vote to eliminate any one of the Bill of Rights. Probably happens soon enough anyway so WTF.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
I would read the article you posted. It clearly lays out some of the hypocrisy coming from the Republican side
Ex. Last year pushing against special August elections and then this year being all for it to ran Issue 1 through.
Ultimately, the Republicans / conservatives want to ban abortion as much as possible. In reality, that isn't the will of the majority of people in Ohio. As a result, an amendment is going around that's up in November (I think) to protect reproductive rights. As is, the Reps seeing this passing. So, in a desperate attempt at stopping it, they're changing the rules. They're making it harder to pass things like this specifically because they want to block this potential amendment (and they've admitted that). So after being against these special elections they're now using it to get their way and go around the will of the majority. And they're making up some stuff about out of state interests to give their base a better talking point.
Ultimately, they were against these elections, and now they're for it, because it suite them.
They say this is about out of state influence, but it's an attempt to block things they don't like (reproductive rights, weed, etc.).
Just another attempt by conservatives to go around what the majority of folks actually want.
It's incredibly transparent.
Exactly as I said the Liberals want to make it easier for the whim of the news media to change the Constitution and the conservatives want to make it harder. Why? Well in this case abortion on demand anywhere anytime for any reason looks like it's on the line. Transparent? Sure. That if the shoe were on the other foot and the amendment was going to ban abortion for any reason in the state of Ohio you would want that 60% margin chiseled in stone. Let's not be coy.
WSS
Exactly as I said the Liberals want to make it easier for the whim of the news media to change the Constitution and the conservatives want to make it harder. Why? Well in this case abortion on demand anywhere anytime for any reason looks like it's on the line. Transparent? Sure. That if the shoe were on the other foot and the amendment was going to ban abortion for any reason in the state of Ohio you would want that 60% margin chiseled in stone. Let's not be coy.
WSS
- liberals don't want to "make it easier", they want to keep it as is
- "whim of the news media"... What are you talking about? I get that this is your party talking point for you to parrot, but what do you actually mean? Do you think that
- this doesn't legalize "abortion anytime". Again, you're just parroting party nonsense. It protects an individual's right to reproductive care (ex, stops conservatives from trying to fuck with birth control) and protects abortion up until fetal viability (~22 weeks).
- and then a bunch of what ifs completely ignoring the blatant hypocrisy of conservative legislators in Ohio. No surprise.
-
Vote NO on issue 1. Well, that's what I'm doing anyway.
Ohio was founded in 1803, so 220 years later they (GOP) wants to change it.
You can be understandably upset with liberal views. In this case, it's actually the sensible view.
Speaking of transparent. I bet a lot of people would be in favor of a 51% vote to eliminate any one of the Bill of Rights. Probably happens soon enough anyway so WTF.
WSS
Speaking of transparent. I bet a lot of people would be in favor of a 51% vote to eliminate any one of the Bill of Rights. Probably happens soon enough anyway so WTF.
WSS
Would certainly make it easier for conservatives to ban books
-
Vote NO on issue 1. Well, that's what I'm doing anyway.
Ohio was founded in 1803, so 220 years later they (GOP) wants to change it.
You can be understandably upset with liberal views. In this case, it's actually the sensible view.
Vote NO on issue 1. Well, that's what I'm doing anyway.
Ohio was founded in 1803, so 220 years later they (GOP) wants to change it.
You can be understandably upset with liberal views. In this case, it's actually the sensible view.
I printed out my mail in ballot today
-
I voted yes. I'm also for raising the voting age to 45.
-
@diehardbrownsfan1 I hope you did your homework. If you did and voted yes, so be it.
-
Speaking of transparent. I bet a lot of people would be in favor of a 51% vote to eliminate any one of the Bill of Rights. Probably happens soon enough anyway so WTF.
WSS
Would certainly make it easier for conservatives to ban books
Would certainly make it easier for conservatives to ban books
What an asshole statement. First of all the books aren't banned you can buy them and jerk off to them any time you want. Second of all I don't know if it's 75% 25% or half but the outrage comes from both sides little Chum.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Vote NO on issue 1. Well, that's what I'm doing anyway.
Ohio was founded in 1803, so 220 years later they (GOP) wants to change it.
You can be understandably upset with liberal views. In this case, it's actually the sensible view.
unions want the 51% because they, like the dem party, vote as a "BLOCK in big cities, making a 51% win far easier for them to rule,
rather than a 60% vote to change the Ohio Constitution.
Seriously, Bob,
Ohio was founded in 1803, so 220 years later they (GOP) wants to change it.
You can be understandably upset with liberal views. In this case, it's actually the sensible view.
I do mean "seriously". leave it as it is, because it has been easier for socialist/communist unions to vote as a block, like all dems do, because you have far more impact than affecting dominance in a 60% vote?
come on, now. That is union sponsored bs.
If hard core dem radical cities and the leftwing unions can vote in a block and break a close vote every time, they win !
of COURSE they don't want it changed. IT will take away their block voting advantage.
"only 51% to CHANGE THE OHIO CONSTITUTION" ??????????????????
yeah, read up on it - and realize WHY is needs to be changed - radical unions, college students, welfare abusers, all democrats, baby murderers WANT an easier time.
oh, and outlawing AR-15s will nevr happen with 60%.
yeah, they are desperate to keep their advantage.
Sorry Union Bob, I disagree with you again.
-
Would certainly make it easier for conservatives to ban books
What an asshole statement. First of all the books aren't banned you can buy them and jerk off to them any time you want. Second of all I don't know if it's 75% 25% or half but the outrage comes from both sides little Chum.
WSS
What an asshole statement. First of all the books aren't banned you can buy them and jerk off to them any time you want. Second of all I don't know if it's 75% 25% or half but the outrage comes from both sides little Chum.
WSS
But saying that parts of the bill of rights would be eliminated is a totally reasonable thing to say.
-
unions want the 51% because they, like the dem party, vote as a "BLOCK in big cities, making a 51% win far easier for them to rule,
rather than a 60% vote to change the Ohio Constitution.
Seriously, Bob,
Ohio was founded in 1803, so 220 years later they (GOP) wants to change it.
You can be understandably upset with liberal views. In this case, it's actually the sensible view.
I do mean "seriously". leave it as it is, because it has been easier for socialist/communist unions to vote as a block, like all dems do, because you have far more impact than affecting dominance in a 60% vote?
come on, now. That is union sponsored bs.
If hard core dem radical cities and the leftwing unions can vote in a block and break a close vote every time, they win !
of COURSE they don't want it changed. IT will take away their block voting advantage.
"only 51% to CHANGE THE OHIO CONSTITUTION" ??????????????????
yeah, read up on it - and realize WHY is needs to be changed - radical unions, college students, welfare abusers, all democrats, baby murderers WANT an easier time.
oh, and outlawing AR-15s will nevr happen with 60%.
yeah, they are desperate to keep their advantage.
Sorry Union Bob, I disagree with you again.
unions want the 51% because they, like the dem party, vote as a "BLOCK in big cities, making a 51% win far easier for them to rule,
rather than a 60% vote to change the Ohio Constitution.
Seriously, Bob,
I do mean "seriously". leave it as it is, because it has been easier for socialist/communist unions to vote as a block, like all dems do, because you have far more impact than affecting dominance in a 60% vote?
come on, now. That is union sponsored bs.
If hard core dem radical cities and the leftwing unions can vote in a block and break a close vote every time, they win !
of COURSE they don't want it changed. IT will take away their block voting advantage.
"only 51% to CHANGE THE OHIO CONSTITUTION" ??????????????????
yeah, read up on it - and realize WHY is needs to be changed - radical unions, college students, welfare abusers, all democrats, baby murderers WANT an easier time.
oh, and outlawing AR-15s will nevr happen with 60%.
yeah, they are desperate to keep their advantage.
Sorry Union Bob, I disagree with you again.
Did you read the link Cal?
Firstly, unions or no unions, if the will of the people to do a ballot initiative is stymied (if this passes) that's a big no-no.
SB 5 in 2010. A big campaign donor had it rammed through our statehouse, despite people opposing it 70%- 30%. ALEC sponsored it.
Fortunately we were able to get a grass roots campaign, signatures to put it on the ballot where it was soundly overturned 66%- 34%.
So on that specific issue, a big time donor (ALEC) was sent home & the will of the people, the voters, prevailed. Thank goodness.
If it smells fishy, it's most likely fishy.
Secondly, I realize you're anti-union. A group of elected legislators trying to change state constitution(s) are far more dangerous....once again, it's because of the Citizens United decision.
-
What an asshole statement. First of all the books aren't banned you can buy them and jerk off to them any time you want. Second of all I don't know if it's 75% 25% or half but the outrage comes from both sides little Chum.
WSS
But saying that parts of the bill of rights would be eliminated is a totally reasonable thing to say.
But saying that parts of the bill of rights would be eliminated is a totally reasonable thing to say.
And it is. Since the Constitutional amendment can be carried by a 51 to 49 vote. Just admit it and quit being an asshole.
I've read enough of your stuff to believe, even if you won't admit it, that the right to bear arms should just be eliminated.
And why not? Amendments come and go do they not?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login