Good Day To Be A Liberal
-
I don't think I ever said experience was worthless, that's stupid. If "real America" wants to secede be my guest. They better do it while all the older Tea Party members are still alive though...
Woody- it's not a question of age. Well, maybe it is. Way back in 1970 our Woodstock Generation thought we had all the answers. Turns out we didn't. Hate to tell you in about 30-40 years, you're going to find out the same. LOL, when YOUR kids tell you you're full of shit.
LOL, I used to have the same argument with my uncle- 45 years ago. Was it Ben Franklin who said "those that would trade freedom for security will have neither." ? This is a lot less free country than it was in 1970. Hell, Homeland Security would have had me locked up for years with the stuff I had in my basement chem lab back then- and no, I wasn't making meth- just had all the ingredients to whip up some rocket fuel.
Ballpeen has a very valid point- the way our Electoral College is set up- you carry NY and CA, you're already 1\2 way home. One look at the electoral map will tell you that. Obama is strictly "the man of the big cities". Heartland America hates his guts, and everything he stands for. I won't repeat the anti-Obama slur I saw in a restroom in South Dakota in August- but trust me, I'll NEVER forget it.
Woody- it's not a question of age. Well, maybe it is. Way back in 1970 our Woodstock Generation thought we had all the answers. Turns out we didn't. Hate to tell you in about 30-40 years, you're going to find out the same. LOL, when YOUR kids tell you you're full of shit.
LOL, I used to have the same argument with my uncle- 45 years ago. Was it Ben Franklin who said "those that would trade freedom for security will have neither." ? This is a lot less free country than it was in 1970. Hell, Homeland Security would have had me locked up for years with the stuff I had in my basement chem lab back then- and no, I wasn't making meth- just had all the ingredients to whip up some rocket fuel.
Ballpeen has a very valid point- the way our Electoral College is set up- you carry NY and CA, you're already 1\2 way home. One look at the electoral map will tell you that. Obama is strictly "the man of the big cities". Heartland America hates his guts, and everything he stands for. I won't repeat the anti-Obama slur I saw in a restroom in South Dakota in August- but trust me, I'll NEVER forget it.
I'm pretty sure age isn't going to make me religious, or make me thunks gays shouldn't be married, or make me borderline racist, or make me pro life, etc etc
I don't think I have all the answers, I never said I did. I do think a lit of what some posters on this board is crazy and I hope s majority of people would. And I'm guessing my generation would which means our kids will as well, cuz it would be hard to regress like that
But like some of you have said, I'm in college and you're older, clearly you're right and I'm wrong
-
I don't think I ever said experience was worthless, that's stupid. If "real America" wants to secede be my guest. They better do it while all the older Tea Party members are still alive though...
Woody- it's not a question of age. Well, maybe it is. Way back in 1970 our Woodstock Generation thought we had all the answers. Turns out we didn't. Hate to tell you in about 30-40 years, you're going to find out the same. LOL, when YOUR kids tell you you're full of shit.
LOL, I used to have the same argument with my uncle- 45 years ago. Was it Ben Franklin who said "those that would trade freedom for security will have neither." ? This is a lot less free country than it was in 1970. Hell, Homeland Security would have had me locked up for years with the stuff I had in my basement chem lab back then- and no, I wasn't making meth- just had all the ingredients to whip up some rocket fuel.
Ballpeen has a very valid point- the way our Electoral College is set up- you carry NY and CA, you're already 1\2 way home. One look at the electoral map will tell you that. Obama is strictly "the man of the big cities". Heartland America hates his guts, and everything he stands for. I won't repeat the anti-Obama slur I saw in a restroom in South Dakota in August- but trust me, I'll NEVER forget it.
Ballpeen has a very valid point- the way our Electoral College is set up- you carry NY and CA, you're already 1\2 way home. One look at the electoral map will tell you that. Obama is strictly "the man of the big cities". Heartland America hates his guts, and everything he stands for. I won't repeat the anti-Obama slur I saw in a restroom in South Dakota in August- but trust me, I'll NEVER forget it.
That's because 46 million people live in NYC and CA combined.
You win the places that have more people, you get more electoral votes. That just makes sense.
Heartland america can hate him all they want. "Brainland", the part of America that uses rationality and logic, will continue to like him.
I'm sure the slur had nothing to do with race, we all know how educated those in the "heartland" are.
-
Electoral College needs to go. Just outright who wins the most votes, period. That is fair to all concerned. Even Al Gore agrees.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
True, but the majority of that population is in urban areas. The largest part of California isn't urban settings.
I understand that the numbers win. The problem is the numbers don't reflect the largest area of the country.
As I said earlier, take NYC out of NY and you probably have a red state. With that you tend to have people who rely on social services more than on their own resources.
Here is the biggest problem I have with the democratic party. I think it is fair to say that most people who receive some sort of federal or state assistance vote democrat by a large margin.
It's my opinion that if a person receives a certain percentage of their income from a program that hasn't been earned, such as social security, they shouldn't be allowed to vote because it's pretty clear they will vote for whoever isn't going to threaten their cash cow.
Voting should be a earned right. I know a good test. If you paid more in federal and state taxes than you received in some form of benefit over a 4 year election cycle, you have the right to vote on the national and state wide issues.
You would always be allowed to vote the local issues. That way their dumb choices impact just them and their neighbors and not people on the other side of the state or country.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
Electoral College needs to go. Just outright who wins the most votes, period. That is fair to all concerned. Even Al Gore agrees.
Electoral College needs to go. Just outright who wins the most votes, period. That is fair to all concerned. Even Al Gore agrees.
No, that's not the answer. Then all one would have to do is cover the 10 largest cities and not worry about trying to lure voters in Kansas or Tennessee. The Electoral College is still very necessary.
-
I vote for my IQ test system where the better you score the more your vote us worth. Must of the problems would be like world events, how our govt works, economics, etc.
-
Electoral College needs to go. Just outright who wins the most votes, period. That is fair to all concerned. Even Al Gore agrees.
Electoral College needs to go. Just outright who wins the most votes, period. That is fair to all concerned. Even Al Gore agrees.
Then republicans would have a harder time getting elected than before. Electoral college allows smaller population states like Montana to have a slightly larger vote in the national election. If it was just a popular vote, then instead of states like Ohio and Florida being swing states, cities like NY, LA, and Chicago would be the major focus, these areas tend to vote democratic. In only 3 elections has the winner of electoral college vote not had the popular vote(most recently 2000).
-
All I have to say is that I'm glad none of you decides who gets to vote.
-
Electoral College needs to go. Just outright who wins the most votes, period. That is fair to all concerned. Even Al Gore agrees.
Then republicans would have a harder time getting elected than before. Electoral college allows smaller population states like Montana to have a slightly larger vote in the national election. If it was just a popular vote, then instead of states like Ohio and Florida being swing states, cities like NY, LA, and Chicago would be the major focus, these areas tend to vote democratic. In only 3 elections has the winner of electoral college vote not had the popular vote(most recently 2000).
Then republicans would have a harder time getting elected than before. Electoral college allows smaller population states like Montana to have a slightly larger vote in the national election. If it was just a popular vote, then instead of states like Ohio and Florida being swing states, cities like NY, LA, and Chicago would be the major focus, these areas tend to vote democratic. In only 3 elections has the winner of electoral college vote not had the popular vote(most recently 2000).
But the electoral college also have the right in some states to actually not vote the way the people wanted them to. There needs to be an overhaul of this process in my opinion.
-
Then republicans would have a harder time getting elected than before. Electoral college allows smaller population states like Montana to have a slightly larger vote in the national election. If it was just a popular vote, then instead of states like Ohio and Florida being swing states, cities like NY, LA, and Chicago would be the major focus, these areas tend to vote democratic. In only 3 elections has the winner of electoral college vote not had the popular vote(most recently 2000).
But the electoral college also have the right in some states to actually not vote the way the people wanted them to. There needs to be an overhaul of this process in my opinion.
But the electoral college also have the right in some states to actually not vote the way the people wanted them to. There needs to be an overhaul of this process in my opinion.
very few times this has happened, and almost every state has laws against this. Also I don't think it has ever effected the outcome of an election.
-
True, but the majority of that population is in urban areas. The largest part of California isn't urban settings.
I understand that the numbers win. The problem is the numbers don't reflect the largest area of the country.
As I said earlier, take NYC out of NY and you probably have a red state. With that you tend to have people who rely on social services more than on their own resources.
Here is the biggest problem I have with the democratic party. I think it is fair to say that most people who receive some sort of federal or state assistance vote democrat by a large margin.
It's my opinion that if a person receives a certain percentage of their income from a program that hasn't been earned, such as social security, they shouldn't be allowed to vote because it's pretty clear they will vote for whoever isn't going to threaten their cash cow.
Voting should be a earned right. I know a good test. If you paid more in federal and state taxes than you received in some form of benefit over a 4 year election cycle, you have the right to vote on the national and state wide issues.
You would always be allowed to vote the local issues. That way their dumb choices impact just them and their neighbors and not people on the other side of the state or country.
True, but the majority of that population is in urban areas. The largest part of California isn't urban settings.
I understand that the numbers win. The problem is the numbers don't reflect the largest area of the country.
As I said earlier, take NYC out of NY and you probably have a red state. With that you tend to have people who rely on social services more than on their own resources.
Here is the biggest problem I have with the democratic party. I think it is fair to say that most people who receive some sort of federal or state assistance vote democrat by a large margin.
It's my opinion that if a person receives a certain percentage of their income from a program that hasn't been earned, such as social security, they shouldn't be allowed to vote because it's pretty clear they will vote for whoever isn't going to threaten their cash cow.
Voting should be a earned right. I know a good test. If you paid more in federal and state taxes than you received in some form of benefit over a 4 year election cycle, you have the right to vote on the national and state wide issues.
You would always be allowed to vote the local issues. That way their dumb choices impact just them and their neighbors and not people on the other side of the state or country.
& this is why Big Government folks about have a lock on elections. When more people get government checks than people paying in, it's over Grover. Was it Ben Franklin who said (more or less) "Any democracy is doomed when the populace discovers they can vote themselves money out of the common purse."
Too bad you can't legislate an intelligence test in order to vote. When I read people voted for Obama because he was more "likeable" than Romney- HURL. Guess I forgot about the Bill Clinton Cult of Personality. Doesn't matter anymore to the lowest common denominator what your politics are- just look good.
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