23 States now have complete Republican control

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Gryphon66

Might be the only way to get through the next 2 years... in a drunken haze lol.

I'll be satisfied if the crybaby whining and playing the victim stops for the next two years.

Remember when the GOP held both the house and senate 8 years ago? That was earthshaking All sarcasm aside...perhaps the GOP will do better this time

a reply to: Xtrozero

Good evidence, thank you for providing something other than merely your repeated opinions!

Here's some more fairly recent actual statistics from the Congressional Joint Economic Committee

Illinois private-sector employers have added 298,000 jobs (an increase of 6.3 percent) since February 2010, the national low point for private-sector employment.

Here's another way of looking at the information, same source:



I'll leave it to you to interpret what the red and blue means on the graph.

State retail export rates are growing at a steady rate.

The median household income is higher in IL than the national average and the poverty rate is lower.

So, if Democrats are responsible for everything in IL, it sounds like things are actually getting better, finally and are certain far from being "absolutely destroyed."

a reply to: Gryphon66

Baseless?

When one googles the issue of nullification, there's a plethora of State activity.

Your 'baseless' comments are pure denial and approach compulsive.

Like it or not, it IS occurring and will increase with the shift in political power....

a reply to: olaru12

They'd better 'do better'. Otherwise the survival of the Republican Party will only outlast the Democrat Party by two years...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Yeah, there's a "plethora" of Google hits on a lot of subjects ...

For example, 11,300,000 more or less come up on "the moon is made of green cheese."

and 428,000 come up for "a leprechaun and his pot of gold."

20,300,000 results for Santa Claus

and the all time winner, 87,800,000 for the Easter Bunny ...

Without more specific information, I guess we'll hold "nullification" at about the same level of reality, based on that, eh?

~~~~~~~

Now, a bit more seriously, why don't you deal with this:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2

Explain to us how that means anything else than what it says. Exclude what your Secessionist buddies claim. Exclude your own meanderings.

Just explain that part of the Constitution first ... explain what "supreme law of the land" means and then "anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" ... then we can move on to the Supreme Court, and Federal and State Court decisions.

originally posted by: jimmyx
how many republicans have voted to raise the minimum wage?...

Why do we need an increase in minimum wage? Maybe because Obama and crew have effectively increased the cost of living...

how many republicans voted for health care for the working class poor?...

And Obamacare does what? The poor still can not use it since they have about 3 to 5k in cost before it kicks in...but boy do they say it is all that, so please tell who that is poor can afford to dish out 1000s up front? Just had a friend die from cancer, couldn't afford Obamacare, went 4th stage....great stuff that Obamacare.

how many republicans have voted for equal pay for women?...how many republicans are for letting women have birth control or get an abortion?...

So how do you effectively vote for equal pay? Also a big part of that is a myth. Abortions are legal...oh wait you mean all of it paid by the tax payer...I get it...

how many republicans are for raising taxes on the wealthy, rather than on the poor or middle class?...

The poor and much of the middle class do not pay any or very little in fed taxes so what is there to lower?

what party has voted to cut veterans benefits,

I got 28 years in the military and the military is mainly republican for a reason...8 years under Clinton were really really bad, 8 years under Bush were really really good, as example. Hmmm

what party wants to allow the clinically insane, and violent crime prison parolees, to buy any and all types of guns?.....

Hmm I guess you need some really left wing propaganda for this one...It is almost laughable, actually it is laughable...

and yet....we have a right-majority on the supreme court, a right-wing senate, a right-wing congress, and 31 out of 50 republican governors......BUT THE PROBLEM IS!!!!....liberals and Obama...

Well it was...until recently...Well there is still Obama that is going to just EO everything....

a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL. You do follow the democrat template don't you.

You cite how nullification violates the Constitution while ignoring the Obama Administration same acts completely.

Just on immigration alone. Obama has ignored LAWS that he's Constitutionally bound to enforce repeatedly. He's admitted to the intention to issue an E.O. that circumvents existing law and give amnesty to millions. Totally ignored by you as it fits your agenda.

No wonder you and yours were wiped out in this mid-term election.

As far as what states are doing to negate federal incursions into State rights, I will let the posters decide.

You have your views, I have mine. Personally, I ignore your argument re nullification.

Clean your own house, then talk all you want.

I, and those of similar mind, will not be diverted by a sudden Constitutional argument.

In fact, I take much encouragement from your responses. I believe I've hit on a strategy that could tip this in our favor.

Have a nice life.....

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Yes, but about 30% of the electorate voted in Tuesday's election. Those are the only voters who expressed their opinion or their will, and about 48% of those voters did NOT vote for this outcome.

A non-vote is also an expression of ones will. By abstaining one is directly responsible for the statistical outcome.

Yes, the winner takes it all, but those winners do not have the "mandate of the people" ... in this case, they have about 17% of the people who support them.

I never said they did, please stop putting words in my mouth. I simply stated that abstention is in fact a way of participating in the election process. It places a heavier weight on those votes that are actually cast.

Each person that abstains translates more and more power to the voters who do opt for a candidate or proposition.

A non-vote is not a vote for the winner; that's just preposterous. Talk about "spin."

Where did I say it was? However a non-vote helps the eventual winner.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Kali74

I'm with you Kali!

We can play that drinking game where we take a shot every time one of them invokes God or Reagan, what do we call it "Right Doesn't Make Right."

Heh.

When was the last good Democrat, Kennedy? Oh wait he was a conservative...my bad.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Why do we need an increase in minimum wage? Maybe because Obama and crew have effectively increased the cost of living...

Wrong Obama doesn't set inflation the Federal Reserve does and if you think the Fed takes orders from Obama then you know nothing about the Fed Reserve.

Just had a friend die from cancer, couldn't afford Obamacare, went 4th stage....great stuff that Obamacare.

So the insurance he already had couldn't save him?

I got 28 years in the military and the military is mainly republican for a reason...8 years under Clinton were really really bad as example.

That reason why is because the Republicans keep the corporate welfare going to the industrial military complex.

Well it was...until recently...Well there is still Obama that is going to just EO everything....

When you have a bought congress that refuses to compromise on anything how else do you think things will get done.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Illinois private-sector employers have added 298,000 jobs (an increase of 6.3 percent) since February 2010, the national low point for private-sector employment.

So my examples of the crappy life there mean little? Is a mere 6.3% increase over almost 5 years good? I do not know, do you?

I'll leave it to you to interpret what the red and blue means on the graph.

Once again is that growth or stagnation....

State retail export rates are growing at a steady rate.

at what percentage is that growth....00001% increase is a growth too.

So, if Democrats are responsible for everything in IL, it sounds like things are actually getting better, finally and are certain far from being "absolutely destroyed."

Here is the deal... Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama all started with a recession, the difference is other than Obama the other Presidents were out of their recession within a year, Obama is just now seeing light after 6. So with Obama and crew America has been living in dire straights for 6 years and now you democrats start to pat yourselves on the backs lol.

There is a reason for the big republican vote. People have been hurting and the democrats have been totally ineffective.

originally posted by: buster2010

Wrong Obama doesn't set inflation the Federal Reserve does and if you think the Fed takes orders from Obama then you know nothing about the Fed Reserve.

Ok, great. So why is it a progressive talking point that it is the Republicans fault that minimum wage is not higher, can't have it both ways.

So the insurance he already had couldn't save him?

Didn't have any...that's my point Obamacare is like not having it too. It increased my insurance by $1000s while offering nothing for the poor.

When you have a bought congress that refuses to compromise on anything how else do you think things will get done.

I would say that Harry Reid and Obama are the poster childs of zero compromise....

That reason why is because the Republicans keep the corporate welfare going to the industrial military complex.

Once again, if the republicans help the military then it is "corporate welfare going to the industrial military complex" and if they don't then they are cutting vet benefits... You guys all have your talking points down. I'm debating against two progressives that have taken both extreme ends of the issue here, geez

a reply to: nwtrucker

And you do anything you can to muddy the water and avoid the subject of discussion. Not atypical for a Republican extremist.

I cited the US Constitution. Three times now. I would like you to explain what the words "supreme law of the land" and "anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" mean.

National percentage 52 to 48. That's not a wipeout; that's a Midterm.

There is no "argument" "re nullification" You ignore the words of the Constitution; you ignore the words of every court that has ever ruled on the issue from the Supreme to the State courts FOR THE LAST 150 years and by the way they have always ruled that there is no such thing as "nullification" ... sure you can have your opinion about it, and about a green cheese moon and the Easter Bunny.

Please, do take that "tip" back to Republicon Central. You can call it the "Whistling Dixie Initiative."

/ignore nwtrucker

a reply to: Xtrozero

So, your perception of life is supposed to rule? That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

Why do you require everyone else to share it?

Did you read the graph? I'd say gaining jobs under the Democrats is growth, as opposed to the plunge into job losses under the Republicans.

Did you bother to read the link? No, of course not, you'd rather make inane, pointless commentary: here's the facts --

In Illinois, exports total $5.6 billion in August and $68.4 billion over the last year up 6.9 percent from August 2013 (inflation-adjusted dollars).

Illinois exports over the past 12 months are up 34.0 percent from their level in the same 12-month previous period (inflation-adjusted dollars).

So yeah, Up 6.9 percent and up 34 percent are a lot different from your 0.000001%. I think you're confusing Illinois exports with the actual percentage of in-person voter fraud, nationwide.

Yeah, 2007-2009 was "just a recession" right? Nothing Great about it? Nothing about it being the worst recession near depression since the Great Depression? (Also brought on by an incompetent Republican administration, btw)

The recession ended in 2009. Since it's obvious you care very little for factual information, you can claim it's still going on if you like. You can claim that the Stock Market isn't higher than it's ever been, or that Corporate Profits are not at all time highs, or whatever floats your boat.

For someone that would claim a difference nationwide of about 2.2 million votes (1.5% of the total votes in the election) is a "BIG Republican win" must be measuring things in Internet Inches.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I will admit, philosophically, that a non-action is also an action. Very Taoist; props to you for that.

But in the specific case of the American election just past, the fact that only about 29-32% of the electorate voted simply does not mean that 68-71% agree with the outcome of the election and support Republicans, their new version of hope and change, etc.

Putting words in your mouth? Did I quote you? Did I say "why did you say this"? No. Then stop trying to reframe my argument into your own words. I actually get to choose to express my own point in my own way.

Your application of a general principle in this case is as absurd as my counter-example about the robbery; again, if people don't stop a store robbery, are they ethically or morally equivalent to the robbers?

To make the relationship more clear then; if a person does not vote in an election are they in fact responsible for what the winners of the election do?

Of course not. Your argument applies generally, but fails specifically.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I will admit, philosophically, that a non-action is also an action. Very Taoist; props to you for that.

Thank you, I also mean it in a very literal sense as well.

But in the specific case of the American election just past, the fact that only about 29-32% of the electorate voted simply does not mean that 68-71% agree with the outcome of the election and support Republicans, their new version of hope and change, etc.

I agree. What it does mean is the 70 or so percent who did not vote allowed the weights of those who did vote to be that much more meaningful as a minor percentage dictated the outcome.

Putting words in your mouth? Did I quote you? Did I say "why did you say this"? No. Then stop trying to reframe my argument into your own words. I actually get to choose to express my own point in my own way.

By saying I am trying to spin the election. I am doing no such thing and I think I am being very, very clear in explaining my points.

Your application of a general principle in this case is as absurd as my counter-example about the robbery; again, if people don't stop a store robbery, are they ethically or morally equivalent to the robbers?

That is a poor analogy. A better one would be a family of five who has a chalk board to write down dinner suggestions. Two write pizza, one writes fried chicken and two do not write anything. Everyone gets pizza whether they wanted it or not.

To make the relationship more clear then; if a person does not vote in an election are they in fact responsible for what the winners of the election do?

They are partially responsible for the outcome of the election. If you want to extrapolate that into hypothetical situations that the winners undertake I think that may be a different thought experiment as there are many invariables which cannot be known in the days leading up to an election that will take place afterward but I would be willing to discuss this.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Please quote from my own words where I stated that you, AugustusMasonicus, are "trying to spin the election" and you will have my apology. If not, and that is your interpretation only of my words, then I request an apology from you.

Your analogy of the family dinner is faulty because your larger argument focuses on the meaning of "not doing." You are stating that those who did not vote are participating by their non action. To make your dinner analogy complete you'd have to have two voting for pizza one voting for chicken and three not voting ... and then claiming that all six really voted for pizza.

When we started you were arguing that non-votes imply intent. You've altered that as the discussion has continued. The non-voters, in fact, are not all responsible for the outcome of the election as most of them are not registered to vote, or they're prevented from voting legally, or their votes have been suppressed by the Republican efforts in gerrymandering districts, changing voting dates, precincts, closing locations, instituting new ID requirements, etc.

Any description of the non-voters and their motivations and capabilities requires data that neither you nor I have brought into the discussion in positive way, but what is certain is that we also do not have enough information to speak of their intent.

QED.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Please quote from my own words where I stated that you, AugustusMasonicus, are "trying to spin the election" and you will have my apology. If not, and that is your interpretation only of my words, then I request an apology from you.

Here:

A non-vote is not a vote for the winner; that's just preposterous. Talk about "spin."

I never said that a non-vote was a vote for the winner, nor was I trying to spin any aspect of the election.

Your analogy of the family dinner is faulty because your larger argument focuses on the meaning of "not doing." You are stating that those who did not vote are participating by their non action. To make your dinner analogy complete you'd have to have two voting for pizza one voting for chicken and three not voting ... and then claiming that all six really voted for pizza.

That is not the analogy I am trying to make. I am saying that a non-vote is a method of participation, whether tacit or apathetic. By not voting one is making a conscious decision to remove themselves for the election process, for whatever reason, and leaving those who do participate to determine the outcome.

When we started you were arguing that non-votes imply intent. You've altered that as the discussion has continued. The non-voters, in fact, are not all responsible for the outcome of the election as most of them are not registered to vote, or they're prevented from voting legally, or their votes have been suppressed by the Republican efforts in gerrymandering districts, changing voting dates, precincts, closing locations, instituting new ID requirements, etc.

No, I never said or implied that it involved intent. I made it very clear they have responsibility for the outcome. Not registering is analogous to not voting as to me they are the same thing. I also am not here to argue voting suppression or gerrymandering on either side.

Any description of the non-voters and their motivations and capabilities requires data that neither you nor I have brought into the discussion in positive way, but what is certain is that we also do not have enough information to speak of their intent
.

No intent can be inferred form their non-votes. Their non-vote only counts for what it is superficially, reducing the number of votes a candidate or proposition needs to win or pass.

I am sure that those 23 states have the lowest educational attainment, the highest teen pregnancy, the highest rates of domestic abuse, etc. It's the half of the country that are in effect more like a third world country. Now they can look forward to lower wages, less health care, and more corruption.

But you sure did teach that negro a lesson, didn't you Cletus?