It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Calls for Abolishing Electoral College: ‘Shadow of Slavery’s Power’

page: 6
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Except they wouldnt really be swing states with out a electoral college. GOP could campaign in San Francisco or LA regions because surprisingly their are large pockets of purple and red in those areas that you dont see on an electoral map. Democrats could go to Texas and do the same.

Sure they would. They would be states that have not made up their mind. CA and MA are going to vote Dem anyways and their is non stop propaganda from the citizens in those states as it is. So why campaign there when you get those votes anyways, you need to turn other states blue.

Why would a GOP guy running go to a pocket of Purple? If they are withstanding the non stop Dem barrage of propaganda then they are already on your side. And very few people would be persuaded to leave the D party in the non purple areas.

Swing states are states that have not made up their mind which way to lean, they can be influenced. Most campaigning will be done in places where people are more likely to be influenced ... swing states.
edit on 8-10-2018 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: neo96

One person one vote. Why do we have representatives at all? Mob rule.


The Kavanaugh saga showed precisely why we don't have mob rule. Susan Collins summed it up nicely in her speech on the floor the other day:

"We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy."



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Kharron


If the electoral college was scrapped, the Republican party would never see the light of day again -- this cannot happen. A two party system is a necessity.


True, and this is why they fear it. It’s telling that the Republican Party wouldn’t exist in a country where everyone’s vote counted equally.



This would be a great point if historically the Republican candidate never won the popular vote. Bush won it in 2004. Do you guys know anything?



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

It's telling that they want 49% of the country to have no say whatsoever and instead want the minority to suffer the mob rule of the majority.

Should we apply this same logic to .. say ... minorities?



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Socialism PAYS!


Wears $3k in clothes still looks like the $3 street urchin; priceless!
edit on 10/8/2018 by BigDave-AR because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
So basically people who favor this want the west coast to control the whole country, everybody else east of the pacific states opinions are null and void.
If you do that states will start to want to separate, as the federal control will no longer be balanced. Eventually the judiciary would be stacked with all liberals and conservatives would never win another federal election.

This is pie in the sky anyways because it would take a super majority in both Congress and the Senate to change, you might get it in the congress but it would never fly in the Senate, NEVER. As the Senators from the less populated states would be voting against themselves and the power their states now hold.
edit on 8-10-2018 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Never underestimate the power of self destruction and short sightedness, especially from Democrats.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

One party or the other will use a legal wrangling and then open a legal door. When it is used against them, they cry foul and complain. Tea Party comes to DC, and they caused a shut down of the government. Then later, the Democrats do the exact same thing and the GOP cry foul about it.

It goes back and forth, one side will do something or create a rule and the other side will either copy it or use it against the other guy.

The facts are that with politicians, they will never tell the voters the whole truth, if they did they would not get elected. And if one wants to know who they represent, one simply looks at where the money that they get for the elects from, as that is who they own their allegiance to.

The lawmakers will change the rules to suit and benefit them, and never to benefit the rest of us, if they did, they would set a precedent that would put them in a bind. In short they feed us scraps and act in a reactionary way. And both sides do this.

Consider this: Believe it or not, most of the lawmakers job in congress, is not legislating, but they spend a good deal of time and effort on gathering up more money for elections, a good 4 to 5 hours a day, on any normal day.

We should wonder, if they were no longer able to get money from various lobby groups, how many of them would vote the way that they do.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Womanstreading and it's very offensive.




posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikell
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Womanstreading and it's very offensive.


Blast! Completely missed that!!!



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

There is quite a difference in following the rules and changing the rules.
Funny you attempt to shade the tea party who actually followed the rules to attempt to gain their goal.
The dems want to follow the rules and attempt to get rid of the electoral college, by all means I hope they give it a go. It would work better for them if they could get elected in the first place.

As to your money in politics discussion and distraction, I would submit that was one of the pillars that Bernie Sanders ran on and we all saw what the dnc did to that guy. I would wager the dnc is proud of what they did to that guy.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Democrats are promising to raise property, income, sales taxes. Who would vote for such lunacy?



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

it appears to me thats why they need the rules changed



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Danger,Danger Will Robinson.



Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democrat Party’s rising socialist star running to represent New York’s 14th District in Congress, called for the electoral college to be abolished on Saturday, moments after then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by the Senate.




We' ve reached the breaking point people.



If that wasn't scary enough.



Ocasio-Cortez joins a growing number of Democrats, including Clinton, calling for the electoral college to be replaced. In a September 2017 interview with CNN, Clinton told host Anderson Cooper that she believed the process was outdated and needed to be replaced. “We’ve moved toward one-person, one-vote, that’s how we select winners,” said Clinton. “I think it needs to be eliminated. I’d like to see us move beyond it, yes.”


This from the person that stole her primary nomination and had them super duper delegates.

Which is anything but one person, one vote.

The left represents a clear and present danger to the REPUBLIC.

Their version of Democratic Republic sure the eff doesn't mean what Cortez, and CLinton think it means.

Save the cheerleader.

Save the Republic.

Save your soul.

PS.



“Hate speech isn’t ‘telling it like it is,’” she added. “It’s just hate.”


She didn't mean the angry left wing mob, and death threats, and decaptation videos being sent to Republican congressman, and their families.

There's just no end to the stupid in this country.


Requires a serious modification of the Constitution, with I believe at least 2/3'rds of States approving it.

Not a chance in hell.

Fred..



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Baffling isn't she




posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

The problem as I see it with the idea of rules change is that people are less and less willing to play the long game, and that's a product of culture.

We're all getting increasingly conditioned to the idea that if we want something, then we should have had it yesterday.

A lot of the things you want politically, particularly on a national scale are supposed to be a matter of persuasion that your way is the best way. This is accomplished through vigorous debate of ideas often leading to compromise because seldom is the first idea actually the best idea. It often needs tempering and revision.

Not to mention, this nation is so large with so much diversity (and I'm not talking about ethnic diversity) in its regions and climates and cultural flavors, then you're almost never going to be able to devise an adequate top-down, one-size-fits all approach that works for all anyhow. This is why we were originally designed as a Constitutional Republic. The Founders at least were smart enough to grasp that even then, regions needed to more or less govern for their own area and not be dictated to from on high.

Yes, we need to understand that Texas is not California is not New York is not Florida is not Kansas is not Hawaii is not Alaska.

What works for any one of those states may not work for any of the others for a variety of reasons, so why this fascination with the Federal Government attempting to force the same solutions for things on all of them? And why are people so bothered by the idea that if they live in California and it does X, the people of Florida or Kansas or Alaska and even Hawaii may do Y or W or G because those are the things that work for them in their states, given the variables of their states? Or some other permutation ... mix and match state names as you choose.

Just because people in one area do it differently than you do doesn't necessarily mean they're backward or bigoted or libtarded. It may just be they're doing something that works out well for them.

The other advantage to all of us mostly going our own way, rather than Big Daddy Fed, is that we get to see different ways of doing things - what works, what doesn't - and we can all decide how we might want to do it ourselves. And there are plenty of different places to go and live too if one place doesn't work out for you. We need to stop with the idea that different is bad or evil, and go back to it being just different.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Do away with the Electoral College and you One Party Rule (Dimocrat) and a Banana Republic.

Sadly, I seriously doubt that going forward, there's sufficient intellectual capacity in the US to maintain the status-quo.

Demographics is destiny. You might want to consider moving to Australia.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



Not to mention, this nation is so large with so much diversity (and I'm not talking about ethnic diversity) in its regions and climates and cultural flavors, then you're almost never going to be able to devise an adequate top-down, one-size-fits all approach that works for all anyhow. This is why we were originally designed as a Constitutional Republic. The Founders at least were smart enough to grasp that even then, regions needed to more or less govern for their own area and not be dictated to from on high. Yes, we need to understand that Texas is not California is not New York is not Florida is not Kansas is not Hawaii is not Alaska.


You just made the best argument I"ve ever seen for breaking this country up. And its so extremely true that Texas is not California. Problem is that Texan's lives are being ruled over by the likes of Feinstein and Pelosi.......from California.

That is just soooooooooooooo wrong.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I think I'm okay with doing away with the Electoral collage. The last numbers I've seen show that in almost every case the popular vote would have given us the same president...except

Hillary would have beat Trump
Al Gore would have beaten Bush.
Samuel Tilden would have beaten Rutherford Hayes.

Most people agree there was some crazy stuff happening in the Bush/Gore contest. That's not a surprise. Pretty sure Gore wouldn't have won reelection and that might have Given us Bush that time.

I don't think anyone cares about Rutherford hayes.

Trump/Hillary. Even Trump thought she was going to win. That wouldn't have been a big Surprise to anyone if Hillary would have won.

So I don't see the problem?

Just editing to add. That gets rid of one problem. Next is Term limits for Congress. After that is primary laws that include all third party Candidates ina big free for all. Sander's and Trump might have won that one too. Next after that is taking some of the money out of politics, including salary, retirement benefits and campaign donations.
edit on 8-10-2018 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Danger,Danger Will Robinson.



Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democrat Party’s rising socialist star running to represent New York’s 14th District in Congress, called for the electoral college to be abolished on Saturday, moments after then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by the Senate.




We' ve reached the breaking point people.



If that wasn't scary enough.



Ocasio-Cortez joins a growing number of Democrats, including Clinton, calling for the electoral college to be replaced. In a September 2017 interview with CNN, Clinton told host Anderson Cooper that she believed the process was outdated and needed to be replaced. “We’ve moved toward one-person, one-vote, that’s how we select winners,” said Clinton. “I think it needs to be eliminated. I’d like to see us move beyond it, yes.”


This from the person that stole her primary nomination and had them super duper delegates.

Which is anything but one person, one vote.

The left represents a clear and present danger to the REPUBLIC.

Their version of Democratic Republic sure the eff doesn't mean what Cortez, and CLinton think it means.

Save the cheerleader.

Save the Republic.

Save your soul.

PS.



“Hate speech isn’t ‘telling it like it is,’” she added. “It’s just hate.”


She didn't mean the angry left wing mob, and death threats, and decaptation videos being sent to Republican congressman, and their families.

There's just no end to the stupid in this country.


If this type of message doesn't completely eradicate the left, it'll take a Civil War.




top topics



 
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join