LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Stacey Abrams: ‘The Electoral College Is Racist and Classist’
Source:
Grabien
URL Source: https://news.grabien.com/story-stac ... gn=news&utm_content=story24806
Published: Nov 17, 2019
Author: Grabil;en Staff
Post Date: 2019-11-17 07:02:58 by IbJensen
Keywords: None
Views: 3121
Comments: 19
We have to remember the Electoral College was not designed because people were worried about Idaho not having enough votes’
Watch the fat-assed, functional illiterate negro's comments at the link. She is ignorant of the fact that this is a constitutional republic with each state having equal status insofar as a national election goes. In a republic, states or provinces have equal weight and their sovereignty will always be honored.
Too many Democrats mimic the Chinese Maoist/Communist movements to attack tried and true laws and traditions limiting lawlessness, mob power, misuse of the law, and violence against political opponents. The Electoral College represents the individual state popular vote results in all qualifying States.
Republicans place their trust in the Constitution - although they may bemoan the excessive use of the Commerce Clause and other clauses to expand the size and actions of the federal government which in many cases has created a large bureaucratic mess with poorly defined limits on executing laws and which has been exempted from the normal appropriations process.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
" Watch the fat-assed, functional illiterate negro's comments at the link. She is ignorant "
Yeah, who GAS what she says or thinks ????
She should just STFU, and go away !!!!!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)
"No one ever rescues an old dog. They lay in a cage until they die. PLEASE save one. None of us wants to die cold and alone... --Dennis Olson "
People that say money can't buy you happiness, have never paid an adoption fee
#2. To: IbJensen (#0)
Trump ran his campaign based on the current Electoral vote system. If Hillary wants to change the rules to a popular vote system, say so before the campaign starts. That would allow Trump the opportunity to campaign in the high population states to peel off some Hillary supporters.
If your football team loses 10-7, it's ludicrous to say afterwards that your team would have won based on yards rushing.
#3. To: misterwhite (#2)
Eliminating the Constitutional Electoral College would involve further desecration of the Constitution itself. The role of states would be downgraded to mere counties.
What you suggest is impossible.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
#4. To: IbJensen (#0)
The Electoral College is absolutely vital. Regardless of its original design purpose, TODAY it's vital function is to wall off the USA into 51 separate compartments, each sealed off from the others.
Given wholesale corruption and vote manufacturing in Democrat urban strongholds, the electoral college walls off the effects of that corruption at each state's borders. It doesn't matter by HOW big a margin a Democrat wins Washington DC, Chicago, Philadephia, Las Vegas or Los Angeles - the state border is a firewall to fraudulent votes cancelling out real votes in the neighboring rural states.
Eliminate the electoral college, and the Democrats need only control the voting fraud machines in 4 or 5 big cities and they can manufacture enough votes to cancel out the votes of the plains and mountain states.
The electoral college is the firewall. It is the watertight compartments. If those come down, the American ship of state becomes the Titanic and progressively floods.
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
Agree completely !!!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)
"No one ever rescues an old dog. They lay in a cage until they die. PLEASE save one. None of us wants to die cold and alone... --Dennis Olson "
People that say money can't buy you happiness, have never paid an adoption fee
#6. To: Stoner (#5)
Yep Vic is right on this one. But my only question would be why when the Democrats won Virginia Why did he say his side was winning.
#7. To: IbJensen (#3)
Eliminating the Constitutional Electoral College would involve further desecration of the Constitution itself.
The Constitution was desecrated when Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, capping the total number of House representatives, thereby capping the total number of Electoral votes.
#8. To: A K A Stone (#6)
when the Democrats won Virginia Why did he say his side was winning.
My "side" wants a stable universal health insurance system, and taxation of accumulated wealth that brings the budget into balance and rectifies the problem of excessive wealth accumulation in fewer and fewer hands.
Right now, the only people offering that are Democrats, so seeing them advance means that that set of objectives is closer to being achieved. If Republicans come to their senses and start proposing their own serious plans for getting everybody health care coverage, I will be happy.
With all things, I have policy objectives that I want to see fulfilled. If the Republicans will implement them, I am glad to see them advance, especially if it encourages the Democrats to follow suit, to be competitive. And vice versa.
I'm not partisan (though I do rather favor Republicans, because there's so much screeching wrongheadedness on the Democrat side it annoys me). I would PREFER that Republicans pull their heads out of their asses and fly right, because that makes it easier for me.
But if they won't, I prefer my policy objectives over either party.
What happened in the 2019 elections puts PRESSURE on the Republicans. They can't simply hold the line and ignore the issues, because they could suffer sweeping losses if they do. So, under that pressure, it is my hope they will move in my direction.
That's why I said MY side is winning. MY side is what I think. Neither party thinks as I do, so I like to see events coerce both of them towards the right opinions, which are not theirs, either side, but mine.
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
when The raTio
of lard ass To brains
goes up To Ten To one
you people need
To be deporTed
love
boris
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
#10. To: IbJensen (#0)
We have to remember the Electoral College was not designed because people were worried about Idaho not having enough votes
Idaho did not become a state until 1890.
Clinton won the popular vole by approx. 1.5 million votes. In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Quee~ s) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinlon only won 4 of these counties, Trump won Richmond)
That recitation is a curious admixture of three counties and two burroughs, indicating the author did not know the difference between the counties and burroughs, and did not make an effort to find out.
The counties which comprise NYC are Bronx, Kings, New York, Richmond, and Queens.
The members of the union formed by the Constitution are the States so ratifying the same. Since the first election of George Washington, the president has been elected by the members of the union, i.e., the States, and not by the people, either as individuals or as a consolidated group. Everyone knows George Washington was elected unanimously. Less know is that the official vote was 10-0. There were then 11 states in the union, NC and RI having not ratified. Anti-Federalist NY was undergoing political strife and did not organize any delegate to vote in the Electoral College, which for that election featured one vote for each member state.
Watch the fat-assed, functional illiterate negro's comments at the link. She is ignorant of the fact that this is a constitutional republic with each state having equal status insofar as a national election goes.
It would appear that the author is ignorant of the fact that each state does not have equal status insofar as a national election goes.
There are effectively 51 seperate elections, one in each state, plus D.C. The Federal government sets the date of the Federal election. The States individually supervise and regulate the elections themselves. States have chosen to hold popular vote elections, but there is no constitutional impediment to any state deciding to abolish the popular vote and return to have the State legislature select the State delegates to the Electoral College. The only persons who have a Constitutional right or duty to vote for President are the delegates to the Electoral College. There is no constitutional right for any ordinary citizen, man or woman, to vote in a Presidential election.
Art. 2, Sec. 2, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators or Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...."
Art. 1, Sec. 3, "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
The number of representatives was set to 435 by Congress with the Apportionment Act of 1911. Congress moved to make that number permanent in 1929 and it has remained there ever since.
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 (ch. 28, 71 Stat. 21, 2 U.S.C. § 2a)
As codified at 2 U.S.C. § 2a:
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2016/title-2/chapter-1/sec.-2a/
2016 US Code
Title 2 - The Congress
Chapter 1 - Election of Senators and Representatives
Sec. 2a - Reapportionment of Representatives; time and manner; existing decennial census figures as basis; statement by President; duty of clerk2 U.S.C. § 2a
§2a. Reapportionment of Representatives; time and manner; existing decennial census figures as basis; statement by President; duty of clerk
(a) On the first day, or within one week thereafter, of the first regular session of the Eighty-second Congress and of each fifth Congress thereafter, the President shall transmit to the Congress a statement showing the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed, as ascertained under the seventeenth and each subsequent decennial census of the population, and the number of Representatives to which each State would be entitled under an apportionment of the then existing number of Representatives by the method known as the method of equal proportions, no State to receive less than one Member.
(b) Each State shall be entitled, in the Eighty-third Congress and in each Congress thereafter until the taking effect of a reapportionment under this section or subsequent statute, to the number of Representatives shown in the statement required by subsection (a) of this section, no State to receive less than one Member. It shall be the duty of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, within fifteen calendar days after the receipt of such statement, to send to the executive of each State a certificate of the number of Representatives to which such State is entitled under this section. In case of a vacancy in the office of Clerk, or of his absence or inability to discharge this duty, then such duty shall devolve upon the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives.
(c) Until a State is redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof after any apportionment, the Representatives to which such State is entitled under such apportionment shall be elected in the following manner: (1) If there is no change in the number of Representatives, they shall be elected from the districts then prescribed by the law of such State, and if any of them are elected from the State at large they shall continue to be so elected; (2) if there is an increase in the number of Representatives, such additional Representative or Representatives shall be elected from the State at large and the other Representatives from the districts then prescribed by the law of such State; (3) if there is a decrease in the number of Representatives but the number of districts in such State is equal to such decreased number of Representatives, they shall be elected from the districts then prescribed by the law of such State; (4) if there is a decrease in the number of Representatives but the number of districts in such State is less than such number of Representatives, the number of Representatives by which such number of districts is exceeded shall be elected from the State at large and the other Representatives from the districts then prescribed by the law of such State; or (5) if there is a decrease in the number of Representatives and the number of districts in such State exceeds such decreased number of Representatives, they shall be elected from the State at large.
Source Credit
(June 18, 1929, ch. 28, §22, 46 Stat. 26; Apr. 25, 1940, ch. 152, 54 Stat. 162; Nov. 15, 1941, ch. 470, §1, 55 Stat. 761; Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §201, Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1724.)
AMENDMENTS
1996—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–186 struck out at end "; and in case of vacancies in the offices of both the Clerk and the Sergeant at Arms, or the absence or inability of both to act, such duty shall devolve upon the Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives".
1941—Act Nov. 15, 1941, provided for reapportionment based on seventeenth and subsequent decennial censuses.
1940—Act Apr. 25, 1940, provided for reapportionment based on sixteenth decennial census.
TERMINATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of provisions of law requiring submittal to Congress of any annual, semiannual, or other regular periodic report listed in House Document No. 103–7 (in which the report required by subsec. (a) of this section is listed on page 17), see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Apportionment of Representatives among the several States, see Const. Art. I, §2, cl. 3, and Amend. XIV, §2.
TEMPORARY INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP
Representation of States of Alaska and Hawaii in House of Representatives as not affecting basis of apportionment established by this section, see section 9 of Pub. L. 85–508, July 7, 1958, 72 Stat. 339, set out as a note preceding section 21 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions, and section 8 of Pub. L. 86–3, Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 4, set out as a note preceding section 491 of Title 48.
435 State Representatives are authorized in Congress.
100 senators are authorized in Congress.
The 23rd Amendment provided that the District of Columbia be afforded 3 electors, as if it were a state, but under no circumstances may it have greater representation than the least populous state.
435 State Representatives, plus 100 State Senators equals 535 State delegates to the Electoral College. Add three more delegates for the District of Columbia (a Federal territory) and the grand total is 538.
California, with 53 delegates as of the 2010 Census, is more equal than the least populous State, Wyoming, with its 3 delegates to the Electoral College. Some states are definitely more equal than others.
Assigning representatives to States is done according to the most recent Census, in accordance with the Constitution. The Census is a head count, not a citizen count. An alien, legal or illegal, resident in California, counts toward the Census population total which entitles California to 53 Representatives in Congress, and delegates to the Electoral College.
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
My "side" wants a stable universal health insurance system, and taxation of accumulated wealth that brings the budget into balance and rectifies the problem of excessive wealth accumulation in fewer and fewer hands.Right now, the only people offering that are Democrats,
You're a democrat. Got it.
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
That's why I said MY side is winning. MY side is what I think. Neither party thinks as I do, so I like to see events coerce both of them towards the right opinions, which are not theirs, either side, but mine.
Vic one thing I do like about you. Is that you put your opinion out there and defend it. That is one of the reasons I like to challenge you.
#13. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#8)
My "side" wants a stable universal health insurance system
Obamacare?
#14. To: watchman (#13)
Obamacare is not wonderful. But the alternatives are disastrous.
Medicare for all, on those terms, will be a disaster for the old. It will, effectively, convert Medicare to Medicaid, quality of care will plummet, and we'll be headed into a fiscal crisis.
And, more simply, it's not possible to get to Medicare for all with the Congress we have. So it's a dead letter.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
My liberal neighbors love to stop by and wax about their dream of universal health care for all.
They say that the doctors are greedy and should do lung transplants for a $5 co-pay...because health care is a basic human right.
The only thing they hate more than doctors are the insurance companies, but somehow in their dream a new insurance program will make it all better.
We once had the best health care on the planet. Yep, doctors lived in big houses, but health insurance, like college tuition, was very affordable. Even poor people like my family got a house call...from our surgeon. I was seven years old and barely recognized the doctor because he was not wearing his starched white lab coat. He wore an impeccable suit and tie!
In the late 70's the dems realized if they could control health care they could stay in power...and the rest of the story is as you say..."disastrous". Obamacare has given us premiums through the roof, deductibles through the roof, and coverage in the basement. I no longer go to doctors because most likely they all came from the same med school in Calcutta.
Never-the-less, according to my neighbors, there is an insurance system "out there" just beyond those mean old conservatives. All we need are more third world illegals to vote the dems in office, and by gum, we'll all be living in lotus land (like Detroit!)
Obamacare is so yesterday (the halcyon days of the magic negro are over, sigh). How about "Bloomycare", Vic. It's got such a dreamy sound to it ;-)
#16. To: watchman (#15)
Medicine has advanced a great deal since doctors made house calls, and it is a great deal more expensive. Tests and techniques can be done now that did not exist then, and life expectancies and survival rates after serious disease are much better now.
What makes much of this possible is very expensive machines, machines that can't be taken on house calls, and that cannot be purchased by regular medical practices - machines that cost millions or tens of millions.
Medicine today is simply different. Things are curable that once weren't, but at great expense.
Health costs have gone up.
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
machines that cost millions or tens of millions
Ironic how the predators perched atop the Military Industrial pyramid have no problem consuming single-use machines like...
"At Lockheed Martin - We bring the BBQ to the Cows!"
#18. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#17)
Ironic how the predators perched atop the Military Industrial pyramid have no problem consuming single-use machines like...
Nothing ironic about it. Drones and missiles kill the enemy without exposing our own soldiers and pilots to death. That's a good thing.
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
the enemy
The Irony is in the process by which "the enemy" has been deliberately manufactured for the benefit of the predatory parasites feeding from the process.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]