This amendment vs that amendment

This amendment vs that amendment

Posted in the Somerset Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
MeLoco

United States

#1 Apr 25, 2013
Like most I have friends on both sides of the political spectrum. What strikes me as sad is how after sandy hook the left side attacked the 2nd amendment while the right full supported it. Now after the Boston bombing the right side is attacking the 6th amendment with the left side defending it. I believe both amendments are important. I think this just goes to show how mislead Americans are.
maybe

Somerset, KY

#2 Apr 26, 2013
I am a lifelong conservative. I believe in due process. the Constitution is for all citizens, no matter how evil. If the government can get by without reading this terrorist his rights, then we can be next to lose ours. That said, I believe justice should be swift if found guilty, just like with Timothy McVeigh. Now if an American Citizen is found on foriegn soil fighting against Americans, then he forfiets his/her rights under our Constitution. Maybe we as a Country need to be a little more strict as to who we grant citizenship.
maybe

Somerset, KY

#3 Apr 26, 2013
I also believe my guns are my constitutional right. If I need a background check to buy a gun, then why not at LEAST have to have I.d. to vote. Maybe some kind of IQ test(sarcasm), be able to name your Senators, Vice President, something besides voting for a free phone. You can kill people with a gun, but votes can kill a nation!

“smiling on a cloudy day”

Level 7

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#4 Apr 26, 2013
Just like the media tried convincing us all that "everyone" was for gun control, they now try to convince us that there is a public push to torture and deny trial to this terrorist.

When the media tries to convince you that public sentiment is so overwhelmingly for something yet everyone you talk to doesn't agree, something's up.

“smiling on a cloudy day”

Level 7

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#5 Apr 26, 2013
maybe wrote:
but votes can kill a nation!
They can? Surely you can give an example then.

inb4 "obama is killing out nation!"
Oliver

Wartburg, TN

#6 Apr 26, 2013
maybe wrote:
I am a lifelong conservative. I believe in due process. the Constitution is for all citizens, no matter how evil. If the government can get by without reading this terrorist his rights, then we can be next to lose ours. That said, I believe justice should be swift if found guilty, just like with Timothy McVeigh. Now if an American Citizen is found on foriegn soil fighting against Americans, then he forfiets his/her rights under our Constitution. Maybe we as a Country need to be a little more strict as to who we grant citizenship.
A person shoul know their rights. Ignornace is no excuse.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#7 May 1, 2013
one amendment does verses another , they interact but do not butt heads
Paul Revere

London, KY

#8 May 1, 2013
maybe wrote:
I also believe my guns are my constitutional right. If I need a background check to buy a gun, then why not at LEAST have to have I.d. to vote. Maybe some kind of IQ test(sarcasm), be able to name your Senators, Vice President, something besides voting for a free phone. You can kill people with a gun, but votes can kill a nation!
Well said. Couldn't agree more.
I'd taking voting rights even alittle further. In my opinion you should be a property owner or at the very least pay taxes to have the right to vote. Those who have alittle "skin in the game" seem to be more informed than those who are merely trying to milk the rest of us.
MeLoco

United States

#9 May 1, 2013
Ill agree with the photo I.D. As I believe the right to vote is the right of only citizens. It is however the right of all citizens of legal age not just those a little more fortunate. If people truely informed themselves of who they were voting for and voted for politicians that wouldn't destroy the nation they would have anyone to vote for. I personally wrote in we the people on my last presidential vote. I'm not much on this whole lesser of two evils idea and wasnt going to vote at all but decided to retain my right.
MeLoco

United States

#10 May 1, 2013
The idea of my original post wasn't to imply that any amendment contradicted another. My point was that many people claim to be passionate about the constitution when it's a subject that applies to them. These same people will often gladly see another amendment trampled on. It's almost always within the agenda of one political party or the other. People have lost their ability to think for themselves or what is right. They are only concerned with defeating the other side.

“smiling on a cloudy day”

Level 7

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#11 May 1, 2013
Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
In my opinion you should be a property owner or at the very least pay taxes to have the right to vote. Those who have alittle "skin in the game" seem to be more informed than those who are merely trying to milk the rest of us.
Everyone pays some form of tax. Everyone.

Why would we limit voting to property owners? Talk about oligarchy. Lawmakers enact legislation that affects everyone, not just property owners. That being the case, everyone has a little "skin in the game". Plus you'd soon have co-ops spring up to circumvent any such draconian attempt to strip power from the people and entrust it to a select few.$1 each for 1000 people to chip in and buy an acre. Or would you go further, where only people that own so much land could vote?

Corporations and unions already buy elections. You would see this expanded and relegate the masses to serf status? I really can't think of a more un-American viewpoint.
Tired

Lenoir, NC

#12 May 1, 2013
Bronston Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone pays some form of tax. Everyone
As much as I tend to disagree with Paul, I think that he meant income tax. That was a theme in one of Heinlein's books that to be able to vote you had to own property (not just a garden spot, but your residence), be gainfully employed, or have an honorable or general discharge from the military.
Tired

Lenoir, NC

#13 May 1, 2013
What I see and the cause of the pendulum swings in the media is just rabble rousing for a story. When we see it in congress it's because the politicians themselves are radicalized. That's why they won't talk to each other or compromise. They just go party lines. They care more about their party than the nation.

With the current primary system, the republicans elect the most right wing and the democrats elect the most left wing and so our only choices at the final election are always one sort of radical over another. We need open primaries! The top 3 vote getters, regardless of party affiliation go to the election. We need national primaries all on the same day so Iowa doesn't get to pick what candidates the Kentuckians can vote for.

“smiling on a cloudy day”

Level 7

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#14 May 1, 2013
Tired wrote:
We need national primaries all on the same day so Iowa doesn't get to pick what candidates the Kentuckians can vote for.
Sadly the presidential primaries are set up the way they are for that very reason. We have absolutely no say in who gets nominated for either party.

Why doesn't the Kentucky GA change our primary date? It would piss off the national parties.

You would think our state legislators would want to empower Kentucky voters, not placate national party leaders. How about it Chris, do something useful for once.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#15 May 1, 2013
Bronston Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly the presidential primaries are set up the way they are for that very reason. We have absolutely no say in who gets nominated for either party.
Why doesn't the Kentucky GA change our primary date? It would piss off the national parties.
You would think our state legislators would want to empower Kentucky voters, not placate national party leaders. How about it Chris, do something useful for once.
brush up on your system...

Delegates
Regular delegates, also known as pledged delegates, are chosen by voters during the primaries and caucuses in each state. Delegates act as representatives, voting on behalf of those who have elected them. Delegates can be pledged to a specific candidate, though they are not always legally bound to vote for that candidate. For this reason, these delegates are also called pledged delegates. The delegates are selected by the members of each party, under the expectation that they are loyal to the party and their pledged candidate. Party members can apply to their local parties become delegates, and are chosen at random by the state auditor. After the primaries and caucuses in each state, the delegates chosen from each state head to the national convention to formally submit their votes and choose their party’s nominee.
Tired

Lenoir, NC

#16 May 1, 2013
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
brush up on your system...
Delegates
Regular delegates, also known as pledged delegates, are chosen by voters during the primaries and caucuses in each state. Delegates act as representatives, voting on behalf of those who have elected them. Delegates can be pledged to a specific candidate, though they are not always legally bound to vote for that candidate. For this reason, these delegates are also called pledged delegates. The delegates are selected by the members of each party, under the expectation that they are loyal to the party and their pledged candidate. Party members can apply to their local parties become delegates, and are chosen at random by the state auditor. After the primaries and caucuses in each state, the delegates chosen from each state head to the national convention to formally submit their votes and choose their party’s nominee.
But byhe time we vote half the candidates have already dropped out

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#17 May 1, 2013
Tired wrote:
<quoted text>But byhe time we vote half the candidates have already dropped out
I'm referring to those you send to the conventions who vote for the candidates .. that was the original plaint

“smiling on a cloudy day”

Level 7

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#18 May 1, 2013
Tired wrote:
<quoted text>But byhe time we vote half the candidates have already dropped out
Exactly. And many voters lean toward the current leader as well.

Why would winning Iowa and New Hampshire be important if every state primary was independent of one another?

The date of our primary is set by the Kentucky GA, not the national parties. If Frankfort really cared about Kentuckians having a voice in the presidential race, they would move the date up to Super Tuesday at least.

Just think of the money that would come into the state doing this. Last election both candidates spent in excess of $1 billion, yet how many commercials or campaign stops do you remembering seeing in 2012? 2008? 2004? 2000?

The last time I recall any interest being paid to Kentucky during the presidential election was when Clinton was running, and even that was only during the general election.

It is 2013. There is plenty of time for the Kentucky legislature to make meaningful changes so that Kentucky has a say in who is elected president. I recall writing Vernie McGaha back in 2010 about this, what I got back was a form letter totally devoid of any relevance or connection to the issue. Now Chris Girdler seems more interested in unseating a mayor of a town numbering 11,000.

“smiling on a cloudy day”

Level 7

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#19 May 1, 2013
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm referring to those you send to the conventions who vote for the candidates .. that was the original plaint
What is your point though? Are you trying to convince us that we really do have a say in who is nominated for either political party?

We don't, and it is obvious to anyone who followed any presidential primary over the past two decades.

January 3: Iowa caucus (both parties)
January 10: New Hampshire primary (both parties)
January 21: Nevada Democratic caucuses and South Carolina Republican primary
January 28: South Carolina Democratic primary
January 31: Florida (both parties)
....
....
....
March 6: Super Tuesday - Races are decided, most drop out except the frontrunner
....
....
....
May 22: Kentuckians get to vote

You don't see a problem with this system?
Tired

Lenoir, NC

#20 May 1, 2013
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm referring to those you send to the conventions who vote for the candidates .. that was the original plaint
But again, our primary is so late that the field of candidates has already been whittled to the point that the person I wanted to vote for is no longer in the race, so I almost never vote in the primaries because it has already been reduced to 2 or three radicals. I think it needs to be a national primary, not by state so that's a popular vote and the top 3 candidates go on to the final election where we still use the electoral vote.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Somerset Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 18 min ChromiuMan 141,466
Politicians refusing to perform Duties. 44 min Family Tradition 22
travis gaddis in eubank (Jan '09) 1 hr momma neighbors 23
County Judge Exectuive Steve Kelley: Resign 2 hr Jesus Saves 3
*keep a word- drop a word* Game (Jul '11) 4 hr Red_Forman 11,326
Debate: Gay Marriage - Somerset, KY (Jul '10) 9 hr Freedom4all 843
Hey Hatti. (Jan '12) 14 hr Chilli J 26,947
More from around the web

Somerset People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Somerset Mortgages