Red State, Blue State
Posted in the Young Harris Forum
#1 Nov 23, 2012
Wow- now that the election is over, it is pretty quiet here. Looking back to Election Day, there is one aspect of the process that really makes me mad. Therefore, I'm going into "Andy Rooney" mode now...
I hate that I must live in a "red" or "blue" state. As such, we get next to ZERO coverage by the media or the politicians in weeks leading up to the election... hey, it's Georgia... why waste time on THAT state... they are gonna vote Republican, no matter what, anyway. Individually, anybody that voted for Obama in this state is irrelevant- GA ALWAYS goes to the Republican candidate, right? Therefore, I have to constantly listen to what people in "swing" states have to say... since THEY are the ones REALLY deciding the outcome, right?
In my opinion, the Electoral Votes system is utterly idiotic and makes our individual votes worthless. Why should I bother to care about voting for any presidential candidate... whoever the Republican candidate is KNOWS they have GA, and the democratic candidate won't bother wasting their time here.
I want to be a SWING STATE, dang it!!
#2 Nov 23, 2012
If all the State's were to assign their Electoral Votes proportionally...
Course each State decides how to alot their Electoral Votes, if you want the popular vote mean something different then it needs to be addressed at the State Level.
#3 Nov 24, 2012
Perhaps an ideal would be if candidates running for President all had to be independents and not affiliated with a party. Some judges are elected that way. Please, don't read religion in to this, but the concept of the "virgin birth" was to have a leader of all the people, and not just the tribe, nation or party he was born into. Alexander The Great (356 323 BC), as an example. Julius Caesar (100 44 BC) and ones before and after him. Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 1821) was about the last one who employed that - whatever.
Our country has become so divided we need a leader people of all political persuasions could follow, based on the man and not the party he belongs to.
But it ain't gonna happen....
#4 Nov 24, 2012
If this proposed Amendment had passed the States instead of the one we have, we wouldn't have all the dependents of tax dollars voting which would solve the problem.
"The Corwin Amendment was passed by the House on March 1, 1861 and the Senate on March 3, 1861. President Buchanan signed it the same day, which was also his last full day in office; it was later ratified by three states: Ohio, Maryland and Illinois. This proposed amendment would have forbidden the adoption of any constitutional amendment that would have abolished or restricted slavery, or permitted the Congress to do so. This proposal was an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the Southern states not to secede from the Union.
Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, specifically referenced the Corwin Amendment:
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution ... has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
#5 Nov 24, 2012
You want to be in a swing stae? Try wearing boxer shorts.
#6 Nov 24, 2012
Herb- that is the best reply... EVER! Hilarious!
#7 Nov 24, 2012
I know what you mean.
The fact that the "Red" states suck up far more federal tax dollars than they pay is a source of great distress to the "Blue" states, which subsidize those "Red" states.
I don't mind, I think that's what it means to be a country.
But it is amusing to watch all those folks in "Red" states protesting the very federal policies and programs that they seem to love.
#8 Nov 24, 2012
What you fail to realize is that in Red States We love the programs and benefits that We are entitled to, but hate that these programs are abused by so many Others who are obviously undeserving and unentitled moochers and takers.
This is such a simple concept why do you continue to have a problem understanding it.
We are entitled and deserving,
those others not so much.
#9 Nov 25, 2012
You're obviously right.
Thanks for educating me.
A Trillion Dollars subsidizing agribusiness to raise more corn and soybeans than we could ever consume - that's not welfare to those corporations.
Hundreds of Millions to extraordinarily profitable multinational oil companies as subsidies for "research" - that's not welfare to those corporations.
Billions in loan guarantees to foreign countries to help them build factories to expert American jobs overseas to those factories - that's not welfare to the corporations.
Taxing those who "cut coupons" on their hedge fund billions at a far lessor rate than the poor schmuck who works for a living- that's not welfare to the rich guy.
But guarantee a student loan for an American kid trying to get a doctorate degree in chemical engineering - now that's damn liberal socialist commie welfare that we have to stop.
I get it now.
Add your comments below
|Is it OK to be gay in hiawassee ?||7 hr||BOB||21|
|Walmart Blairsville's Pollution Problem - HELP!||7 hr||Free Bird||22|
|Cheer up democrapts.||7 hr||Free Bird||4|
|no more school taxes||8 hr||PSA||22|
|Transplant||14 hr||Free Bird||36|
|Fall in Florida||17 hr||Free Bird||23|
|Floridiots strikes again.||20 hr||Timmy is gay||21|
Find what you want!
Search Young Harris Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC