2014 Election

[American Patriot]

LMAO!

Josh "He who is not" Earnest said today that this isn't a very important election.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!


Better than Jay "The Carney"

[Ryan Ruck]

I heard earlier there was a, I believe, NYT opinion piece asking "Are Midterm Elections Even Necessary Anymore".

I'll see if I can find it.

[Ryan Ruck]

Found it.

Cancel the Midterms

November 2, 2014

By Tuesday night about 90 million Americans will have cast ballots in an election that’s almost certain to create greater partisan divisions, increase gridlock and render governance of our complex nation even more difficult. Ninety million sounds like a lot, but that means that less than 40 percent of the electorate will bother to vote, even though candidates, advocacy groups and shadowy “super PACs” will have spent more than $1 billion to air more than two million ads to influence the election.

There was a time when midterm elections made sense — at our nation’s founding, the Constitution represented a new form of republican government, and it was important for at least one body of Congress to be closely accountable to the people. But especially at a time when Americans’ confidence in the ability of their government to address pressing concerns is at a record low, two-year House terms no longer make any sense. We should get rid of federal midterm elections entirely.

There are few offices, at any level of government, with two-year terms. Here in Durham, we elect members of the school board and the county sheriff to terms that are double that length. Moreover, Twitter, ubiquitous video cameras, 24-hour cable news and a host of other technologies provide a level of hyper-accountability the framers could not possibly have imagined. In the modern age, we do not need an election every two years to communicate voters’ desires to their elected officials.

But the two-year cycle isn’t just unnecessary; it’s harmful to American politics.

The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president, the only government official (other than the powerless vice president) elected by the entire nation. Since the end of World War II, the president’s party has on average lost 25 seats in the House and about 4 in the Senate as a result of the midterms. This is a bipartisan phenomenon — Democratic presidents have lost an average of 31 House seats and between 4 to 5 Senate seats in midterms; Republican presidents have lost 20 and 3 seats, respectively.

The realities of the modern election cycle are that we spend almost two years selecting a president with a well-developed agenda, but then, less than two years after the inauguration, the midterm election cripples that same president’s ability to advance that agenda.

These effects are compounded by our grotesque campaign finance system. House members in competitive races have raised, on average, $2.6 million for the 2014 midterm. That amounts to $3,600 raised a day — seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. Surveys show that members spend up to 70 percent of their time fund-raising during an election year. Two years later, they’ll have to do it all again.

Much of this money is sought from either highly partisan wealthy individuals or entities with vested interests before Congress. Eliminating midterms would double the amount of time House members could focus on governing and make them less dependent on their donor base.

Another quirk is that, during midterm elections, the electorate has been whiter, wealthier, older and more educated than during presidential elections. Biennial elections require our representatives to take this into account, appealing to one set of voters for two years, then a very different electorate two years later.

There’s an obvious, simple fix, though. The government should, through a constitutional amendment, extend the term of House members to four years and adjust the term of senators to either four or eight years, so that all elected federal officials would be chosen during presidential election years. Doing so would relieve some (though, of course, not all) of the systemic gridlock afflicting the federal government and provide members of Congress with the ability to focus more time and energy on governance instead of electioneering.

This adjustment would also give Congress the breathing space to consider longer-term challenges facing the nation — such as entitlement spending, immigration and climate change — that are either too complex or politically toxic to tackle within a two-year election cycle.

To offset the impact of longer congressional terms, this reform might be coupled with term limits that would cap an individual’s total congressional service at, say, 24 years, about the average for a member of Congress today. This would provide members enough time to build experience in the job, but also limit the effects of incumbency and ensure the circulation of new blood in the system.

The framers included an amendment process in the Constitution so our nation could adjust the system to meet the demands of a changing world. Surely they would not be pleased with the dysfunction, partisan acrimony and public dissatisfaction that plague modern politics. Eliminating the midterm elections would be one small step to fixing our broken system.

LOL! You know, we could simplify those pesky elections further by just getting rid of them completely! After all, these people have to be so much smarter and better than us or they wouldn't be in their positions of power. Surely they know what's best for us and only have our best interests in mind.


In all seriousness, the best election reform that could be passed is repeal of the 17th Amendment and returning the election of Senators to the states!

[Avvakum]

In all seriousness, the best election reform that could be passed is repeal of the 17th Amendment and returning the election of Senators to the states!

Amen to that!

We are a Republic, a Nation specifically built on the principle of Law, not the passing whims of men and modern ultra-egalitarian leveling ideas.

[American Patriot]

LOL! You know, we could simplify those pesky elections further by just getting rid of them completely! After all, these people have to be so much smarter and better than us or they wouldn't be in their positions of power. Surely they know what's best for us and only have our best interests in mind.


In all seriousness, the best election reform that could be passed is repeal of the 17th Amendment and returning the election of Senators to the states!

Yep.

And truthfully, what IF we only elected ALL officials every four years and limited them all to... wow... four years?

At least for the next two decades.

Or.... we could just execute those that are thieves, liars, lawyers... when we catch them.

(hey I'm only saying the same thing the Left says when it gets pissed off at the Right)

[Avvakum]

I voted a couple hours ago. A clear choice between the Evil and Treason/Appeasement Party versus the Stupid and Cowardly Party, lol. I chose the Republicans again, because we have some good people in office here in Oklahoma. We had a pretty good morning turnout in the pouring rain this morning, and of Voters I personally feel are more likely to vote Republican.

Next two years, we need 'gridlock', it will be a good thing to block the Leftist agenda til we can get an adult with integrity in the White House again.

[American Patriot]

A clear choice between the Evil and Treason/Appeasement Party versus the Stupid and Cowardly Party

HAHAHAHA

Same here. I mailed my ballot in last week.

I voted pure Republican for most things.

I voted NOT to retain ANY JUDGE (I advocate kicking them out right away).

I voted NO on all tax increases, veiled or otherwise.

I voted FUCK NO on money for any kind of storm water enterprise in my county and city.

I voted "Oh HELL NO" on mandating "GMO" be marked (because they want to mark almost everything as GMO)

I voted NO on a Constitutional Amendment - that the Left doesn't want to see on there. I voted with them because IT SHOULD NOT BE AN AMENDMENT, IT SHOULD BE AN INITIATIVE (which is a law).

That last one was the "personhood" thing.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot question reads as follows:^[1]

“	Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution protecting pregnant women and unborn children by defining "person" and "child" in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act to include unborn human beings?[6]

Does anyone see the word "Abortion" in there? No.

They want to change the Colorado Criminal Code - with a constitutional Amendment. That is NOT what the Constitution is for. Change the fucking CRIMINAL LAW STATUES YOU DUMB FUCKS.

I'm sick of intrusive government, no matter where it comes from. I'm sick of people not UNDERSTANDING what a Constitution is about. I'm sick of the fucking left blaming "Abortion" on everything they can think of to prevent laws from being passed.

Since I had a choice of Yes and No - I chose NO. I'd rather NOT do something than to do something the WRONG way. I hope that makes sense.

Like you said, Evil and Coward. Clear choices.

[American Patriot]

BTW here's the Colorado law section that covers the above "amendment" and things would be added to this.

Section 17. Protection of Pregnant Mothers and Unborn Children


1. Purpose and findings. In 2009, Judges of the Colorado State Court of Appeals in People V. Lage 232 P.3d (Colo. App. 2009) concluded that:

(a) "There is no definition of 'person' or 'child' of general applicability in the Criminal Code" (majority opinion by Judge Roy); and

(b) "This is an area that cries out for new legislation. Our General Assembly, unlike congress and most state legislatures, has precluded homicide prosecutions for killing the unborn" (Judge Connelly concurring in part and dissenting in part).

2. Definitions. In the interest of the protection of pregnant mothers and their unborn children from criminal offenses and neglect and wrongful acts, the words "person" and "child" in the Colorado Criminal Code and the Colorado Wrongful Death Act must include unborn human beings.


3. Self executing, and severability provision. All provisions of this section are self-executing and are severable.


4. Effective date. All provisions of this section shall become effective upon official declaration of the vote hereon by proclamation of the governor pursuant to section 1(4) of Article V.^[6]

Absolutely, I believe that babies who are not yet born should be protected by criminal statutes. Anyone who kills a baby in a woman's body should be subject to murder charges - unless it's for abortion (which is where the LEFT took this battle even though ABORTION is NOT the subject of the law).

This is how the left redirects battles. By rewording what things are about.

[Avvakum]

BTW here's the Colorado law section that covers the above "amendment" and things would be added to this.

Section 17. Protection of Pregnant Mothers and Unborn Children


1. Purpose and findings. In 2009, Judges of the Colorado State Court of Appeals in People V. Lage 232 P.3d (Colo. App. 2009) concluded that:

(a) "There is no definition of 'person' or 'child' of general applicability in the Criminal Code" (majority opinion by Judge Roy); and

(b) "This is an area that cries out for new legislation. Our General Assembly, unlike congress and most state legislatures, has precluded homicide prosecutions for killing the unborn" (Judge Connelly concurring in part and dissenting in part).

2. Definitions. In the interest of the protection of pregnant mothers and their unborn children from criminal offenses and neglect and wrongful acts, the words "person" and "child" in the Colorado Criminal Code and the Colorado Wrongful Death Act must include unborn human beings.


3. Self executing, and severability provision. All provisions of this section are self-executing and are severable.


4. Effective date. All provisions of this section shall become effective upon official declaration of the vote hereon by proclamation of the governor pursuant to section 1(4) of Article V.^[6]

Absolutely, I believe that babies who are not yet born should be protected by criminal statutes. Anyone who kills a baby in a woman's body should be subject to murder charges - unless it's for abortion (which is where the LEFT took this battle even though ABORTION is NOT the subject of the law).

This is how the left redirects battles. By rewording what things are about.

Having read a great deal of Leftist literature in my day, I happen to agree. They're interested in two cases in particular that they pretend to be pissed off about;

1. 1888 'Santa Clara Railroad V. U.S.' defined a 'Corporation' as an immortal collective 'person' entitled to 14th Amendment rights as any Citizen might.

2. And the recent 'Citizen's United' Supreme Court case reaffirmed the right of any collective organization (a 'Corporation') to politically contribute monies to campaigns and lobby for politicians.

The Left isn't interested in personal freedom, reproductive or otherwise. That's just a Communist battering ram against the Republic. What they want firmly in place are these very COLLECTIVE rights i've mentioned. If the Unborn are a class of persons to be collectively dealt with under the law.... So can everybody else be dealt with as a collective 'person' instead of as an individual.

I want Abortion to be illegal, but I don't want this issue to be used as a wedge to surrender individual freedoms under the guise of 'protecting' collective 'rights'

I don't believe in 'rights'. ''rights" are granted by other men, or withdrawn by the same. I'm interested in liberties and in duties owed by and to individual persons.

[American Patriot]

To be honest... I don't CARE about abortion, except in ONE circumstance.

That one circumstance is "using abortion as birth control". It is NOT birth control. If you want to control getting pregnant don't have sex, or use some other kind of protection.

Killing a baby no matter WHAT age he or she is in the womb is wrong. However, there are legitimate reasons, all medical that might require such a thing.

HOWEVER, going to the grocery store for an over the counter drug that can be taken 6 weeks to even months into a pregnancy should be considered murder.

The rest of the time... oh well.

Your body, your life.

There is a clear-cut case of Right and Wrong when it comes to abortion. Each case should be considered and doctors should be the "judge" of themselves and the medical case. If they fuck up, then THEY are liable for murder as is the mother (or father) who asks for an abortion.

[American Patriot]

By the way, Rights are NOT granted by men.

That's actually how the Left tries to dig your rights out from under you.

My RIGHTS are simple. Don't touch me, don't harm me. I have the right to stop or prevent you from doing so. I have a RIGHT to live.

Based on that statement, I have the right to protect myself which leads to gun ownership etc.

I have a right to stand up and be heard at least in this country, and theoretically across the planet.

That's a right.

The Constitution doesn't GRANT rights. It merely affirms they exist and we have the ability to enforce them.

For instance. The CHURCH has NO RIGHT to tell me what to do, unless I voluntarily subscribe to their doctrine.

The GOVERNMENT has NO RIGHT to tell me what to do, and that is in WRITING. And yet, they create laws to force us to do what they want.

[Avvakum]

To be honest... I don't CARE about abortion, except in ONE circumstance.

That one circumstance is "using abortion as birth control". It is NOT birth control. If you want to control getting pregnant don't have sex, or use some other kind of protection.

Killing a baby no matter WHAT age he or she is in the womb is wrong. However, there are legitimate reasons, all medical that might require such a thing.

HOWEVER, going to the grocery store for an over the counter drug that can be taken 6 weeks to even months into a pregnancy should be considered murder.

The rest of the time... oh well.

Your body, your life.

There is a clear-cut case of Right and Wrong when it comes to abortion. Each case should be considered and doctors should be the "judge" of themselves and the medical case. If they fuck up, then THEY are liable for murder as is the mother (or father) who asks for an abortion.

Well, as I said, I oppose it for what it is, as every actual person has 'self-ownership' over themselves aside from their duties to their Maker, Nature and Nature's God, but this bullshit Collective 'Personhood' sets a legal precedent that is an absolute Trojan Horse for the overall Leftist agenda.

This midterm is just one battle in an uphill war we've been losing for 100 years or more, so far.

[American Patriot]

According to Wikipedia.... for what it is worth:

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.^[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.



Entitlements mean something no one can take from you. Ever. Normative rules means "accepted".

This isn't a case of laws, it's a case of ETHICS, something most people just don't get.

[American Patriot]

California is trying to make this sound insignificant. lol

Election Day: Tiny turnout expected for important vote

By Josh Richman

jrichman@bayareanewsgroup.com

Posted: 11/04/2014 06:01:00 AM PST24 Comments
Updated: 11/04/2014 09:22:10 AM PST

Poll worker Caroline Foster removes ballots from a box on Monday, Nov. 3, 2014, at the Registrar of Voters at Marin Civic Center. The polling place is open so that people can vote before election day tomorrow. (Frankie Frost/Marin Independent Journal) ( Frankie Frost )



As a Republican tide in other states seems poised to wash away Democratic margins in Congress, California is likely to maintain its distinction as one of the country's bluest states as the seasonal barrage of television ads, mailers and robocalls ends on Election Day.




Experts believe the GOP will take the Senate's reins and widen its advantage in the House in Tuesday's midterm election, leaving Democrats to wield the filibuster and President Barack Obama to use his veto pen for the next two years. The tightest Senate races -- in states like New Hampshire, Iowa, Kansas and North Carolina -- could provide nail-biting fodder well into the night.



Here in California, with no U.S. Senate seat on the ballot, the suspense is over smaller stakes. Turnout might hit a record low, dropping below 50 percent for the first time in the state's history.



At the top of the ticket, Gov. Jerry Brown is expected to beat Republican challenger Neel Kashkari by a wide margin to win an unprecedented fourth term. Democrats hold sizable leads in the races for lieutenant governor, controller, treasurer, attorney general and secretary of state. Down the ballot, however, the less-visible but hard-fought nonpartisan race between Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson and challenger Marshall Tuck is a dead heat.Advertisement





A few California House seats might come down to the wire as well, including Sacramento County's 7th District, where freshman Democrat Ami Bera has fought to fend off a challenge from Republican former Rep. Doug Ose in what has become one of the nation's costliest congressional contests. This and a few other races might narrow, though not overcome, Democrats' margin in the state's House delegation.



In the South Bay, seven-term Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, is challenged by fellow Democrat Ro Khanna in another nationally watched, tight race to represent the heart of Silicon Valley and the first Asian-American majority district outside Hawaii.



Californians will decide whether to approve Proposition 1, a $7.5 billion water bond, and Proposition 2, to beef up the state budget's reserve fund, as Brown has implored them to do.



Proposition 45, to grant the insurance commissioner authority to reject unjustified health insurance rate hikes, and Proposition 46, to raise the almost four-decade-old cap on medical malpractice lawsuit awards, are both expected to fail after the insurance industry spent tremendous sums to defeat them.A record low voter turnout is expected. The Field Poll estimates that 8.2 million Californians will cast ballots in Tuesday's statewide general election -- meaning a turnout of just 46.1 percent of registered voters.
"This will be the first election in the modern era, since we've been tracking all of this, when less than half of all registered voters will be turning out," said Mark DiCamillo, the Field Poll's director. Turnout often is driven by hot high-profile races, he said, "but the top of the ticket just doesn't hold that much interest this year."
About 60 percent of voters taking part in this election will cast vote-by-mail ballots, the poll also found.
Many voters will be leaving vote-by-mail ballots at polling places and county registrars' offices on Tuesday, a last-minute surge that could mean many tight races might not be decided for days.
Among them might be the East Bay's 16th Assembly District, where Dublin attorney Catharine Baker -- the Bay Area's only truly competitive Republican -- vies with Dublin Mayor Tim Sbranti, a Democrat. Statewide, this race could prove important in Democrats' drive to hold their two-thirds margin in the Assembly, but the party may be hard-pressed to regain a supermajority in the state Senate.
Oakland, one of several Bay Area cities now using a ranked-choice voting system, will pick from among 15 mayoral contenders, including incumbent Jean Quan; City Council members Rebecca Kaplan and Libby Schaaf; professor Joe Tuman; attorney Dan Siegel; and Port of Oakland Commissioner Bryan Parker. San Jose's next mayor will be either City Councilman Sam Liccardo or Santa Clara County Supervisor Dave Cortese.
And on local ballots, Berkeley and San Francisco will decide whether to tax sodas and other sugary drinks while Oakland and San Francisco will vote on whether to raise their minimum wages.
Elsewhere, several states are deciding what to do about marijuana -- battles that could presage California's own decision over a widely expected 2016 legalization measure. Voters in Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia will decide Tuesday whether to allow recreational use of the drug, as Colorado and Washington state already have, and voters in Florida will decide whether to allow it for medicinal purposes, as do 23 states, including California.

[Malsua]

California is run by idiots, voted in by idiots and it will swirl the bowl until the entire southern half of the state appears for all intents and purposes to be a northern Mexican city.

[American Patriot]

yup.

San Diego is a beautiful place though.

Utopia exists.

In the minds of druggies and rich libtards.

LOL

Second best sailing weather I've been in ever. (Been in the Atlantic, Caribbean and Pacific and BVI was number 1. SD was number 2)

[American Patriot]

Funny....

Just heard.

The Right (on Fox News) is calling for 8 seats to be picked up.

The Left (on Fox News) is calling for 6 seats to be picked up.

By Republicans.

Six seats is the minimum we need to grab the Senate I believe.

[Malsua]

So split the difference, 7 seats and one independent.

[Ryan Ruck]

It looks like tonight was, for what its worth, a big win for the Republicans.

I don't know if it is going to mean much in the long run but it is nice seeing your team win.

As much as I would have liked to have seen Mitch McConnell lose, it is better to see Allison Grimes lose instead after how much Dem party support was thrown behind her.

After all, you can't put a price on this type of schadenfreude.

ETA @ 1:36am ET: Mia Love win in Utah is AWESOME!

[Ryan Ruck]

And more!