arma virumque cano (et alia)
Ah, but you see Laci, we don't really have to worry much about Colorado. The citizens very recently sent a clear message to any politician who doesn't represent them to their satisfaction. If any elected official forgets, they can be reminded with three names, Giron, Morse, and Hudak. Three politicians who are now out of office because they ignored their constituents' wishes.
I told you before that's a misleading statement. There were 35 districts of which three recalls took place. Plus, and most importantly, the objectionable law is still on the books.
Your rationalization of what happened in Colorado reminds me of this:http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cOi7J4Rl-j8
Of course it's misleading, that's SS's MO.
TS, you're obscure connection to something I said escapes me. And I'm not playing that pretend game that Kurt is so good at. I really don't follow your point.
To review, the lawmakers and SCOTUS created the problem now we are expecting them to fix it. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!Here is an idea, lets start with the NFL, they make billions and dont pay a penny in taxes. Lets fix tat first.orlin sellers
"I told you before that's a misleading statement." Mike, Laci's post brings up the familiar refrain of money controlling politicians to the point where they aren't truly representing the will of the voters. I countered with three wonderful examples of where the voters demonstrated their true power through the avenue of recall available to them in Colorado. As for the law still being on the books, perhaps I should use your common refrain when you speak of Supreme Court decisions, still on the books "so far". Midterms are upon us and things are looking tense for the Governor who is in a neck and neck race for reelection and things are looking tight for the Senate also,"In Colorado, the Republican Party is aiming to take the upper house, breaking the state's Democratic trifecta. The Democrats have a one-seat majority in the Senate, and 13 of the 18 seats up for election feature two major party candidates. Analysts predict that a shift in the balance may come down to one county. All these factors make the state one to watch this year."http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_State_Senate_elections,_2014 Besides, if Laci keeps repeating her claims I would think its only fair that I repeat mine.
I'm eagerly awaiting the Colorado mid-terms.
There wasn't even a majority of voters voting. That's leadership by the minority. Fine, but don't try and claim it's the majorities viewpoint. Leadership by minority is just one reason things are screwed up, and yes, that's the peoples fault.
"There wasn't even a majority of voters voting." I don't think that's a requirement for elections Anon. Are you going to use this claim of a vote not counting due to not enough people voting if say Initiative 594 in Washington state passes? People here have the choice to vote, or not. The politicians who were recalled/resigned were elected under those rules, and two of them were voted out under the same rules.
The point is you continue to claim a majority of people support such garbage. That's not true since only a minority of people voted. But you continue to lie, as usual.
"That's not true since only a minority of people voted." If the incumbent representative cant even get members of their own party to turn out to keep them in office, that sort of tells you something. Giron's loss was particularly telling since registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans in her district by 2 to 1."Giron's recall was more surprising, as the district is 47% Democrat to 23% Republican, and news reports stated that Giron was stunned at the results."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_recall_election,_2013 But then even amid the accusations of election fraud, even the state's largest newspaper, which had supported Giron during the campaign had to stick to the truth,"We opposed the recall, but we also oppose lurid attempts to portray Colorado's recall elections as somehow illegitimate." The editorial also took exception to Giron's charge that her supporters were not able to get to the polls: "People who supported her 'weren't able' to get to the polls? Nonsense. They were no less able to get to the polls than folks on the other side. If a disproportionate number of her supporters failed to vote, it's because they chose not to."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Giron#Electoral_History And then, perhaps you could contribute how many successful recall elections against pro-gun have occurred? The people in those districts have spoken.
It was apparently the majority of the voters that DID vote that made the difference anon, those that didn't vote didn't have a voice in the matter and its their choice of having that voice or not. If that "majority" that didn't vote did not like the outcome, well its their own fault for not participating in that vote.Its also apparent that it was important to those that did vote, not as much to those that didn't. It goes the same way for anything or for anyone that has to be voted on. So yeah, the majority went to those that voted. Tell me where the was a single voting issue where the majority of people voted anywhere at any time.
It's a simple point. You cannot claim a majority of Americans agree with your stance when only a minority vote, but you do. You can claim of those who voted they agree with your stance. A big difference. If you can't understand that difference, I can't help you. But if you keep claiming a majority of Americans agree with your stance, I'll call BS.
Its a simple point for a simple mind. I do understand the difference, if they cared, they would have voted. The thing you cant wrap your simple mind around is this, the democrats either didn't care, voted against their own representative or just couldn't show support for them and stayed home.If you didn't like the results and didn't vote, too bad. The results STILL goes to the majority who voted. And just who are you to say the majority who did not vote disagrees with the outcome. Colorado is a gun friendly state, or was until the governor turned it on its ear. Another indicator that majority is in agreement with the result is the sheriff. They are elected and the counties people let the sheriff of their county know, and in no uncertain terms, that they agreed in any way with the governors new laws.I don't need your help, nor did I ask for it. But if you cant understand that its the majority of those who DO vote that makes the difference, then its YOU who needs serious help in education on just how voting works.
It's obviously to complicated for you to grasp. A majority did not vote so you cannot say a majority of Americans agree with your stance, but you do. Dishonest as usual.
"A majority did not vote so you cannot say a majority of Americans agree with your stance, but you do." Well Anon, lets try illustrating it in a way you might understand. In the 2012 Presidential election, Barack Obama received just under 66 million votes, which was 51% of the people who voted. However in 2010 there were 236 million adults. Which would mean that our president was elected after getting votes from about 28% of the voting age citizens. Making the claim that the President was elected by a minority of the voters is just as bogus as your making the same assertion in regards to the Colorado recalls. All of these elections were decided by the people who exercised their franchise to vote. Something citizens don't do enough of, but that is each persons' choice.
No, idiot, you miss my point. He was elected by a minority of the total population of possible voters. That's the peoples fault for not being good involved citizens. If our election turnouts were higher we would has less contention and fewer extremists in our government. To few people voting is part of our problem.
And THATS the entire point that was being explained every time, glad to see you did get it. "A majority did not vote so you cannot say a majority of Americans agree with your stance, but you do. Dishonest as usual."Its not dis honest at all. And at the same time you cannot claim that they don't disagree with me either, the point is you don't know any more than I would. So we can only go with the results irrespective of how many voted, minority or majority of the population.So yeah, I WHOLE HEARTEDLY AGREE that not enough people participate in the voting rights. The problem that you might find (or might not) is that the people may agree with me more often than not. And IF they do with a majority of the popular vote, what say you then? I am only asking as a hypothetical question, if you find pro gun to be more popular, way more popular than you like, what would be your stance then?
Again, you guys are claiming that a majority of Americans agree with your stance when only a minority of Americans voted. Every time SS, or your side says that it is a lie4, dishonest.
"Again, you guys are claiming that a majority of Americans agree with your stance when only a minority of Americans voted." Well Anon, if someone makes the decision to opt out in regards to using their vote, then they functionally don't exist in the political process. Opinion polls don't pass legislation. Elected representatives do, and they are picked by people who get out of their easy chair and go vote. On that note, if they cant be bothered to go vote, they likely aren't going to go to the trouble to contact their congressperson either.
And elections by the minority don't represent the majority, which is your BS claim. Since you don't understand the difference, you just keep lying like you usually do.
Wrong, since it was only the minority of the voters that voted, the majority are represented by that vote. That's the difference you don't understand. The problem is that you cant accept that fact even as you admit that the problem is that the majority doesn't vote. And you still haven't addressed the hypothetical question I posed to you either. You are either mentally challenged or just stupid. Your remarks indicate that you are just stupid.
Hey, shit for brains, how can I not understand something I already said?Now on with your claiming the majority of Americans agree with your minority vote.
I will, shit for brains (your vocabulary, not mine), I will take every win I can get. And YOU can not claim that they don't agree with me either. So if the many are willing to be represented by the few, then they must agree with the few. If they don't, its their fault not mine.So yeah, I will make that claim and accept the results. YOU on the other hand wouldn't accept it EVEN IF 80% voted and still agreed with ME!Go find another hole to crawl into. You lost and cant get over it, your problem, not mine.
I know you will because you are a lying, insulting (you started the insults I just respond in kind) asshole. You have proven it many times and thanks for that it saves me from doing it.
Wow, you really get wound up when you lose don't you.
Not at all, I just despise liars and criminals.
Yesterdays elections showed a landslide for Republicans, but on 1/3rd of eligible voters voted, so when you dishonestly say that the majority of Americans views were represented by yesterday's vote, I'll call you guys liars again and be correct.
So the passage of I-594 doesn't really count?
It counts, it's just not the opinion of ALL Americans as you continue to say about all minority elections.
As I said before Anon. If someone make the decision to not vote, he is in essence giving permission for someone else to decide policy for them. So, when I say that the people have spoken, they have.