Audio: Comprehensive immigration reform “will be my top priority yesterday, today, and tomorrow,” says McCain

posted at 4:53 pm on June 28, 2008 by Allahpundit

Top priority overall or just top domestic priority? Iraq and the economy can wait, I guess. The clip comes, via reader Edgar M, from today’s appearance before NALEO, in which he and Obama took turns to see who could pander most cravenly on immigration. Truth be told, there’s little new here: Lip service is duly paid to securing the border despite the questioner’s emphasis on comprehensive reform “and not just enforcement,” and he recycles his old line about illegals being “God’s children too” as a way of insinuating, a la his crony’s notorious remarks about telling “the bigots” to shut up, that one really can’t oppose amnesty and be a minimally decent human being. Par for the course.

It’s nice to know, though, that the very first 100 days of a McCain administration will be consumed with an internecine fight on the right to stop his next round of crap legislation from passing. Can’t wait. If you’re curious to see what Obama said in reply, here’s a recap from Reuters. To the left, of course (minus Mickey Kaus), McCain’s problem is that he isn’t a big enough amnesty shill. Exit quotation from Obama, demonstrating a charming obliviousness to the fact that he himself flip-flopped on nearly every issue he commented on this past week: “If we are going to solve the challenges we face, we can’t vacillate, we can’t shift depending on our politics.”

Link: sevenload.com


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8

It must be around 500.

AP was right, again.

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 7:36 PM

Insults have flown.

The fence is still not contiguous.

There are still many “idiot” and “liars” and civility has gone to the dogs.

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 7:37 PM

yep, 500.

nottakingsides on June 29, 2008 at 7:37 PM

flenser for president.

MB4 for VP.

Where do we send money?

p.s. Spirit, you are an angel on Earth.

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 7:38 PM

I’m just glad that our illegal immigrants are paying $4.50/gal for gas like the rest of us……..

Happy?

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 7:38 PM

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 7:38 PM

piggybigglesworth would object!

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 7:40 PM

Sure. Party machine runs on $. Party doesn’t represent you? Don’t contribute. Party either shifts position or fades. Market at work.

There is no market in political parties. Read the discussion on this site. Nobody is saying “vote for Brand X because it is better”. Everyone is saying “don’t vote for Brand Y because it is worse”.

My proposal makes it much more like a true market, where voters have more than two choices. Or the case of many issues, such as global warming, no choices at all.

The parties do not have to “shift position” because they are the only game in town. And if you notice, they don’t shift position. Have you seen much shift by the GOP since 2006?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 7:40 PM

506

LegendHasIt on June 29, 2008 at 7:41 PM

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 7:38 PM

but pinky would have a beer to it!

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 7:41 PM

Did someone say my dog was worthless?

My dog and I are quite offended.

:)

bridgetown on June 29, 2008 at 7:41 PM

Fast and furious. 6 more in the length of time it took me to type the 506 above.

LegendHasIt on June 29, 2008 at 7:42 PM

My dog and I are quite offended.

:)

bridgetown on June 29, 2008 at 7:41 PM

Mine too :)

Sorry Legend to have robbed you of the little pleasure of today.

On topic, do we want a European system?

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 7:44 PM

LegendHasIt on June 29, 2008 at 7:42 PM

I like your idea about the primaries, just trying to balance that with Spirit1776s thoughts about State ID. I’m a big fan of the electoral system but not beyond convincing that the primaries need a shot in the arm.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 7:44 PM

There are still many “idiot” and “liars” and civility has gone to the dogs.

Honesty is the prerequsite for civility. You can’t lie to peoples face and expect them to smile in return.

Jet Boy accused me of putting words in his mouth. No, I was simply paraphrasing.

I’m for a fence/wall. Just not the type previously described with high-tech this and that. Why throw so much money at something that “solves” maybe half the problem?

Give a basic wall a chance. But when so many come here other ways, what good is that wall to those here already?

You simply neglect the economic aspects and ramifications, which would be devastating.

JetBoy on June 27, 2008 at 5:45 PM

I never said building the fence was a bad thing (gee, what’s with me being so misinterpreted today?) I only question it’s worth. Again, I am all for closing the border to illegal immigration.

But when you close one door, the remaining open doors only get busier. Migrants from South America aren’t going to stop coming. We can keep plugging holes, but they’re coming. And what do yo do about the millions here already…isn’t that the real problem?

JetBoy on June 27, 2008 at 5:09 PM

So, he’s all for a fence, but he thinks it would be pointless and would devastate the economy and would not stop people coming.

But he’s all for it.

Whatever.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 7:45 PM

You don’t have to remove any elector. And there are no electors involved in the vast majority of elections.

I assumed we were talking about the Presidential elections, which, without fail, are determined by the Electoral College. Which is comprised of electors who represents the citizens of their state. If we were talking about mayoral elections, then yes, I was clearly mistaken.

Again, I have no idea what you are discussing, but it’s not anything I proposed. There is no “proportionality” involved.

Anytime you chose more than one then you are measuring preference. If you don’t like proportionality, use a different word. Principle remains.

A multivote ticket I think has some merit (but I repeat myself) within a party for determining a nominee – it’s interesting idea for sure. But not one suited for ‘between parties’ at the general election.

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 7:38 PM

Always with the kind word, thanks:) But I have to ask if that’s true, am I going to get recalled, haha!

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 7:48 PM

Why is it that you have to result to insulting Jetboy rather than discussing the issues that you say you bid others to discuss?

Don’t you have a husband to nag?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 7:48 PM

In brief, here’s why. When you vote, what you are really doing is casting your vote for an elector to vote on behalf of the state. Your elector has one vote, he doesn’t have the opportunity to say ‘I’m 65% for Cand1, 25% for Cand2, etc”. He has one vote.

So when you add a graded system, ie no longer one citizen, one vote, you are effectively removing the elector.

You don’t have to remove any elector. And there are no electors involved in the vast majority of elections.

Tks. Spirit for the response. I know the electoral college is vitally important for the small states. But I also don’t see how it is necessarily eliminated using Flenser’s scenario– the electors simply wait until the final results of the voters from their respective states are tabulated, before casting their one single vote for one candidate.

Maybe I’m missing something here, but that’s how I am understanding the suggested plan.

JiangxiDad on June 29, 2008 at 7:51 PM

Anytime you chose more than one then you are measuring preference. If you don’t like proportionality, use a different word. Principle remains.

Incoherent. Any time you chose one over another you are “measuring preference”. All elections measure preference. That’s the whole point.

“Proportionality” refers to the Dems not using “winner takes all” primaries as much as the GOP. If two candidates roughly split the vote in a state, they would roughly split the delegates.

Whatever the merits of that, and there are some, it has nothing to do with my suggestion. Some states do split their EV between candidates based on their proportion of the raw vote, or CD’s carried. That would continue as normal.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Always with the kind word, thanks:) But I have to ask if that’s true, am I going to get recalled, haha!

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 7:48 PM

No, you just won’t finish first. Kidding. Don’t change.

flenser, on illegal immigration you and I agree totally. As regards the fence I have commented many times that it’s very important but it can never be made contiguous and high enough to keep the wasps from flying toward the steaks, which are the illegal jobs, both menial and professional.

I have no idea why the disrespect of our current laws, namely the failure to check for legal status by the employers, the chambers of commerce, all politicians, from the left to the right, citizens, is not the number one issue on topic. Please help me to sort this out. I believe we need both tracks, the respect of our current laws, and the building of the fence. That’s how I interpret JetBoy’s take on the fence.

The states which enforce their laws have seen a dramatic departure of illegal aliens. Of course they then come to CA, TX and other states which don’t.

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 7:55 PM

Don’t you have a husband to nag?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 7:48 PM

Wow. Don’t believe I have ever seen that tactic to promote dialog.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 7:55 PM

JiangxiDad on June 29, 2008 at 7:51 PM

Correct.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 7:56 PM

Limerick, when have you ever been interested in dialog? Dialog involves people asking each other questions. That seems to be a sore point for you.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 7:58 PM

I believe we need both tracks, the respect of our current laws, and the building of the fence. That’s how I interpret JetBoy’s take on the fence.

I have no idea how you extract that meaning from the remarks he made. To remind you, he said a fence would not and could not work, and also that it would devastate the economy. (Even that part seems contradictory, but thats what he gave me to work with.)

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:01 PM

JiangxiDad on June 29, 2008 at 7:51 PM

Right I follow.

Here’s the problem. If that plan were according to your interpretation, then all states would end up in the same position as they are now. You would have one of the two major parties accumulating the electors.

Hypothetical – if forced to fill out ballot, are the Barr voters going to put Mac or Obama. Safe bet at least 50% will vote Mac, which means you get a state with all electors to one of the major parties. So this system changes nothing at the electoral level.

The only way then for a system like this one to effect the desired outcome, would be to forgo the electoral step and use the popular vote nation-wide. You see what I mean? Minority 3rd(+) party are still silenced under this plan until they are powerful enough to be one of the top two.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 8:03 PM

flenser, I’ve asked you questions in the past which you chose to not answer. Let’s leave it at that. No one owes us a thing here.

Lim, if you worry even in the slightest, you are much loved and respected here and you don’t have to change one iota. Give my best regards to Mrs. Limerick, whom I want to run for president if they amend the constitution, along with flenser and myself, of course. Also, please send my thanks to your son, who watches over us while we pontificate freely, ad infinitum, solving little.

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Dialog involves people asking each other questions

Great. Answer mine. Who are these “same people” you referred to.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 8:04 PM

I’m through. For months now I have tried every way imaginable to rationalize voting for this RINO. My man FRED! fell through, Mitt fell through, and I thought I was left with this scum-bucket. Oh well, I thought, he would be better than Obama, I WAS WRONG. I’ll take 8 years of liberal-socialist crap if that’s what it takes to open America’s eyes. (and don’t lecture me on judicial nominations. I don’t for one moment believe that McPander will be ANY better than the Commie…). To paraphrase the Dixie Chicks (sheesh, has it acutally come to that?), JMFU.

second digit on June 29, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Ok, I’ve done my bit for AP. Hope he appreciates my singlehandly dragging this thread over 500.

Is there a special Hot Air prize?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:04 PM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:01 PM

I don’t agree with his take on the “devastate the economy” but he is right that it could never be contiguous, and high enough to be the single and best deterrent.

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 8:04 PM

No, you just won’t finish first. Kidding. Don’t change.

Heh, E, I can’t!

I’m bitter and I cling to my [fill in the blank].

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 8:05 PM

I thought the word was dialogue.

I think Jetboy was referring to the millions of illegals that are already here..fence or no fence.
Fence doesn’t matter to the millions that are already here. Except that now they’d be fenced In.

bridgetown on June 29, 2008 at 8:05 PM

flenser,

So I have a better understanding of your position in life, can you tell me what your view is regarding the Ayn Rand link you posted? Thanks.

OldEnglish on June 29, 2008 at 8:05 PM

Is there a special Hot Air prize?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Sure, I nominated you for president. Isn’t that high enough? :)

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 8:05 PM

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 8:03 PM

No harm no foul Ms E. We all bump heads. The only personal insults that effect me come from AllahP. Everyone has their weakness.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 8:06 PM

flenser, I’ve asked you questions in the past which you chose to not answer.

Jog my memory.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:06 PM

OldEnglish, now the thread could shift to off topic, but turn into 1000 comments. Better for another time/topic.

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 8:06 PM

520+

I’m sure we’ll have plenty more to analyze this week.

Nanny-nanny boo-boo!

Yep. Been sippin on some Bushmills today…

catmman on June 29, 2008 at 8:07 PM

Don’t you have a husband to nag?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 7:48 PM

Hahaha..

Did I strike a nerve.. How very accomadating of you to provide the very example that I example cited to you.

I see you can’t engange me so you result to insults.

ROFLMAO!

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 8:07 PM

I’m a big fan of the electoral system but not beyond convincing that the primaries need a shot in the arm.
Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 7:44 PM

A third of the states in the nation were quite literally, ‘disenfranchised’ in voting in the GOP Primary this year.

And McCain was given the momentum that got him through the middle of the campaign by just a few states that I don’t particularly think are representative of the average Republican voter. …

That, exacerbated by the crossover voters, that most of the states in question, permit. A significant chunk of McCain’s early voters were Democrats (doing a slightly different version of ‘Operation Chaos’; Selecting the one Republican candidate that is closest to their own agenda.) and independents.

Then when voters in the States with their primaries in the middle saw that McCain was leading, (I believe) that they just went along with the flow rather than voting their conscience. Half way through that the halfway decent candidates dropped out; some because they were out of money, some because they decided that easing McCain’s path was a good idea. The last 1/3 of the states had no real choice at all….

So, McCain and the dumbass Party leaders think that, since McCain won nearly all the votes in the last 20 primaries that McCain has a mandate. And the GOP shifts another three ‘giant steps’ to the left….. All because of non-republican stronghold states and crossover voters.

LegendHasIt on June 29, 2008 at 8:08 PM

Wait til McCain hits his tour in Mexico and Columbia. Those NAFTA threads will be worth at least 1500.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 8:08 PM

OldEnglish

Not sure I follow. I’m not a Rand fan. If that is not the position on life you had in mind, can you narrow the question down a bit?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:09 PM

Yep. Been sippin on some Bushmills today…

catmman on June 29, 2008 at 8:07 PM

;)

I’ve had to resort to Kendal Jackson Chardonnay today.. it goes well with my spaghetti dinner.

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 8:09 PM

I’m bitter and I cling to my [fill in the blank].

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 8:05 PM

I know where this comes from, but I’d like to say, still

If you are “bitter” I’d hate to know sweet :)

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 8:09 PM

Yep. Been sippin on some Bushmills today…

I love that stuff.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 8:09 PM

I see you can’t engange me so you result to insults.

Yeah, I’m running scared of your overwhelming intellectual firepower. What exactly have you said that you think merits my “engagment”?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:11 PM

LegendHasIt on June 29, 2008 at 8:08 PM

I see your point. At my primary it was just so. My candidate had already dropped out and McCain was a shoo in.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 8:11 PM

Getting jealous of all you rich-publicans. I’m slumming it with Bud today.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 8:13 PM

Great. Answer mine. Who are these “same people” you referred to.

Spirit of 1776

Americas CEO’s.

See, it’s not hard to answer questions. Y’all should try it.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:13 PM

Jog my memory.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:06 PM

“flenser, are you British?” – you still don’t owe me an answer. It’s just that none of us are perfect at the standards we set for others, self included. We’re all fallibe, and that’s ok. We’re just here to learn, to share, and maybe have a little fun too.

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 8:14 PM

Yeah, I’m running scared of your overwhelming intellectual firepower. What exactly have you said that you think merits my “engagment”?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:11 PM

Einstein is indignant.

“I was very smart on the one hand, but not a very nice man” ~ ~ Einstein

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Yeah, I’m running scared of your overwhelming intellectual firepower. What exactly have you said that you think merits my “engagment”?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:11 PM

Hahaha..

The point is that you do not want to engage with me (because I don’t agree with you) therefore, you insult me from the getgo to prevent any engagement.

Honestly .. how old are you? You are so transparent.

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Hypothetical – if forced to fill out ballot, are the Barr voters going to put Mac or Obama. Safe bet at least 50% will vote Mac, which means you get a state with all electors to one of the major parties. So this system changes nothing at the electoral level.

The only way then for a system like this one to effect the desired outcome, would be to forgo the electoral step and use the popular vote nation-wide. You see what I mean? Minority 3rd(+) party are still silenced under this plan until they are powerful enough to be one of the top two.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Not at all sure I have all the details clear in my mind. That being said, why wouldn’t the Barr voters vote Barr first, and then McCain second. Isn’t the whole point of this idea that you actually vote for your true preference, rather than against the guy you’re afraid is going to win? It could become rather catchy, with people willing to branch out, so to speak, from their conventional behavior, particularly if they know there is an increased likelihood that others will be doing the same. That’s how the two parties lose some of their potency. And if, in a scenario where a John McCain wins anyway, because there aren’t yet enough 3rd party voters, it still represents the will of the people, but the system slowly reforms.

Sorry, I don’t think I’ll be able to defend the idea much more. Haven’t had enough time to think it all through.

JiangxiDad on June 29, 2008 at 8:17 PM

“flenser, are you British?”

I resemble that remark! No, but I did grow up in the British Isles.

When I said people should answer questions, I meant questions on topic. I would never ask you if you were married, for instance.

;)

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:18 PM

Americas CEO’s.

See, it’s not hard to answer questions. Y’all should try it.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:13 PM

Working off that then, what would prevent them from taking over 3rd, 4th, etc parties?

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 8:18 PM

The point is that you do not want to engage with me (because I don’t agree with you) therefore, you insult me from the getgo to prevent any engagement.

You’re Jet Boys girl, right? I recognise the thought processes. If that’s the right word.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Getting jealous of all you rich-publicans. I’m slumming it with Bud today.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 8:13 PM

I feel your pain.

It’s really a matter of household budget nowadays.. I sacrifice my gasoline $ for my wine $.. I figure alcohol is alcohol.. it’s just a different processing system … :)

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 8:20 PM

JiangxiDad on June 29, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Don’t be sorry Jiangxi. Nothing better then dealing with an honest broker.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 8:20 PM

OldEnglish

Not sure I follow. I’m not a Rand fan. If that is not the position on life you had in mind, can you narrow the question down a bit?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:09 PM

No need. You have answered my question. It’s just that, during this thread, you seem to be a bit dogmatic in tone, and I wondered wether it was a personal thing, or the following of a cultish philosophy. If the latter, it would have downgraded your points in my assessment, and I am here to learn.

OldEnglish on June 29, 2008 at 8:22 PM

You’re Jet Boys girl, right? I recognise the thought processes. If that’s the right word.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Hummm no .. I don’t know him ..

BUT …

I see you are again striving for some means to discount me as being irrelevant in your eyes BECAUSE I DON’T AGREE WITH YOU.

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 8:22 PM

OldEnglish, now the thread could shift to off topic, but turn into 1000 comments. Better for another time/topic.

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 8:06 PM

You’re right, of course, but see my post at 8.22 PM. It should explain the wander.

OldEnglish on June 29, 2008 at 8:24 PM

what would prevent them from taking over 3rd, 4th, etc parties?

Various things. Limited finances, for one. Some parties might have rules limiting their involvement, or exist specifically as parties whose agenda is not that of corporate America. Saying no to global warming, for instance. Or to illegal immigration. Or to the managerial state in general. Such parties would not be very appealing to our CEO’s in any case.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:24 PM

I see your point. At my primary it was just so. My candidate had already dropped out and McCain was a shoo in.
Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 8:11 PM

Yep. My state was one of the ones in the last day of the primaries (The democrats had their Caucus here several months earlier… go figure.).

By the time I got to make a choice, even Ron Paul (who couldn’t be considered a choice anyway) had dropped out. So there was no choice at all. It was either vote McCain or leave it blank and have your ballot invalidated for leaving a blank spot. (No provision for write-ins.)

LegendHasIt on June 29, 2008 at 8:24 PM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:18 PM

The question was as a result of how you spell certain verbs, and was a sincerely harmless and friendly one, as in any parlor, or pub. Let’s just hope that we’re not automatons. You’re obviously a smart cookie, but give others some leeway and room to disagree. If we all agree, always, we’ll go over the cliff, like lemmings. Synergy is when we all go under together.

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 8:25 PM

That being said, why wouldn’t the Barr voters vote Barr first, and then McCain second.
[...]
JiangxiDad on June 29, 2008 at 8:17 PM

You are exactly right, they would. If Barr doesn’t take the majority vote, however, to garner the electors, then the second choice of the Barr voters would be the important part right? Even if you had a 51-49 election, the electors would go to McCain.

Unless, you have a state that divides it’s electors by proportion. Which is to say it chooses it’s state representation to be a piece of the national popular vote. In this case it would be conceivable (likely even) that a third party candidate would get electors. Their effect would be insignificant most likely, but if enough, it would drop the election into the House…so you are back at the same point.

So under this idea, the feasible way for a candidate to get a significant number of electors would be if all states chose to go the route of taking a piece of the national popular vote. That’s the head-first dive into the short end of the pool of direct democracy.

That’s what I’m trying to explain. Hope that makes sense.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Such parties would not be very appealing to our CEO’s in any case.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:24 PM

If you are making the argument that they control both parties, then I doubt whether the platform would appeal to them would matter. Message control and power would matter, so to follow this logic, all parties would be sought to be under control by the same people.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 8:27 PM

OldEnglish on June 29, 2008 at 8:22 PM

Got it. No, no cultish philosophy. I’m not a Rothbardian, or rival libertarian, or any other point on the political sepctrum I know of. I’m not sure there is a label for my beliefs. Flenserist? I linked to that simply because it was a powerful debunking of Randism.

I wouldn’t say I’m dogmatic. I’m open to other peoples arguments, if only I can get them to make any.

You may be referring to my habit of meeting insults with insults. Well, I’m better at it than the people insulting me, so why not?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:33 PM

So under this idea, the feasible way for a candidate to get a significant number of electors would be if all states chose to go the route of taking a piece of the national popular vote. That’s the head-first dive into the short end of the pool of direct democracy.

You go ahead and discuss whatever ideas you want. Just be clear that the ideas you are discussing have no relation to anything I suggested.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:35 PM

You go ahead and discuss whatever ideas you want. Just be clear that the ideas you are discussing have no relation to anything I suggested.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:35 PM

If the problem as you have stated it (no viable 3rd party), and the solution as you have presented it (multiple votes on a ticket by preference), do not necessitate the actions I have filled in to get from action to desired effect, please course correct.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 8:38 PM

That’s what I’m trying to explain. Hope that makes sense.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 8:25 PM

I’m going to have to think through what you said–especially the part about taking a piece of the national popular vote. Can’t respond now.

JiangxiDad on June 29, 2008 at 8:40 PM

If you are making the argument that they control both parties, then I doubt whether the platform would appeal to them would matter.

Platform has nothing to do with it. There is nothing about global warming or amnesty in the GOP’s platform.

Message control and power would matter, so to follow this logic, all parties would be sought to be under control by the same people.

Hmm. Which “logic” were you referring to here? No question the same people would seek power regardless of power. I don’t suppose the CPUSA, for instance, would give them much joy. Point being, with multiple parties you get more actual choice.

I don’t understand why you see this as controversial.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:40 PM

Getting jealous of all you rich-publicans. I’m slumming it with Bud today.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 8:13 PM

BUDWEISER?!! Bleeechchchch!

Dude…

Now there’s a thread to 1500.

catmman on June 29, 2008 at 8:41 PM

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 8:27 PM

I’m trying to figure how such a weighted voting system would work in practice. For a voter to chose a ranking between, oh say, five parties it would seem to follow that the voter would have to have knowledge of the platforms of those five parties. We can’t find a majority of the voters who know that Lincoln was a Republican.

Again, it is a weighting system of the overall collective. Smacks of poltiburo to me (or at least could trend that way easily).

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 8:41 PM

A panderer is a panderer is a panderer.

Hilts on June 29, 2008 at 8:45 PM

Hmm. Which “logic” were you referring to here? No question the same people would seek power regardless of power.

Exactly so people who are accustomed to power and control certainly wouldn’t let more parties form up with at least attempting to take them over too. If the same people have captured the power of the two dominant parties, nothing could keep them from jumping on a startup.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 8:46 PM

Catmman…

Just goes to show you what I would do if the plane crashed in the wilderness. Pass the salt, will ya?

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 8:47 PM

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 8:41 PM

Yeah, in practice it would come down to name recognition.

And I agree with you on your second paragraph completely.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 8:47 PM

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 8:13 PM

There are just some things in life my friend (heh) where I don’t scrimp:

My wife (God bless her!)
My guns/ammo.
My booze.

Here I am with three posts on this thread today, and not one of them on topic.

AWESOME!

catmman on June 29, 2008 at 8:49 PM

1000 or bust!

nottakingsides on June 29, 2008 at 8:54 PM

Why do I think I’m going to regret this??

You may be referring to my habit of meeting insults with insults. Well, I’m better at it than the people insulting me, so why not?
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:33 PM

You don’t flense.
Guys like Mark Steyn and Christopher Hitchens can flense with their words. Your technique is more akin to repeatedly pummeling people with a blunt instrument.

While You and I are on the same side on most of these arguments; and I admire your tenacity and the occasional flashes of high intellect that your posts provide, your technique makes you less convincing than you could be.

Admittedly, there are a few people around here that deserve the kind of disdain that you hand out… But it is easier… for me, at least… to just ignore them. Kind of like wrestling with a fence post. Only wastes energy and raises blood pressure.

Just an observation. I don’t want to get into a fight over it. If you feel the need to insult me now, go ahead; I’ll try my best to let it go and not further add to your burden of trading insults.

LegendHasIt on June 29, 2008 at 8:55 PM

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 7:38 PM
piggybigglesworth would object!

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 7:40 PM

but pinky would have a beer to it!

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 7:41 PM

……… you got that right.

By the way, who is this “flenser” fellow?

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 9:01 PM

If the problem as you have stated it (no viable 3rd party), and the solution as you have presented it (multiple votes on a ticket by preference), do not necessitate the actions I have filled in to get from action to desired effect, please course correct.

All right, Not sure why you did not ask me questions in the first place if you were unclear.

If Barr doesn’t take the majority vote, however, to garner the electors, then the second choice of the Barr voters would be the important part right?

Correct. How did you get from there to -

the feasible way for a candidate to get a significant number of electors would be if all states chose to go the route of taking a piece of the national popular vote

Lets stick with the presidential election. States can allocate their electors accourding to the rules they set. At present those rules are not uniform. Many states award all their EV’s to the winner of the popular vote in that state. Others allocate them in proportion to the popular vote.

Here’s how it works. The states change their law to reflect my proposal. Then, people vote as I described earlier. At the end of the process each state has the same number of electors, who vote for the candidate who won via the same process. All that changes is the process by which electors are picked.

There is no national popular vote. At least, not any more than there is at present. The electors from the states still elect the President.

The only scenario in which there is a Constitutional Amendmment needed is if you want to make this change at the national level. As proposed, the states might give EV’s to several different candidates. In that case the one with the largest plurality would win the Presidency, under current law. That is not a change under my suggestion, it’s just how things work.

In other words, you have a greater chance of seeing McCain carrying some states, Obama some, Barr some, etc. If that bothers you, the fix is to implement the same thing for the Presidency as well.

But this is all getting way ahead of ourselves. The first place it would be tried out is at the local level. Then wotk it up to the state level. Then House and Senate seats. At that point, the whole country would demand that we do it for the Presidency as well.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:02 PM

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 9:01 PM

(drum roll)……………..ta da!

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 9:05 PM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:02 PM

Now, that is more like it.. Kudos.

LegendHasIt on June 29, 2008 at 9:07 PM

Guys like Mark Steyn and Christopher Hitchens can flense with their words. Your technique is more akin to repeatedly pummeling people with a blunt instrument.

Come now. Hitch flenses, Steyn does not. And I don’t even own any blunt instruments.

Admittedly, there are a few people around here that deserve the kind of disdain that you hand out… But it is easier… for me, at least… to just ignore them.

Whatever floats your boat, different strokes for diffeent folks, and any similar cliches. It amuses me to make fun of these clowns. You want to ignore ‘em, go ahead.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:07 PM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:02 PM

Forgive me, I am late to the conversation and am trying to catch up, but there is one word that immediately came to mind after reading your last post………….. Sophestry.

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 9:08 PM

All right, Not sure why you did not ask me questions in the first place if you were unclear.

I wasn’t unclear. I was having a conversation with JxD.

Thanks for the answer, it appears I read you correctly. The states change their law to reflect my proposal. The consequence of which is a move toward d.democracy because the electors would reflect percentage votes (thus replicating a direct election without electors) save for minor variability because the vote percentages wouldn’t be evenly disvisable to the number of electors.

Anyway, thanks. My curiosity, relating to you implying I misinterpreted, is satiated.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 9:08 PM

Seven Percent, I know who you are. You are the man of thousand disguises, whose name is Legion. Whan registration opened up here, you must have bagged a good twenty names.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:11 PM

Let me ask you this flenser.

Are you aware of the evolution of the political party system in America? We didn’t start out as Democrats and Republicans … we evolved. The only thing prohibiting us from further evolution is 40+ years of entitlement programs that have created the 90+ black vote for Obama because he is black and the pending adding to that at least 2fold of Hispanics when Obama gives them citizenship.

Do you know why Jewish Americans vote blindly for the Democrats?

Do you know why Blacks vote blindly for the Democrats?

It’s reality.

Thumb your nose at it at our peril.

Also..

ARE YOU AN AMERICAN?

I ask this because I noticed a while back that you spelled a few words with the English spelling, or Canadian version, rather than the American spelling we use here.

Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 9:15 PM

Seven Percent, I know who you are….. flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:11 PM

No you don’t, mate, but you can keep deluding yourself if you wish………. back to the point of the thread.

Am I wrong in reading that you think a secure border is a waste of time?

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 9:16 PM

The consequence of which is a move toward d.democracy because the electors would reflect percentage votes

The electors already reflect percentage votes.

(thus replicating a direct election without electors)

I don’t have the foggist idea what that is supposed to mean. How does it “replicate” a “direct election without electors”. The same people as at present vote for the same electors as at present.

save for minor variability because the vote percentages wouldn’t be evenly disvisable to the number of electors

Again, huh? I don’t know what you are talking about? Vote percentages? Divisable? If New York currently gives 100% of it’s EV’s to the winner of the popular vote, then it still gives 100% of its EV’s to the winner of the popular vote under my proposal. There is no division of anything.

My curiosity, relating to you implying I misinterpreted, is satiated

Given that you still seem to be discussing some plan of your own, and not mine, perhaps you should visit a vomitoria. Followed by a remedial English class.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:21 PM

Flense…

Not sure if the message got through so I’m going to try to make it (without using ‘my friend’ to provoke you). Many here, including Jet, Spirit, TexasGal, Legend, and others have tried to throw you a life line. The HA crowd doesn’t mind being at odds with each other, but mostly we keep it in the realm of red faces and not red words.

I learned this the hard way when I got sideways of MB4. My pride got in the way of decency and I started to trash him just because I could. I was wrong. He and I are far apart on our perspectives on a lot of issues, but that didn’t give me the right to trash his character.

Just trying to put up an honest sign post. I’ll leave you to figure out the rest of what I’m trying to say.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 9:22 PM

Am I wrong in reading that you think a secure border is a waste of time?

Yes, mate, you are as wrong as it is possible for you to get. Wronger than that even.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:23 PM

Many here, including Jet, Spirit, TexasGal, Legend, and others have tried to throw you a life line.

Look, “Lim, keep your lifeline. Stick to trying to have an honest and open discussion of the issues. That seems to be beyond “Jet, Spirit, TexasGal” and you. Read Spirits bizarre comments on this thread.

Respect is something you have to earn in life. Deliberate stupidity and dishonesty is not the way to do it.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:28 PM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:28 PM

Ok.

Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 9:29 PM

The electors already reflect percentage votes.

(thus replicating a direct election without electors)

I don’t have the foggist idea what that is supposed to mean. How does it “replicate” a “direct election without electors”. The same people as at present vote for the same electors as at present.

There is a reason they color in the states red and blue on election night and not a mix of the two.

It replicates the effect. I don’t any reason to rehash this as the options and effects have all been canvassed in previous comments.

Followed by a remedial English class.

It’s an idea, but I’m not really interested in regressing to remedial English just to communicate with you.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 9:30 PM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 8:33 PM and twelve million other times

So, like, if I called you a ‘tard and told you that you sucked, would that be dialogue? Or an insult?

Just curious. Seriously.

wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 9:30 PM

There are still many “idiot” and “liars” and civility has gone to the dogs.

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 7:37 PM

We are all quite mad here my child.

Sigy on June 29, 2008 at 9:30 PM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:23 PM

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 9:32 PM

flenser for president.

MB4 for VP.

Where do we send money?

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 7:38 PM

Forget those two and just send Tuco Gold and Tuco will run for both positions.

Tuco on June 29, 2008 at 9:34 PM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 9:32 PM

Sorry, as I said I was trying to catch up and was reading a little too fast and the original post turned into a conversation of overturning the Electoral College…. but I could be wrong, because every other post was you insulting HA the “Legion”……..

Thanks Limerick, very well stated…….

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2008 at 9:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8