RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: A Future You Don't Want - RightNation.US

Jump to content

A Future You Don't Want Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   pepperonikkid 

  • Trucker
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 12,927
  • Joined: 03-September 03

  Posted 09 June 2019 - 01:26 PM

A Future You Don't Want



https://www.frontpagemag.com
David Horowitz
June 7, 2019


Article:

While you were sleeping, the Democrats (abetted by some deviant Republicans) have been working on a plan that would destroy the diversity of the American political system and bring the nation to the brink of civil war. The plan is called The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and tens of millions of dollars have already been spent over several decades trying to implement it. Fourteen blue states and the District of Columbia have already joined the Compact, which means they are 70% on the way to making their proposal the law of the land.

The Democrats' plan is designed to eliminate the influence of the Electoral College in choosing the nation's president no doubt because while Hillary won the popular vote she failed win necessary votes in the Electoral College. Eliminating the influence of the Electoral College would end the diversity now embodied in the federal system with its division of powers, between Washington and the fifty states. The fact that a party which presents itself as a defender of diversity should be leading the charge to eliminate the nation's most powerful source of diversity should be all that is required to understand the threat their agenda poses to what has been the nation's constitutional way of life for 232 years.

The Electoral College and the division of powers are features of the Constitution. But the National Popular Vote movement does not propose to amend the Constitution because ot doesn't have the votes to do that. Instead, in the name of "democracy" it proposes to circumvent the Constitution and its requirement of large national majorities for amending what has been the fundamental law of the land. Thank how Orwellian that is, and how concerning it should be for anyone believing the Founders created the most practical, realistic, democratic, diverse and successful polity the world has ever seen.

This is how the Democrats' circumvention of the Constitution and its provision for an Electoral College would work. Instead of abolishing the College, which would require the support of two-thirds of the states, they are hoping to put together a coalition of states representing 270 electoral votes who would agree to award all their votes to whomever wins the national vote. In other words if the popular vote is won by 10 votes, every state in the Compact would award 100% of their votes to that party, even if a majority of the voters in their state voted against them.

The bottom line (and goal) of this devious plan is to eliminate the influence of rural voters or "Middle America" and create an electoral lock for the large urban population centers, e.g., California and New York, who would then decide the direction of the country.



Full Story
0

#2 User is online   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,743
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 09 June 2019 - 01:43 PM

Just another way to silence American's.


0

#3 User is offline   Big Dave 

  • ...and yes, I am compensating for something.
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 2,723
  • Joined: 03-March 04

Posted 09 June 2019 - 02:31 PM

I hope we can put Trump over the top in popular votes! Time for a little karma...good and hard! :spank:
0

#4 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,636
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 09 June 2019 - 03:52 PM

Well, so now we know what States need to be EXCLUDED from "USA 2.0".

Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, DC, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, New Mexico.

Lest anyone worry about GA: Some maps show Georgia as "Legislation Pending". Technically correct in the sense that a bill (SB 42) was introduced and referred to committee. But, for all practical purposes, it went "stale" without actually being killed.

Here in GA, the legislature meets only 40 work-days a year**, between Jan and Mid April. A Senate bill such as SB 42 needs to not only make it out of committee but get approved by the Senate as a whole and passed over to the House by workday 28 or 'crossover day' which was March 7th this year. That didn't happen.

Technically, it's not dead in the sense that it could happen in next year's Jan-Apr session. But not likely; nothing changes in the legislature's make-up between now and then. And even if it, there's no chance in hell that Gov. Brian Kemp - who will STILL be Governor then as well, will sign it. And it it doesn't at least pass the GA Senate by "crossover day" 2020 THEN it's officially dead anyway.

Georgia is "safe". For now.



** = lest anyone say, "Getting paid for working 40 days a year? How do *I* get that job???", bear in mind it pays accordingly. It's 40 working days spread out over 4 months (1/3 of a year)... for which, in GA, you get paid $17K.

Here, I'm torn, intellectually. I *LIKE* what the framers of GA constitution intended (And likewise FL as well): A part-time "citizen legislature" dominated by citizens who actually do something useful the rest of the year. The "Reality check"? Not so much. What working professional and/or Small biz owner can afford to give up 1/3 of a work-year for $17K? I know *I* can't, at least not until I'm fully Retired, which makes me probably the sort the founders intended ("Mr. Smithee Goes to Atlanta??? LOL, and no thanks. I like playing at the County level. As Clint Eastwood once famously said in a film, "A Man's gotta know his limits". As such, the GA (and FL)legislature is viewed by many as a mere "stepping stone"; a resume-enhancer.
0

#5 User is offline   Timothy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 9,965
  • Joined: 12-December 03

Posted 09 June 2019 - 04:51 PM

If you look at the original intent of the electoral college that intent has already been entirely circumvented. Electors were meant to act like delegates to a deliberative body. To pick a President like the House might pick a Speaker of the House. Now they are little more than a human point counting system based on votes of the broader public.

America was around 90% rural in the late 18th century. The supposed need for extra rural representation wasn't an issue.

As for the major cities having supposedly undue influence. A national popular vote wouldn't give more power to major cities like New York and LA than the electoral college gives to major cities in Ohio, Pennyslvania, and Florida. There are almost no predominantly rural swing states.
0

#6 User is online   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,824
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 09 June 2019 - 06:38 PM

View PostTimothy, on 09 June 2019 - 04:51 PM, said:

If you look at the original intent of the electoral college that intent has already been entirely circumvented. Electors were meant to act like delegates to a deliberative body. To pick a President like the House might pick a Speaker of the House. Now they are little more than a human point counting system based on votes of the broader public.

America was around 90% rural in the late 18th century. The supposed need for extra rural representation wasn't an issue.

As for the major cities having supposedly undue influence. A national popular vote wouldn't give more power to major cities like New York and LA than the electoral college gives to major cities in Ohio, Pennyslvania, and Florida. There are almost no predominantly rural swing states.

So, it’s all good, eh Tim? I guess this way my kids will never actually need to vote because their “betters”, including you, are OK with the nation being driven by deviants and malefactors from the two coasts and the People’s Republic of Austin.

Actually, this will save lots of time and money, because there will only need to be one such election. Subsequent elections would result the same, so why bother? Who will be the new Tsar? Bernie? Bloomberg?
Newsome? Or some credentialed busboy from Austin?
0

#7 User is offline   Squirrel 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 24-September 18

Posted 09 June 2019 - 07:56 PM

View PostTimothy, on 09 June 2019 - 04:51 PM, said:

If you look at the original intent of the electoral college that intent has already been entirely circumvented. Electors were meant to act like delegates to a deliberative body. To pick a President like the House might pick a Speaker of the House. Now they are little more than a human point counting system based on votes of the broader public.

America was around 90% rural in the late 18th century. The supposed need for extra rural representation wasn't an issue.

As for the major cities having supposedly undue influence. A national popular vote wouldn't give more power to major cities like New York and LA than the electoral college gives to major cities in Ohio, Pennyslvania, and Florida. There are almost no predominantly rural swing states.


So by your belief 10% of the country should rule and dictate 90% these days . Got it sounds a lot like a cast system with kings and queens, I’m sure the 90% in “fly over country” love that idea. But hey if that’s what you want I can suggest a few countries you may like better
0

#8 User is offline   Squirrel 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 24-September 18

Posted 09 June 2019 - 07:57 PM

Democrats would make good soylent green, just saying. Not that I’d want to eat bad food.
0

#9 User is offline   Jon Wayne 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 806
  • Joined: 03-August 15

Posted 09 June 2019 - 07:59 PM

Hopefully the Supreme Court will crush this like a bug as soon as a challenge is brought against it. I don't believe I would be able to continue to live in this country if the desperate Democraps could ever pull this off and have it unconstitutionally affect a national election.
0

#10 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,195
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 09 June 2019 - 08:31 PM

What a surprise, you are for it. <_<

View PostTimothy, on 09 June 2019 - 04:51 PM, said:


As for the major cities having supposedly undue influence. A national popular vote wouldn't give more power to major cities like New York and LA than the electoral college gives to major cities in Ohio, Pennyslvania, and Florida. There are almost no predominantly rural swing states.


Incorrect.. One need only win California's and New York's populations over to win the election, for all practical purposes. As it stands, Shillary's popular vote margin in California alone was greater than the voter totals of 10+ states combined. I did the math after the election.

What the electoral college also does is limit the damaging effects of the pro-voter fraud policies of California and the like where illegals vote.

This post has been edited by Howsithangin: 09 June 2019 - 08:31 PM

0

#11 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,195
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 09 June 2019 - 08:33 PM

View PostSquirrel, on 09 June 2019 - 07:56 PM, said:

So by your belief 10% of the country should rule and dictate 90% these days . Got it sounds a lot like a cast system with kings and queens, I’m sure the 90% in “fly over country” love that idea. But hey if that’s what you want I can suggest a few countries you may like better


Just like the Good Old Days in the Soviet Union. Fat Moscow urbanites and starving rural farmers.
0

#12 User is offline   bigmck 

  • Newbie
  • Group: Registered Guest
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 24-December 13

Posted 09 June 2019 - 08:48 PM

I don't see this ever being put into use unless it goes to the Supreme Court first. It would seem the time for it to be challenged would be now instead of waiting. That would be too much undue strain on the Country.
0

#13 User is offline   Bookdoc 

  • Daddy's little girl
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,098
  • Joined: 07-September 05

Posted 09 June 2019 - 09:28 PM

View PostSquirrel, on 09 June 2019 - 07:56 PM, said:

So by your belief 10% of the country should rule and dictate 90% these days . Got it sounds a lot like a cast system with kings and queens, I’m sure the 90% in “fly over country” love that idea. But hey if that’s what you want I can suggest a few countries you may like better

I wonder what the percentage of guns owned by civilians is in the 90%. I do not think there is a chance in he!! of this making it nationally, but there would be an armed uprising if the left tried to pull off that kind of control.
0

#14 User is offline   Timothy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 9,965
  • Joined: 12-December 03

Posted 10 June 2019 - 11:05 PM

View PostSquirrel, on 09 June 2019 - 07:56 PM, said:

So by your belief 10% of the country should rule and dictate 90% these days . Got it sounds a lot like a cast system with kings and queens, I’m sure the 90% in “fly over country” love that idea. But hey if that’s what you want I can suggest a few countries you may like better

So moving to a pure "one person one vote" system is like creating a caste system with kings and queens. That's some weird logic right there.

View PostHowsithangin, on 09 June 2019 - 08:31 PM, said:

Incorrect.. One need only win California's and New York's populations over to win the election, for all practical purposes.

Which number is bigger:

a) 60,856,370
B) 266,311,061

Quote

As it stands, Shillary's popular vote margin in California alone was greater than the voter totals of 10+ states combined. I did the math after the election.

And?

Quote

What the electoral college also does is limit the damaging effects of the pro-voter fraud policies of California and the like where illegals vote.

*citation needed*

View PostHowsithangin, on 09 June 2019 - 08:33 PM, said:

Just like the Good Old Days in the Soviet Union. Fat Moscow urbanites and starving rural farmers.

Tell you what, I'll support giving extra electoral power to rural farmers to prevent "tyranny of the majority" if you do the same for:

Hispanics
African Americans
Asians
Native Americans
Gays
Transgendered
People with disabilities
Muslims
Jews
Hindus
Agnostics
Atheists
Etc.
Etc.
0

#15 User is online   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,824
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 10 June 2019 - 11:10 PM

View PostTimothy, on 10 June 2019 - 11:05 PM, said:

So moving to a pure "one person one vote" system is like creating a caste system with kings and queens. That's some weird logic right there.


Which number is bigger:

a) 60,856,370
B) 266,311,061


And?


*citation needed*


Tell you what, I'll support giving extra electoral power to rural farmers to prevent "tyranny of the majority" if you do the same for:

Hispanics
African Americans
Asians
Native Americans
Gays
Transgendered
People with disabilities
Muslims
Jews
Hindus
Agnostics
Atheists
Etc.
Etc.

None of these people vote? Put down the bong.
0

#16 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,506
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 10 June 2019 - 11:45 PM

View PostTimothy, on 10 June 2019 - 11:05 PM, said:

And?

We’ve been through this before. Let’s use simple numbers so it’s clear.

Let’s say there’s a total of 1,000,000 voters.
Let’s say there are 4 states.
State A has 400,000 voters, and has 40 electoral votes
State B has 250,000 voters, with 25 electoral votes
State C has 200,000 voters, with 20 electoral votes
State D has 150,000 voters, with 15 electoral votes

All states are quite different from each other but as they say, the whole is greater than the sum of the individual elements. There are two presidential candidates, Mr D and Ms R.

State A goes to D 300,000 to 100,000.
State B goes to R 135,000 to 115,000.
State C goes to R 105,000 to 95,000
State D goes to R 100,000 to 50,000

Electoral college favors R over D, 60-40.

National vote totals favor D over R, 560,000-440,000, entirely because of one big state. With the EC avoidance pledges, D wins over R, 100-0.

I take it that you truly prefer that system and that the founders were just not that smart to instill the EC as an equalizer for minority states, so they too would have relevance. That’s a damn shame.
0

#17 User is online   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 12,060
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 11 June 2019 - 12:09 AM

View PostTimothy, on 10 June 2019 - 11:05 PM, said:



Tell you what, I'll support giving extra electoral power to rural farmers to prevent "tyranny of the majority" if you do the same for:

Hispanics
African Americans
Asians
Native Americans
Gays
Transgendered
People with disabilities
Muslims
Jews
Hindus
Agnostics
Atheists
Etc.
Etc.

Who said anything about giving anyone extra electoral power? The EC protects the small STATES from the large STATES. So does the Senate. There is nothing in there about the identity groups of the citizens of those States. We are a Republic and not a Democracy.

Let me ask you something. Right now you are all for using the weight of the majority to force their will on the entire US. What if the population and our country did a lightning shift to the right, socially, and the population weight shifted away for the cities? Would you be happy with the majority forcing you to live like they do? Would you be happy with them forcing all the states, despite the desires of the citizens of that state, to adopt socially conservative mores and institutions and laws? Would you be happy with them legislating nationally what you feel should be regulated locally?
0

#18 User is offline   Currahee! 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 2,178
  • Joined: 21-April 04

Posted 11 June 2019 - 05:25 AM

So if the Electoral College is is made irrelevant by this Democrat(and a few RINOs) “end run” then tell me exactly why we need to continue having a Senate?
0

#19 User is online   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 12,060
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 11 June 2019 - 05:26 AM

View PostCurrahee!, on 11 June 2019 - 05:25 AM, said:

So if the Electoral College is is made irrelevant by this Democrat(and a few RINOs) “end run” then tell me exactly why we need to continue having a Senate?

Or State governments and borders?
0

#20 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,074
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 11 June 2019 - 07:11 AM

View PostTimothy, on 09 June 2019 - 04:51 PM, said:

If you look at the original intent of the electoral college that intent has already been entirely circumvented. Electors were meant to act like delegates to a deliberative body. To pick a President like the House might pick a Speaker of the House. Now they are little more than a human point counting system based on votes of the broader public.

America was around 90% rural in the late 18th century. The supposed need for extra rural representation wasn't an issue.

As for the major cities having supposedly undue influence. A national popular vote wouldn't give more power to major cities like New York and LA than the electoral college gives to major cities in Ohio, Pennyslvania, and Florida. There are almost no predominantly rural swing states.


:yawn:

Tell us another one, Poindexter.

View PostTimothy, on 10 June 2019 - 11:05 PM, said:

So moving to a pure "one person one vote" system is like creating a caste system with kings and queens. That's some weird logic right there.


Which number is bigger:

a) 60,856,370
B) 266,311,061


And?


*citation needed*


Tell you what, I'll support giving extra electoral power to rural farmers to prevent "tyranny of the majority" if you do the same for:

Hispanics
African Americans
Asians
Native Americans
Gays
Transgendered
People with disabilities
Muslims
Jews
Hindus
Agnostics
Atheists
Etc.
Etc.


:no:

View PostNoclevermoniker, on 09 June 2019 - 06:38 PM, said:

So, it’s all good, eh Tim? I guess this way my kids will never actually need to vote because their “betters”, including you, are OK with the nation being driven by deviants and malefactors from the two coasts and the People’s Republic of Austin.

Actually, this will save lots of time and money, because there will only need to be one such election. Subsequent elections would result the same, so why bother? Who will be the new Tsar? Bernie? Bloomberg?
Newsome? Or some credentialed busboy from Austin?


:yeahthat:

View PostHowsithangin, on 09 June 2019 - 08:31 PM, said:

What a surprise, you are for it. <_<



Incorrect.. One need only win California's and New York's populations over to win the election, for all practical purposes. As it stands, Shillary's popular vote margin in California alone was greater than the voter totals of 10+ states combined. I did the math after the election.

What the electoral college also does is limit the damaging effects of the pro-voter fraud policies of California and the like where illegals vote.


:exactly:
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users