Rachel and MaddowBlog reported this week on the Republican State Leadership Committee and its Redistricting Majority Project, or REDMAP. To briefly recap, the Republican group freely admits -- boasts, even -- that if American voters had their way, there would be a Democratic majority in the U.S. House, but thanks to Republican gerrymandering, the party has successfully rigged the game.
The next step for the party is identifying key states -- including Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio -- and changing the way they allocate electoral votes. In effect, after having "fixed" congressional district lines to guarantee success regardless of popular will, Republicans also intend to rig presidential elections, starting in 2016.
It's reassuring to see other major media outlets pick up on the significance of the story.
After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.
From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing state laws that give the winner of a state's popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. Instead, these officials want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president.
In this case, "transform" is a polite euphemism for "stack the deck in Republicans' favor."
As Rachel noted on the show last night, state legislation has already been introduced in Pennsylvania, and the Associated Press reports that GOP lawmakers in other states, including Michigan and Wisconsin, are poised to unveil their bills soon.
As a policy matter, this is so outrageous, it's almost hard to believe. "It is difficult to find the words to describe just how evil this plan is," Pennsylvania Democratic state Sen. Daylin Leach told the AP. "It is an obscene scheme to cheat by rigging the elections."
We've come to expect a certain degree of audacity from the radicalized Republican Party, but even for today's GOP, this offends basic norms of decency. I expect them to go far; I don't expect them to go this far.
As Rachel explained on the show last month, Republicans "are talking about crossing a Rubicon that has never been crossed before." GOP officials, with the national party's blessing, are looking for ways to rig presidential elections in Republicans' favor, and have settled on this scheme as a possible solution to the problem of American voters preferring Democratic candidates.
It occurs to me that might finally be the kind of issue that gets Democratic voters engaged in a midterm cycle. My friend Tom Schaller recently reported on the dramatic dropoff in Democratic turnout between presidential elections. Telling rank-and-file Dems that if they don't vote in 2014, Republicans will rig the presidential election in 2016 may get some folks off the couch.
Also, just as an aside, I'd like to think the Republican State Leadership Committee's rhetoric on REDMAP should resolve a lingering question from the 2012 elections. Remember, since early November, the Republican line has been, "We have a mandate. We won a House majority because people love us."
Behind the scenes, however, there's a very different Republican line: "Look how we rigged the game so that we win even when we lose."
Looking ahead, Vanessa Silverton-Peel posted an "Election process toolkit" to MaddowBlog last night, and we plan to keep a close eye on this story going forward.
Leave a Comment:
"I expect them to go far; I don't expect them to go this far."
Over the past 40 years, every time I have heard someone say "oh, they won't do that! They won't go that far!" I have come to learn that within a year, that "too far" will be the "new mainstream" in the American fascist movement known as "movement conservatism" and expressed through the Republican Party.
And so far I have been right every time.
Remember when the Obama folk spoke to focus groups about Ryan's plan to voucherize Medicaid? People didn't believe it. I think that's why the Obama campaign never hit as hard as I thought they could on this issue. Decent people have a hard time believing in the level of indecency to which the the republicans are willing to stoop. They will go a step too far one day, and this may be that step. Let's hope.
The problem is that the levels of indecency have been going lower and lower - and even as WE see it happening, that "lame-stream librul media" never calls it out. And FAUX NOOZ and the rest of the bobble heads, pretend that "there's nothing to see over here", not to mention that many Americans are turned off by politics.
The American people need to wake up and recognize that this new GOTP is authoritarian, paternalistic, wants NOTHING to do with democracy, and is intent on turning US into a fascist nation, ensuring that WE the people return to a state of serfdom!
WAKE UP!
Maddow might have a point. Is rigging the reason for 2008 and 2012 outcomes?
You have it backwards, chemdmd. The 2008 and 2012 outcomes are the reason the right feels it necessary to try to rig elections.
Re: #1.3
Rigging by whom and where exactly??
No kidding and we don't need to look far to imagine what the outcome will be if they aren't stopped. Check out the Worst of the Far Right on facebook to see just how Bat@!$%# Crazy the far right is.
They have to cheat. They can't win a national election honestly.
Only one of many reasons for Democrats to begin organizing NOW for the 2014 elections. The governorships in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are all up in 2014. Simply winning those would be enough to thwart those plans if they haven't already been enacted.
Even if Republicans rush those laws through, those state legislatures are in play next year. Democrats dug themselves a hole with their apathy in 2010. Mega-enthusiasm and participation by Democrats in next year's elections will be the remedy.
Strictly speaking what they are doing (or trying to do) isn't technically cheating, at least as far as electors are concerned. All the Constitution says on the subject is that "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress." That's it. The method used to select electors is left entirely up to each state legislature. There are no guidelines, no rules or standards they have to follow. Tying the choosing of electors to the popular vote is just as whimsical and random as anything else that a person could devise. Letting the governor chose electors from among his relatives would be perfectly constitutional just so long as the state legislature said it was OK.
The problem is that there are simply no real rules governing the electoral college beyond the number of electors each state may have and when they meet to do discharge their duties. The Republican's sin in this is simply to have figured that out and have worked up the nerve to exploit just how senseless the system truly is.
Long term, the electoral college needs to be done away with. And we need non-political redistricting. And while we're at it we need a new constitution and I demand a unicorn that pisses champagne. Short term, we need more awareness of what the Republicans are doing and enough public outrage to make them think twice.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
The bill changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but since enacted by states).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.
The candidate with the most popular votes in the country would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
The bill uses the power given to each state in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have been by state legislative action.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
2014 May be check-mate for the Democrats and the Republicans because Dems don't understand that Republicans see them as enemies to be defeated and vanquished in war. GOP is using a clearly constitutional provision to that end. If Dems had been at war they would have use Article One's provision, "The No. of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand" to put an end to this before it started. Read below.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/03/30/851924/-With-all-due-respect-to-Nate-Silver#
Well, as a recent Republican Senatorial candidate helpfully noted, "there are always Second Amendment remedies."
not if all my liberal friends unilaterally disarm first.
Waddya...rest assured that as long as the wingnuts have their guns, I'll have mine.
How will anyone know know that you're not a wingnut? How will people decide which of those carrying guns are safe and which are psychopaths?
Look for the "ditto" on their heads...
My question is whether the Dems will have the power to prevent Republicans from just going along and pushing this through. Aren't electoral votes decided on the state level? If they can push through union busting and ultrasounds, they can push through just about anything, can't they?
Congress has the authority to mandate rules for federal elections. They have not previously had any desire to define how a state's electoral college votes are counted or cast. This attempt to "redistrict" the college may actually be the impetus to make the electoral college allocation method uniform across all the states. NOT having a uniform rule is actually in violation of Article IV, Sec. 2, clause 1; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" in that each Citizen has the right to have their votes counted in the same manner regardless of which state they live in.
How about we just eliminate the Electoral College?
The Electoral College dates from the time when "Rapid Transit" was the horse.
Ronald K- how electors are allocated appears to be reserved to the states to the states- see Art 2, Section 1 of the Constitution- so then how is any variation a violation of the P&I clause- I live in a state where the over all winner gets the two votes allocated to the US senators and thereafter district by district- which in 2008- resulted in President Obama getting one electoral vote from an otherwise republican state. Not sure what law school you attended- but do not understand the P&I clause argument- which apparently would suggest because two states allocate electors different then winner take all is violation-
If we vote these people out in a big way in 2014, can't we reverse all the awfulness? This is a genuine question, but it seems as if this could be so it would be a great incentive to mobilize democrats. Maybe we can reverse all those anti-women laws while we're at it.
If these states move to change the electoral rules, it may provide the necessary push for abolishing the Electoral College. That is something Dems may want to begin working on a legislative priority in blue states and Congress. If enough Blue states pass resolutions about the Electoral College it could force Republicans to back off their strategy. Once Dems control Congress, maybe after 2014, they can ram the proposed amendment through Congress. Then it will move to the states for ratification. I would like for the Dems to also pass the ERA again and send it to the states at the same time. Having both amendments go to the states at the same time will bring out progressives to push legislatures including some states that are red.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the
Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state
legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually
every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV –
72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
End the Electoral College.
It's a kluge whose time is way, way, past.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), without needing a constitutional amendment.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for anational popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV - 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVoteFollow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
mvymvy...
I have just looked at every post you have done since October 25th of last year... Do you know how many of them dealt with the topic of the National Popular Vote?... Every. Single. One.
Don't you think all of us have read enough about that? You are getting very close to spamming, which is a 'no-no'...
Here's an idea... Write an article on your Newsvine page about the National Popular Vote, then whenever you want to refer to it, post a link to the article...
This allows you to post this info, without forving all of us to read it over and over...
If this is going to be the way it works, it needs to be everywhere. I'd like to see how the GOP responds to losing the districts that include Nashville and Memphis out of Tennessee, for example. But, of course, they'll want one rule for blue states, and another for red ones, because hypocrisy is a way of life in the GOP.
How about losing electoral votes from places like Austin and Houston in Texas?
Exactly, Mr. Grumpy. But we can't win if it's across the board, so hey, we're doing it for freedom, or guns, or where's the birth certificate, or magic lady parts, well, whatever, but we gotta win.
Not just Austin and Houston, but Dallas, and San Antonio too. Fort Worth is the only major city that votes GOP. Texas is not nearly as Red a state as it sometimes seems. It isn't just the continued trend towards becoming a majority minority state that will turn us blue, it is the continued urbanization if the state as well. We are a prime example of gerrymandering. I live in a democratic part of the city next to downtown Dallas. My parents live in a suburban Republican area about fourteen miles away. After redistricting, when I voted this election cycle... we had the same congressman!!!! They drew a tiny little tendril that runs north south splitting democratic areas in half to ensure fewer dems are sent to the house, and more repubs. At least my parents have someone to commiserate with them about being represented by Pete Sessions now.
They should be careful what they wish for. What if Pennsylvania is controlled by Democrats in 2022? Yeah, I know the GOPers did a pretty good job of gerrymandering, but that effect kind of diminishes by the close of a decade (Paging Nate Silver - can you prove/disprove this? I'm kind of talking from my backside here.). So what if the tables have turned by 2022? Can't the new Democratic state legislatures put aside their misguided sense of morality long enough to, oh, I don't know, rig the next map the other way?
And in my state, New York, it appears that every time the Democrats seem to have finally captured the State Senate, there are always a handful ready to hand control right back to the Republicans. I certainly hope the NY Dems make sure these 5 "independent" democrats stay independent come next election. I would love to see a one-party (blue) New York State make Texas Republicans look like amateurs in '22, but we apparently have to deal with our DINOs first. I freaking hate Albany.
And as for a few of these "purple" states like Virginia, they'd really better be careful. I have no idea how the President managed to carry VA twice in a row, but I suspect doing the proportional thing there would be kind of a wash. Florida, too.
WE should all be "careful what we wish for". Frankly WE need to have public funding of elections, nationalized standards for voting, and an inability to gerrymander the maps for either side, period!
Democrats around the nation need to get a spine, WE the PEOPLE need to organize around the "common ground" issues that are facing US all.
Americans all need to recognize that the GOTP is bought & paid for by the 2%, and that there are democrats that will sell-out just to keep their interests.
WE the PEOPLE must start organizing and demanding our democracy be returned to US!
Every day a thousand republicans pass away, and are replaced by a thousand democrats turning 18. Time is on our side.
Your comment is the only thing today that gives me hope. Thank you.
He carried it because VA has been on a tear to be the prime location for government offices and the people that work in them. Those people are a) obviously government workers so the anti government agenda of the GOP today doesn't sit well and b) largely urban in nature, which is pretty much the gop/democratic divide today in those swing states.
In the case of the prime location bit, its VA doing themselves in as a GOP stronghold.
Why and how hasn't been gerrymandering been pushed back against? That seems to be one of the roots of the problem right there.
Just curious why this isn't being forced further, unless the democrats are complacently relaxed about also having districts they don't have to challenge in...
But now we're seeing the fruits of that, and they're bitter...
In Ohio there was an issue for the state to hire a non-partisan committee to draw the districts. It was voted down in the last election. I wasn't even aware it was on the ballot until I was voting. That is very bad. Unless the fine print of the bill stunk, the Ohio dems should have been making alot of noise about it.
Showing up at the polls in '14 is very important, but still won't undo the damage done in '10, even if we show up in the same numbers we did in November. That's because '10 was a census year; people elected to the state legislatures that year (and, in my own state of VA, in '09) had the perfect opportunity to redistrict/gerrymander and took it. As a consequence, it'll be that much harder to get Dems elected in those new districts, and the chances of stopping the plans to change the rules/rig the '16 presidential elections are very small.
See Rusty Austin's comment above. It's true.
Now that's the kind of abusive highjacking of government and legislative overreach that can make a rational independent (or even a democract) seek the protections of the second amendment!
That's what you get for staying home in 2010. That mid-term was arguably more important than the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.
It is about time the MSM started picking up on the Gerrymandering going on in the states. The district lines in some of these states look like pox marks that are hundreds of miles from each other. I thought doing this was illegal in the first place I guess not anymore.
Districts have to be contiguous. Other than that, they can take just about any shape or distribution of voters based on party registration.
That's what the Dems get for making their displeasure known with Obama's approach to governing and his health care reforms by staying home in 2010.
Gerrymandering must go. There needs to be a limit on the number of straight lines and angles to define a district. Any number of lines can be set, but the lower the number, the more fairly distributed the voters. Setting number of straight lines to four would still allow for long rectangles or parallelograms, but would eliminate the barbells and salamanders designed to pick up 50 votes halfway across the state.
A large reason that the districts have become so lopsided in the past decade or so is that the districts are being drawn by computers.
I know this is a naive thought but I feel as if Democrats need to recruit Republicans that are tired of the radical right, then would not matter if there is gerrymandering? Wouldn't the majority be Democrat, I am in Ohio and wish Ohio was simply a blue state instead of a swing state. I know this is wishful thinking but a person can hope.
national popular vote - can that be a ballot initiative? anyone know if that can get on the ballots for voters to decide, especially in PA, OH, WI, MI, and VA?
This has always been the politics of the right: champion democracy until it makes them win, and turn to fascism when democracy does not work for them. Only civil mobilization can stop them but Americans have no idea of what mobilization is.
What do you think "civil mobilization" means?
I have seen two comments (#3 and #9) mentioning the second amendment.
The republicans want to split the electoral college based on popular vote in swing states, or typically blue states, yet you here nothing about the same type of legislation in red states. It's so obvious with this and gerrymandering they're trying to rig elections in their favor. How is this not illegal?
It's the stupid criminals who brag about their crimes.
Or evil Overlords
I'd have little doubt that privately the GOP is referring to this as "Operation American Apartheid" because that's what they're trying to do -- minority rule of the majority.
The whole article...and the writings of the man who inspired it, Sam Wang of the Princeston Election Constortium.
What happened to one person, one vote?
What happened to free and fair elections?
What happened to the notion that elected officials represent ALL of their constituents, not just the people that voted for them?
Why is it that the party that yells the loudest about their devotion to the Constitution the one that wants to rig the rules to their own advantage?
What would we say about a sports team that wants to change the rules so that they would get an advantage? (For example - a football team that has a terrific place-kicker forcing a change so that field goals are worth 7 points).
Here's a suggestion:
Whenever a group wants to change the rules, they have to explain how they would feel if their opponents tried the same thing.
If the roles were reversed - say the Democrats were in control and were trying to lock in their advantage - how would the Republicans be reacting?
Would Republicans be so enthusiastic about Voter ID restrictions if they thought they would NOT get an advantage?
Look at the history of gun control. Back when the Black Panthers brandished guns (in the 60's), the same people now yelling the loudest against gun control were all for it.
"What happened to one person, one vote?" at least for prez elections, didnt the founders not have this idea? i am not sure about other nat'l offices.
so on SOME level this HAS to be illegal is it not?
The question is what are we DOING about it!?
It's not illegal in Ohio.
Republican mantra: win by any means necessary. It did not work the the last two presidential elections but if they keep it up, who knows what will happen. Right now the score for the presidential slot is: McCain=0+0; Romney=0+0+0; Barack Obama=2wins + 2 inaugurals.
How do people vote for Republicans? This should be the end of them. They know they are not actually popular, so rigging elections is the last straw.
Even Republicans know this is wrong. The lies went deep, they have to lie to perpetrate their schemes.
They are simply dreadful, that's not what we want and definitely not what we need. They have done enough damage, vote them out, recall, impeach for their horrible performance and pledges to Grover Norquist. For that, they should be ousted.
Do you remember the polling after the last election that found that many Republicans were believed that Acorn stole the election for Obama, despite Acorn being long dead? Republicans have been conditioned after years of 'election fraud' propaganda to believe as a matter of course that Democrats never win elections fairly. So I expect that many if not most Republicans will see this as simply a restoration of free and fair elections, rather than as an effort to tend them.
...rather than as an effort to
tendend them.I know, my spell check gets me in trouble quite a bit.
Yes, I keep trying to get folks to stop buying the b.s being flung about. They just want to buy something that is completely false.
Attempts to get folks to consider it may be mind conditioning and accepting control by authoritarians are also rejected. I think it's the only hope. Talking about why would you trust someone that lies so much and tries to shape your mind a certain way.
I am aware people have a tendency of bias, as I am biased. I don't accept everything, though. I check it out.
Have you not heard the rhetoric coming from the ultra cons: Obama means the end of America, FEMA is setting up concentration camps, death panels, martial law in one year. The craziness goes on and on. Even a cursory glance through youtube postings shows just how many Americans actually do believe this utter nonsense. One of the most terrifying things I saw were the images of Republicans weaping when
Romney lost. Desperate people will do anything to try to save themselves if they believe they are actually in danger, and these fools actually believe they are in personal danger from Obama and the Democratic party. You don't have to be crazy to be ultra radical, you just have to believe the crazies.
Lets just hope they never learn to fly a commercial airliner.
one of those supposed FEMA camps was apparently the home address of a tea party activist, which I thought was quite funny.
Why would anyone want to be on the opposite side of Fox New's continual abasement and ridicule of anyone not like them? Liberals have long been the ones those chiselbrains beat on...we're used to it. But a Republican who's spent years soaking up the false accolades that Fox throws at them: a winner, a patriot, God's chosen, and continually correct personal opinions, would crack at the sudden extraction from lies unto truth if they so much as stuck a toe outside the Fox bubble.
People have been poorly educated for the last 40 years. A large portion can not read well enough to comprehend the meaning of the words. This is the same reason they watch the news on channels that tell them what to think. They need the talking heads like Rush Limbaugh to tell them how they should feel and think about the news in politics. Then these ignorant people go vote just like they have been told too.
Yes I've heard that the President is all those things.
I am just trying to plant a few seeds so they may grow in some minds, but the field is still too full of weeds. I keep hoping. Try to remove the weeds, but so many folks seems to adore those things. Admiring the weeds, ignoring and tearing out the corn.
I am aware this is an unlikely thing, but not impossible.
Yup, if it were up to the Republiturds, only Republiturds would have the right to vote and if they had their true wish granted, NO ONE BUT Republiturds would have a say in any voting process in the United States at all. But you say that to a Teabagger and they will start frothing at the mouth like a rabid disability check recipient and scream out profanities about Obama.
Gamesmanship. Anything to win, regardless of how it affects the people involved, the country or the cosmos. It's a horrible thing to be ashamed you're a human.
Wondering if the the majority of Democrats and Independents who agreed with the Rebublican's Voter ID Laws across the nation in the run up to the last Presidential election will finally get it?!!