One person one vote

[Bob806]

59 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

59 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

That isn't right - the will of the minority to initiate a RADICAL initiative, by a slim margin of union block votes and large democratic socialist/radical voting blocks, despite a majority of other folks who OPPOSE that racialism, is greatly enhanced with the slim 51% margin. Bob - if an initiative is valid for the majority, that validity should be passed at 60%. 51% gives the minority large voting blocks tremendous power, which is unfair. At 60% - it far more represents the will of ALL the states' folks, not just unions/college student groups/large leftwing cities.  Your union wants block voting power. They LOSE that power a lot if it is raised to 60%.

In other words - union dominant districts elect union reps. radical dominant districts with large radical populations elect radical leftist reps.

 

I guess I didn't convey my point properly...I'd much rather have the voters get the opportunity to initiate a ballot proposal than have some crazy super PAC do it. 

Additionally, yeah Trumka is a nutjob, but you have nutjobs everywhere, like Soros, the Koch Bros, etc. Unions aren't ever going to match the amount of $$ Soros and the Koch Bros. put up. 

[nickers]

29 minutes ago, Bob806 said:

I guess I didn't convey my point properly...I'd much rather have the voters get the opportunity to initiate a ballot proposal than have some crazy super PAC do it. 

Additionally, yeah Trumka is a nutjob, but you have nutjobs everywhere, like Soros, the Koch Bros, etc. Unions aren't ever going to match the amount of $$ Soros and the Koch Bros. put up. 

And don't forget the Rothchilds who are worth 500 trillion or more... They are in on this too...

[Canton Dawg]

I’m all for making it more difficult to change or add/delete amendments.

If you keep it as a simple majority rule, the incumbent party can change it at will.

I think something as important as that should be a bipartisan consensus.

There’s a reason it’s difficult to change on the Federal level. . .

 

[nickers]

1 minute ago, Canton Dawg said:

I’m all for making it more difficult to change or add/delete amendments.

If you keep it as a simple majority rule, the incumbent part can change it at will.

I think something as important as that should be a bipartisan consensus.

There’s a reason it’s difficult to change on the Federal level. . .

 

I am thankful for the thoroughness our forefathers took to try and protect freedom and the pursuit of happiness and the right to bear arms... And to allow religious freedom so long as it was not a danger to its citizens and other denizens of our society... It's one of the great things I love about this country.. While no one system is ever completely perfect.. I love the general concept that was taken from Grecco/Roman Ideology with several tweaks as it were... I thank my Grand parents on both sides for having the impetus to uproot their lives to give me and my siblings the opportunities we have been afforded... That takes great courage...

[Westside Steve]

1 hour ago, Bob806 said:

I hate that abortion became such a political issue and causes so much division.

Simply put, the economy & safety and security are the main concerns for this voter. I'll never understand how abortion could trump those issues, even after chatting with people who consider that the #1 thing. 

I am with you Bob. No matter what the issue too many people on either side goes straight for the talking point handbook.

We are not nor will we ever met to be a true democracy. I've got my theories as to why but it's a fact nonetheless.

WSS

[nickers]

23 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

I am with you Bob. No matter what the issue too many people on either side goes straight for the talking point handbook.

We are not nor will we ever met to be a true democracy. I've got my theories as to why but it's a fact nonetheless.

WSS

Right on!

[MLD Woody]

2 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Bottom line again nobody gives a fuck about this. It's abortion and I know where you stand. Next time it will be about something else and people will switch hats. Advocates and detractors are mischaracterizing this vote and this measure for their own purposes.

WSS 

 

Ah so "bottom line" you're now completely ignoring the earlier post you made and refusing to acknowledge where it was pointed out as incorrect, gotcha. 

 

Of course the special election is really about abortion. That's the point. Republicans are the ones trying to make people believe it's about out of state influence or whatever (and irs clear from this thread their base is falling for that). 

 

If this was proposed in a vacuum it would be one thing. But it is being proposed by republicans as a last ditch attempt to stop the will of the majority of Ohioans. But Reps are all about pushing things through that the majority doesn't agree with so... here we are. 

[Westside Steve]

35 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Ah so "bottom line" you're now completely ignoring the earlier post you made and refusing to acknowledge where it was pointed out as incorrect, gotcha. 

 

Of course the special election is really about abortion. That's the point. Republicans are the ones trying to make people believe it's about out of state influence or whatever (and irs clear from this thread their base is falling for that). 

 

If this was proposed in a vacuum it would be one thing. But it is being proposed by republicans as a last ditch attempt to stop the will of the majority of Ohioans. But Reps are all about pushing things through that the majority doesn't agree with so... here we are. 

Not sure why you insist on bickering over nothing. I know you're kind of obsessed with Republicans and I know abortion is one of your bigger issues, it just isn't mine. Maybe you actually believe that a simple majority is a better way to decide constitutional matters than a 60/40 vote. If you do feel free to make your point.

My guess is that regardless of the party that wants the nuclear option in any situation is doing it so they don't have to gain widespread support for whatever issue it may be. If you don't think so that's life.

However it's worded and whomever is in favor I just think that a 60/40 vote gives whichever side is advocating something a higher bar to attain. That's it.

WSS

[FY56]

When democrats are unanimous on an issue, go the opposite way.

This appears to be a pro-active approach by the Reps to protect the Constitution from the ever-growing leftist lunacy that's out there. 

[calfoxwc]

8 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

It's concerning how much you're just repeating yourself now. 

 

But fyi, as much as you hate this, the votes of union members, college students, and city folk don't count for less. 50k voters all living in Cleveland count the same as 50k voters scattered across the countryside. Just because you don't like how someone votes doesn't mean their vote counts for less (radical concept for conservatives, I know, considering their current love for voter suppression and gerrymandering). 

AGAIN, as most al lhe time, you miss the point. I don't even think it's on purpose anymore.

I said BLOCK voting. BOCK. AS in, the entire? union tells all the members to vote a certain way - most of them do it.

I repeat myself beside you and a few others do not listen, don't understand what you read, misinterpret what you read, don't watch any video that comes from any poster that isn't a leftwing emotional knee jerk sombeitch.

I said nothing about union votes counting for less? Are you really mentally challenged or what?

I said those rock solid block votes from certain unions and groups - vote in the 90 percent of what the going groupthink is. Like the clack ommunity in Philly - 98.x % all over dem?

The POINT is, those block voting groups, like you, do not vote on the merits of an issue in regards to helping their country be better. They vote for the lies told to them, and free stuff.

Those groups want ONLY a 51% to have a dramatically better chance of winning elections with their reps in the Ohio House, and if they can get it on the ballot, a huge benefit to getting a bad issue passed. They LOSE control that they have, if a 60% is required to get an issue that they want on the ballot. Their block voting can sway a close election.

That is the point of making the House percentage 60 percent.

You never grasp any issue outside of your own ignorance, ability to think critically.... you just lose out.

[calfoxwc]

7 hours ago, Bob806 said:

I guess I didn't convey my point properly...I'd much rather have the voters get the opportunity to initiate a ballot proposal than have some crazy super PAC do it. 

Additionally, yeah Trumka is a nutjob, but you have nutjobs everywhere, like Soros, the Koch Bros, etc. Unions aren't ever going to match the amount of $$ Soros and the Koch Bros. put up. 

ok, but consider this - passing issue one and making it harder to a few bought off by super pac reps in the House will not be able to make an easy difference, Bob.

Raising it to 60% makes the super pacs influence a hell of a lot harder. They surely won't find that many reps in the House to buy off - we are all safer.

That is my point - pass issue one, don't let special interests have the power to get to 51% so easily.  At least, that is how I see it.

[MLD Woody]

5 hours ago, FY56 said:

When democrats are unanimous on an issue, go the opposite way.

This appears to be a pro-active approach by the Reps to protect the Constitution from the ever-growing leftist lunacy that's out there. 

See also: what the majority of citizens want 

[MLD Woody]

2 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

AGAIN, as most al lhe time, you miss the point. I don't even think it's on purpose anymore.

I said BLOCK voting. BOCK. AS in, the entire? union tells all the members to vote a certain way - most of them do it.

I repeat myself beside you and a few others do not listen, don't understand what you read, misinterpret what you read, don't watch any video that comes from any poster that isn't a leftwing emotional knee jerk sombeitch.

I said nothing about union votes counting for less? Are you really mentally challenged or what?

I said those rock solid block votes from certain unions and groups - vote in the 90 percent of what the going groupthink is. Like the clack ommunity in Philly - 98.x % all over dem?

The POINT is, those block voting groups, like you, do not vote on the merits of an issue in regards to helping their country be better. They vote for the lies told to them, and free stuff.

Those groups want ONLY a 51% to have a dramatically better chance of winning elections with their reps in the Ohio House, and if they can get it on the ballot, a huge benefit to getting a bad issue passed. They LOSE control that they have, if a 60% is required to get an issue that they want on the ballot. Their block voting can sway a close election.

That is the point of making the House percentage 60 percent.

You never grasp any issue outside of your own ignorance, ability to think critically.... you just lose out.

Oh fuck off you delusional old man

- you never had any problem with the simple majority until you were told to. And you fell in line. 

- conservatives are proactively "protecting" the constitution from what the majority of people want

- as if you and other far right weirdos don't vote as some block either haha. This is coming from the guy that didn't like trump, called trump out, called him a con man. Etc. Then you know what this proud, free thinking lion did? He fell in line and voted with the rest of his block

[MLD Woody]

Conservatives are great at

- falling for grifts

- getting fear mongered 

- playing the victim card

- and acting like their belief is what the majority of Americans want but it isn't even close. Because they live sheltered little lives in their Facebook echo chambers 

[Westside Steve]

9 hours ago, Bob806 said:

I hate that abortion became such a political issue and causes so much division.

Simply put, the economy & safety and security are the main concerns for this voter. I'll never understand how abortion could trump those issues, even after chatting with people who consider that the #1 thing. 

 

- falling for grifts

Like Dylan Mulvaney Joe Biden Kamala Harris Al Sharpton

- getting fear mongered 

Watch out now here come de white supremacists!

- playing the victim card

Y'all gots to support me for the next 500 years cuz my great-great-great baby daddy was a slave!

- and acting like their belief is what the majority of Americans want but it isn't even close. 

Probably not even close. Men have dicks women have pussies. Or Caitlin Jenner is a woman and George Floyd is a hero. Or the government owes everybody a living. Or men should be competing with women in sports. Or the federal government should pay for sexual mutilation of children .  Or I'd be happy to pay 10 bucks a gallon for gasoline if it will piss off the oil companies even if it doesn't solve global warming or make a dent in it. Or we owe Negroes and Indians reparations. And on and on and on

WSS

[FY56]

2 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Conservatives are great at

- falling for grifts

- getting fear mongered 

- playing the victim card

- and acting like their belief is what the majority of Americans want but it isn't even close. Because they live sheltered little lives in their Facebook echo chambers 

Liberals are great at accusing others of what they do or what they are.

If Steve's examples aren't enough, I'd gladly contribute more.

[Canton Dawg]

10 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

But Reps are all about pushing things through that the majority doesn't agree with so... here we are. 

And the Dims ran Obamacare up our collective asses…so there’s that.

[FY56]

4 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

See also: what the majority of citizens want 

The mindset is that the value of human life is not up for debate.

1. It's true that a significant majority of Ohioans polled approve of the Nov. amendment to "protect the autonomy on matters such as abortion."

2.What appears antithetical is that exactly half agree with further restrictions on abortion that are currently in place.

3. And by a tiny majority, Ohioans say yes to Issue 1.

#'s 2 and 3 don't quite add up to #1 do they?

 

Where Ohioans stand on abortion and Issue 1 (nbc4i.com)

[MLD Woody]

51 minutes ago, FY56 said:

The mindset is that the value of human life is not up for debate.

1. It's true that a significant majority of Ohioans polled approve of the Nov. amendment to "protect the autonomy on matters such as abortion."

2.What appears antithetical is that exactly half agree with further restrictions on abortion that are currently in place.

3. And by a tiny majority, Ohioans say yes to Issue 1.

#'s 2 and 3 don't quite add up to #1 do they?

 

Where Ohioans stand on abortion and Issue 1 (nbc4i.com)

Because issue 1 isn't openly called an abortion bill. If you're not following politics it isn't clear what the purpose is. And it's clear the purpose is just an initial step to ultimately attack reproductive rights 

[Vambo]

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

Because issue 1 isn't openly called an abortion bill. If you're not following politics it isn't clear what the purpose is. And it's clear the purpose is just an initial step to ultimately attack reproductive rights 

 

[MLD Woody]

"the constitution isn't a living breathing document. It's perfect as is. Our founding fathers knew exactly what we needed to do!!"

 

"We need to change the Ohio constitution. Because, uh, outside influence and stuff!"

 

 

Love it

[Westside Steve]

13 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

"the constitution isn't a living breathing document. It's perfect as is. Our founding fathers knew exactly what we needed to do!!"

 

"We need to change the Ohio constitution. Because, uh, outside influence and stuff!"

 

 

Love it

Well it's actually both. Yes there are proper channels written into the system to make changing the Constitution possible. The 60/40 split makes it a lot harder to do for a reason.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

13 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Well it's actually both. Yes there are proper channels written into the system to make changing the Constitution possible. The 60/40 split makes it a lot harder to do for a reason.

WSS

It's ok to change a constitution if that change is to make it harder to change ... 

[Westside Steve]

2 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

It's ok to change a constitution if that change is to make it harder to change ... 

If you're being serious I agree. That's how the national Constitution is.

[nickers]

2 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

If you're being serious I agree. That's how the national Constitution is.

If that's the case then they should quit trying to kill the 1st and 2nd amendment... yet.. they keep trying to change everything

[Westside Steve]

5 minutes ago, nickers said:

If that's the case then they should quit trying to kill the 1st and 2nd amendment... yet.. they keep trying to change everything

They really don't have to eliminate those two. They can water them down to the point that they're basically meaningless.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

11 minutes ago, nickers said:

If that's the case then they should quit trying to kill the 1st and 2nd amendment... yet.. they keep trying to change everything

How exactly are they trying to kill those two amendments? 

[Canton Dawg]

7 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

How exactly are they trying to kill those two amendments? 

You gotta be fucking kidding me? 😂🤣

[nickers]

2 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said:

You gotta be fucking kidding me? 😂🤣

He's a tard... It's too hard for him...

[Bob806]

Back to the original topic lol.

Bottom right is the reason to vote "no."