VOTE! Election thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

What will be the results of todays vote?

  • Trump wins big

    Votes: 11 14.1%
  • Trump wins small

    Votes: 12 15.4%
  • No decision by tomorrow morning

    Votes: 29 37.2%
  • Biden wins small

    Votes: 17 21.8%
  • Biden wins big

    Votes: 9 11.5%

  • Total voters
    78
Status
Not open for further replies.

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,830
32,795
1,743
oklahoma city
Sad. I would think this was something that most people could get behind and I believe making sure that we have fair and transparent elections would be under the purvey of the government. As long as they give the states leeway in how to enact those changes.
Sounds like you have decided to get behind a federal education department making sure that state and local governments educate all American kids correctly? And, you have also gotten behind the EPA making sure that our environment is protected? As long as those agencies give states leeway in how to enact their changes, we should all get behind those things or it is "sad" right?
 

CowboyOrangeFan

Mmmm, yeah.
A/V Subscriber
Jun 9, 2006
5,323
3,579
1,743
Florida
I think Term Limits would go a LONG way toward ensuring fair and free elections.
IMHO we already have term limits. They are called elections.

If you force stupid people to continually choose new stupid people, then all you really do is lose the experience that one of those stupid people might have actually learned from. Guaranteeing that you get rid of anyone who might actually be doing a good job.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the idea of career politicians either. It’s just that I also believe in the law of unintended consequences. Which term limits reek of.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,713
244
1,693
Denver
From an October 19th Politico article - quotes are from Patrisse Cullors -- the co-founder of BLM. They sound EXTREMELY political to me.

On the heels of nearly six months of nationwide demonstrations that sparked an international movement against systemic racism and police violence, Black Lives Matter is expanding its influence into politics by forming a political action committee -- a highly unusual move for a grassroots organizing group with no central leadership.
The Black Lives Matter PAC will formally roll out its programs as early as Monday, according to Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of Black Lives Matter. The committee plans to endorse a slate of candidates ahead of the general election, paying special attention to mayoral, county sheriff and district attorney races.


“We want to be able to not just speak in ‘get out the vote’ language,” Cullors said in an interview with POLITICO. “Black Lives Matter is launching our PAC so we can talk directly to voters about who we think that they should be voting for and what we think they should be voting on.”

n Thursday the Working Families Party announced its 2021 legislative proposal in partnership with Black Lives Matter leaders and progressive organizing groups. The platform has the support of several progressive lawmakers, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

"The goal of the PAC is to put more candidates who align with Black Lives Matter's goals in office".
It definitely got moved into politics. Still even there in the article it talks that after the protests and such they were expanding into politics. It didn't start that way. So if a movement can exists for 6 months and then move into politics it is not totally political. Which was my point. Where as MAGA was literally founded by a politician for politics.

Hell my company has a PAC. Are they partially political sure but that is way down the list of priorities and they are not a political entity. Kinda like BLM.
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
10,279
6,642
1,743
Piedmont, OK
Sad. I would think this was something that most people could get behind and I believe making sure that we have fair and transparent elections would be under the purvey of the government. As long as they give the states leeway in how to enact those changes.
It's not "those changes" that are the issue. It's "those changes" coming from the federal government to tell the states how to run their elections. I would think that's something most Republicans would NOT get behind.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,830
32,795
1,743
oklahoma city
It's not "those changes" that are the issue. It's "those changes" coming from the federal government to tell the states how to run their elections. I would think that's something most Republicans would NOT get behind.
Even the people that vaguely claim they want "small government" are very frequently for a big government but only a big government of things they personally like.
 

snuffy

Calf fries are the original sack lunch.
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Feb 28, 2007
38,040
31,201
1,743
Oklahoma
https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1351599776798814210
I am trying to remember, if a member of congress is indicted doesn’t congress have to try they, remove them so they can then be tried in the appropriate place, Federal court I think.
 

Birry

Federal Marshal
Feb 6, 2007
13,306
7,234
1,743
Landlocked
Sad. I would think this was something that most people could get behind and I believe making sure that we have fair and transparent elections would be under the purvey of the government. As long as they give the states leeway in how to enact those changes.
I don't think people even care if things are fair anymore. Nor do they want "freedom" or "equality". The extreme tribalism has made people expedient. So they only want whatever it is that they want, and they want it today. If they don't get it, they'll freak out and maybe destroy something or become violent. To hell with anyone else, and to hell with future consequences.

We have serious work to do at the basic human level if we ever hope for any of our systems to improve. But the only way any of that can happen is if we look at each other as individual, legitimate humans, and work towards common goals. But......as long as politicians and media benefit from our collective division, it's gonna be a steep uphill battle.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
34,639
10,645
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
I am trying to remember, if a member of congress is indicted doesn’t congress have to try they, remove them so they can then be tried in the appropriate place, Federal court I think.
here is what I found.

There are no federal statutes or Rules of the House of Representatives that directly affect the status of a Member of Congress who has been indicted for a crime that constitutes a felony. No rights or privileges are forfeited under the Constitution, statutory law, or the Rules of the House merely upon an indictment for an offense, prior to an establishment of guilt under the judicial system. Under House Rules, therefore, an indicted Member may continue to participate in congressional proceedings and considerations. Under the Constitution, a person under indictment is not disqualified from being a Member of or a candidate for re-election to Congress. Internal party rules in the House, however, require an indicted chairman or ranking Member of a House committee, or a member of the House party leadership, to temporarily step aside from his or her leadership or chairmanship position. Additionally, a change in rules by the House requires the House Committee on Ethics to either initiate an inquiry by an investigative subcommittee of that Committee within 30 days of the time any Member of the House has been indicted or otherwise charged with criminal conduct in any state or federal court, or to report to the House the Committee’s reasons for not moving forward.
As to a conviction of a crime, Members of Congress do not automatically forfeit their offices upon conviction of a crime that constitutes a felony. No express constitutional disability or “disqualification” from Congress exists for the conviction of a crime, other than under the Fourteenth Amendment for certain treasonous conduct by someone who has taken an oath of office to support the Constitution. Members of the House are, however, instructed by House Rules not to vote in committee or on the House floor once they have been convicted of a crime for which the punishment may be two or more years’ imprisonment. Furthermore, under party rules, Members may lose their chairmanships of committees or ranking member status upon conviction of a felony. Conviction of certain crimes may subject—and has subjected in the past—Members of the House to internal legislative disciplinary proceedings, including resolutions of reprimand or censure, as well as expulsion from the House upon approval of two-thirds of the Members. Conviction of certain crimes relating to national security offenses would result in the Member’s forfeiture of his or her entire federal pension annuity under the provisions of the so-called “Hiss Act” and, under more recent provisions of law, conviction of particular crimes by Members relating to public corruption will result in the loss of the Member’s entire “creditable service” as a Member for purposes of calculating their federal retirement annuities if the conduct underlying the conviction related to one’s official duties.
 
Nov 6, 2010
2,731
999
1,743
Just because someone served doesn't mean they aren't morons. IMHO it's moronic to attempt to storm the capital of the US Government and not expect the full extent of the law to be brought down upon you. That, my friend, is the definition of a "moron."[/QU
IMHO we already have term limits. They are called elections.

If you force stupid people to continually choose new stupid people, then all you really do is lose the experience that one of those stupid people might have actually learned from. Guaranteeing that you get rid of anyone who might actually be doing a good job.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the idea of career politicians either. It’s just that I also believe in the law of unintended consequences. Which term limits reek of.
Never thought of it like that, but you may have a point.
 
Sep 12, 2008
872
258
1,613
https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1351567379558445057
"Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream." -- David Cameron

"[Multiculturalism] is a failure." -- Nicolas Sarkozy

"Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies, and therefore multiculturalism remains a grand delusion." -- Angela Merkel

"Our model is universalist, not multiculturalist." -- Emmanuel Macron
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,631
2,843
1,743
47
DFW
Sad. I would think this was something that most people could get behind and I believe making sure that we have fair and transparent elections would be under the purvey of the government. As long as they give the states leeway in how to enact those changes.
OK. I’ll talk about the elephant (and the donkey) in the room. If you agree with my statement about this being voted down the party line, why do you think Republicans would support it while Democrats won’t? Why did this come out of a Republican caucus?
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,011
20,711
1,743
I am trying to remember, if a member of congress is indicted doesn’t congress have to try they, remove them so they can then be tried in the appropriate place, Federal court I think.
Congresspersons are not exempt from criminal prosecution while in office. They can be tried in federal court or state court (depending on the crime/prosecution authority).
 
Nov 6, 2010
2,731
999
1,743
"Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream." -- David Cameron

"[Multiculturalism] is a failure." -- Nicolas Sarkozy

"Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies, and therefore multiculturalism remains a grand delusion." -- Angela Merkel

"Our model is universalist, not multiculturalist." -- Emmanuel Macron
This is an interesting topic. Have we ever been anything other than "multicultural", however you define that?? I mean a vast country based on immigration is unavoidably multi cultural. I think that term has more meaning in Europe with the smaller countries defined by distinct languages, ethnicities, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.