HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Samantha » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 9,314

Journal Archives

Candidly, I do not see the necessity at this time for "Shared Sacrifice"

It has been reported frequently that 93 percent of the proceeds in this recovery from this near-depression has been reaped by the wealthy. During the recession's continuation, the middle class and the impoverished have continued to suffer. Many have lost their jobs, lost their health care and their homes. Poverty has increased.

The middle class and the indigent have already taken their turn at sacrificing. Now it is time for the wealthy to step up to the plate and take their turn. This also includes corporations that pay no taxes, as well as corporations that pay no taxes and additionally receive subsidies from the U.S. Government.

To date since the inception of this Bush-caused recession there has been no shared sacrifice. So why it so important to start that now? Let those who have already sacrificed be protected from further financial harm and demand that those who have benefited step up to the plate and take their rightful turn.


The Bush Tax Cuts in 2001 and the renewal in 2003 were passed through reconciliation

Both times only 51 votes were required. 51 votes. The original Bush Tax Cuts were passed with a vote of 58 to 33. The second time in 2003 was much more controversial because of the ongoing wars but it passed by a vote of 51 to 50. How is that possible, you ask. Cheney cast the deciding vote to break the tie.

Passing a controversial piece of legislation by 51 votes is smart politics when Republicans do it. But when Democrats do it, Republicans react in anger with threats of retaliation and bringing the government to a halt.

Okay for Republicans but not okay for Democrats. See the difference?


Every state in the United States must adhere to its state constitution with regard to selecting

it's slate of electors. Each state constitution requires that the outcome of the popular vote determines the slate of electors (the one exception, I believe, is Maine). If a state does not abide by its state constitution, its slate can simply be discounted by the Electoral College, which is presided over by the Vice President of the United States....

From Article II, Section 1, paragraph 3, of the Constitution:

"...and they [meaning the electors, the party of which has previously been decided as a result of the outcome of the popular vote (except Maine)] shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and the Number of Votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify; and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate (Joe Biden). The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all of the Certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be President, if such Number shall be a majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed, and if there be more than one that have such majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot; one of them for President." (emphasis added)

I am going to stop quoting here to make a point. I believe any state that refuses to participate as mentioned in the thread above, is disqualified from having a slate of electors counted in the official count over which the Vice President presides.

Those states deliberately not participating are in violation of the terms of the U.S. Constitution, which violation does not give the legislatures of those state the right to rewrite the rules enumerated in our Constitution in order to effectuate the selection of a candidate not property elected by the laws in place.

What should happen then is those slates would be discarded and the number of votes required to be President would be a majority of those officially counted. When the language in the U.S. Constitution says the person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such a number be the majority of the whole number of electors appointed, that only includes the slates in the official count, not the other electors votes who were not forwarded to the President of the Senate as required by the highest law of the land. Whoever devised this scheme is counting those electors in the whole number, but it seems to me their participation is thrown out because the rules of the Constitution were deliberately violated.

How does one plan to violate the Constitution and win by rewriting the rules? If Romney's slates of the electors are not forwarded to be included in the official count, the only ones the Vice-President presiding over the Senate receives would be those for President Obama (plus the slate forwarded by Maine, assuming that state is participating).

Can you say "Safe Harbor?"

Furthermore, there is zero wiggle room to change a state constitution after an election but before the Electoral College vote. Just thought I would mention that before I see someone suggest it. Any changes to a state constitution from hereon out would become applicable to the next election, not this one.


Rove is talking about Hamilton County in that meltdown video

The minute he said Hamilton, that rang a bell. I did not finish the video but stopped to see what county Romney's son is invested in voting machines. Here is a link:


"Hart InterCivic is an Austin-based voting machine company that serves local governments nationwide. Its clients include Hamilton County, Ohio, which administers elections in Cincinnati. Hart InterCivic also has in its DNA just enough traces of Bain & Co. and Mitt Romney campaign donors to trigger serious angst in the liberal blogosphere about the fate of Ohio’s must-have 18 electoral votes."

I cannot say I have thoroughly researched this, but it is difficult to believe this is a coincidence. If you are one of the DU'ers that has thoroughly researched this, perhaps you can post some thoughts on this thread.


Something unexpected happened to me as I voted this morning

In College Park, Maryland, the polls opened this morning at 7:00 a.m. I left my home and arrived at 6:50 a.m. prepared for a long wait. To my joy, the doors were opened and the line was inside along with the warmth of the building. People were polite. The man in front of me opened the door for me and allowed me to get in front of him in line. I eyed the numbers in the hallway and the snake around the corner, but I could not tell how many were in the voting room itself.

Soon the line started to move, and it kept moving. Ten minutes later, I was at the table where they checked my registration. They only asked my name and address and then found my listing in the database. At that point, I was only asked my date of birth. They printed a receipt and asked me to sign it, and at that point I was handed my access card for the machine. I was never asked to provide identification.

That line moved quickly as well. Finally, I stood in front of the machine and accessed my ballot. I had studied the sample ballot so I could move through the process quickly. When I finished, I reviewed all of my choices.

At that point, I focused only on the names of Barack Obama and Joe Biden for President and Vice President. And that is when something unexpected happened.

It must have been the emotion of the moment, all the pent-up turmoil over the worrying about the outcome of this election, the sleepless nights, the late-nite postings here, all of this welled up inside and I cried.

I cried with pride for the privilege of casting my vote for a great President, Barack Obama. I knew when I saw his name this would be the last time I would have that privilege. So it was with both joy and sorrow I cast my ballot and walked away.

Time elapsed from when I entered the door until I left: 40 minutes. Every state should have this type of process available for its citizens to exercise their right to vote. That is one of the reasons I am proud to live in the blue state of Maryland.

I found my car and sat there for a moment to reflect. Well, I have done my part, President Barack Obama, but I know it was just a small measure compared to what you have done for this Country. Thank you for everything you have given this Nation.


Ashley Judd to run against Mitch McConnell in 2016?

Just presented by Fineman on Chris Matthews' show is the rumor that the monied people in Kentucky want Judd to defeat McConnell in 2016. He said she is from Kentucky and the movement is on to get her to run.

That would be a political dream come true.

What great news!

Go to Page: 1