Shop More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 18, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 190

Republicans don't change their stupid platform, instead they want to change election laws.

:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013

After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.

Republican state legislators, governors and veteran political strategists are seriously considering making the shift as the GOP looks to rebound from presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Electoral College shellacking and the demographic changes that threaten the party's long-term political prospects.

So far, Republicans have only advocated for the change in states that have supported Democrats in recent elections.


That's right. When the party of grey haired men lose elections because of their stupid beliefs, pathetic economic plans, unreasonable social agenda, and lack of empathy for the masses they do not change their ways and adapt to modern society. No, instead they want to change the rules in their favor.

Bravo! Bravo!

Here's a George Washington quote about political parties:

The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.


[link]

Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:icondebit:
Debit Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Well ... even back in the Bush Era, GOP was really a FrankenGOP: a) Social conservatives, b) Fiscal conservatives, c) Pro-MICE (military industrial congressional enterprise), d) Pro-Big Business. Notice that their agendas do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. For example, while the folks from (c) are into US military interventions, (b) are against it, while (d) largely do not care. The same with folks from (a). The other groups are not that much interested in social and religious conservatism. I think what eventually hurt GOP was the preponderance of social conservatives.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
What if a b c and d mated?:P
Reply
:icondebit:
Debit Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I never thought GOP is into swinging, wife-swapping, and even group-sex, until now. Very naughty, naughty .... :P
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2013
Well if one of them was forcing his mistress to get abortions, I can't rule out swinging.
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
Considering the fact that the two states (Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996) that already use the Congressional District Method as an alternative to the winner take all methodology of the other 48 states and DC, only Barack Obama has split the vote in either state. Either this action by the GOP will not pan out as they hope or they recognize that states are beginning to buck the whole "solidarity" trend when it comes to presidential elections.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
"or they recognize that states are beginning to buck the whole "solidarity" trend when it comes to presidential elections."

No. They're not that progressive. It's all about weakening electoral college votes in states that vote Blue while trying to keep all the electoral college votes in states that vote Red.
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
And that is a perfectly legal maneuver.
Reply
:iconmclandis:
Mclandis Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Gerrymandering is legal too. Doesn't make it ethical.
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
The Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that manipulating district borders to give an advantage to one political party was unconstitutional.
Reply
:iconrestinmotion:
RestInMotion Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2013
Funny, because states still do it on a regular basis. I take it you haven't taken a gander at Florida's district lines.
Reply
Add a Comment: