Hixter Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 A government only works when all people are being represented properly. When people are excluded from the process, regardless of political affiliation, it is bad. Democrats in the south were represented properly and were not excluded from the process, they merely lost the election. All elections have a winner and a loser. It sounds like sour grapes to me, since I don't recall any of the Dem leadership lamenting the plight of the nation's Republicans after President Obama won the election with barely 51% of the vote. Half the country didn't support Obamacare, but the administration rammed it through after having to bribe a couple of its own party members. Let's face it: the Democratic party was dominant in the south for decades, but their words, policies and actions have alienated much of the population. They can still win it back, but it won't be by taking their guns, mocking their religion, or calling them racists. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Democrats in the south were represented properly and were not excluded from the process, they merely lost the election. Yes, they lost the election, that is true. I am not disputing that. There were winners and losers. But can you really call yourself a winner when you have the deck stacked in your favor? I referenced Austin, which clearly is a set of gerrymandered districts and does not representative of the people of Austin. How is that ok? How does that good for or government? Is it ok because people in power are closely aligned with your political world view? How can you decry San Antonio incorporating your town, with out you having a say, but be ok with a city not being represented in congress. It is not about parties, it is about representation. There is a system in place that actively thwarts the efforts to have a true representation in our government. I mentioned them before, gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, campaign finance laws, and voter apathy. Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted December 11, 2014 Author Share Posted December 11, 2014 Let's face it: the Democratic party was dominant in the south for decades, but their words, policies and actions have alienated much of the population. They can still win it back, but it won't be by taking their guns, mocking their religion, or calling them racists. Interesting. My mom's family lived on a farm here in Texas. Later in his life, my maternal grandfather (who is long dead) ran for land commissioner. He and all of his friends were die-hard democrats. They would have sooner dressed in drag than vote for a republican. They also used the "n" word and had zero interest in racial or gender equality, and I'm pretty sure they would have shot a homosexual had one ever dared to walk onto their property. that all shifted at some point before I was old enough to have any interest in politics. My mom is now a Fox news watching die hard conservative. Family gatherings are interesting. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 I referenced Austin, which clearly is a set of gerrymandered districts and does not representative of the people of Austin. You also failed to mention that Austin has a Democratic congressman, so it's not as if they are only represented by Republicans. And, as you've said, the south is a diverse place and it's not as if there aren't any conservatives in the Austin area. I'm no fan of gerrymandering by either party, so it would be fine if Austinites were to challenge it in court and get their very own Democratic congressman. The original discussion was about the lack of Democrats in the senate and governors' mansions in the south, so there can't be any complaints about gerrymandering in those statewide elections. Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 The ACLU is now saying that Obama should pardon Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, etc.How do you pardon people who have never been (and almost certainly aren't going to be) charged with a crime? Link to post Share on other sites
Diddle Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Don't underestimate Obama. Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 While it sounds sorta loopy, offering a pardon to those war criminals could stain their reputations in history. If that's the best justice we can offer, Obama should go for it. Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 While it sounds sorta loopy, offering a pardon to those war criminals could stain their reputations in history. If that's the best justice we can offer, Obama should go for it. I think that would set a precedent that would quickly reach the point of absurdity. Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 The fact that we haven't prosecuted the prior administration for war crimes is absurd and disappointing. Anyone know if the unholy trinity of bush, rumsfeld and cheney can travel to Europe without being arrested yet? Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Don't underestimate Obama. Well, there's this Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 How do you pardon people who have never been (and almost certainly aren't going to be) charged with a crime?A presidential pardon is immunity from any charges, past or future, at the discretion of the president. I agree that it would stain their reputation, but these assholes would wear it like a badge of honor. Did anyone see Cheney on Fox last night? Despicable, unrepentant, arrogant & evil. Can't wait for that man to die in the most painful way possible. Really. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 How do you pardon people who have never been (and almost certainly aren't going to be) charged with a crime?Gerald Ford knew a thing or two about this. Link to post Share on other sites
Diddle Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 A presidential pardon is immunity from any charges, past or future, at the discretion of the president. I agree that it would stain their reputation, but these assholes would wear it like a badge of honor. Did anyone see Cheney on Fox last night? Despicable, unrepentant, arrogant & evil. Can't wait for that man to die in the most painful way possible. Really. What should he be repentant for? Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 lying about almost everything, for starters. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Detaining, torturing, and in some cases murdering innocent people. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Detaining, torturing, and in some cases murdering innocent people.He shot a man in the face, but I can't remember him murdering anyone. Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 I'd say cheney has some of the blood of every person killed in Iraq on his hands, friend and foe. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 He shot a man in the face, but I can't remember him murdering anyone.Please. So you think he bears no responsibility for our post 9/11 actions? Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 murder's a strong word though. indirectly responsible for innocent people dying? yes. were they individually pre-mediated? he'd list under collateral damage, i'm sure. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 murder's a strong word though. indirectly responsible for innocent people dying? yes. were they individually pre-mediated? he'd list under collateral damage, i'm sure.I don't make a distinction. If I were to order a hit on someone and was caught, I'd be charged with murder. Cheney and his gang orchestrated this entire program. This blood is on their hands. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 well, that's the rub....'ordering a hit' is pretty specific to a specific individual, which imo isn't what Cheney and Rumsfeld et al did. trust me, i am certainly no Cheney supporter. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 By that same logic Osama Bin Laden was an innocent man. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 i'm not debating innocence vs guilt here. the exact word we are wrangling over is "murder." which is why there are terms like homicide, involuntarily manslaughter, etc. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 the exact word we are wrangling over is "murder." which is why there are terms like homicide, involuntarily manslaughter, etc.Yep. Link to post Share on other sites
Diddle Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 indirectly responsible for innocent people dying? yes. were they individually pre-mediated? he'd list under collateral damage, i'm sure. Same as drones, no? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts