Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Conservative65]

They will of the Republic, which is for the people and by the people.

no one is questioning that. however, it is not the will of the People.

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

The CONSTITUTION says the electoral votes chooses the President. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you hate the Constitution?

Because he didn't get his way and now he is crying, if the situation was reversed he would have been praising the Electoral College and the process. If that is all you got, then that is all you got.

How long are these idiots going to bring up popular votes when the Constitution says absolutely nothing about them when it comes to choosing the President. It's safe to safe when the founders created a system where each State got electoral votes based on representation in Congress they didn't consider the concept of using popular votes to determine how those electoral votes within each State would be decided. The choice to use popular votes to determine how a State's electoral votes are decided is a State decision not one set by the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

isn't the will of the People a more popular mandate than the will of the electoral college?

They will of the Republic, which is for the people and by the people.

no one is questioning that. however, it is not the will of the People.

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

 

[Conservative65]

No, the college votes the way the people voted. That's the way it's supposed to be.

the electoral college is distinct from the popular vote.

Please log off and go read your Constitution.

i already did; that is why i noticed you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. did you have a point to make?

Apparently you haven't. The Constitution says electoral votes determine the President. It says nothing about popular votes playing a role in the process. That states use the popular vote to determine how their electoral votes are decided is a choice of the STATES not a mandate by the Constitution.

The People is not the same as the Electoral College. That is the Only point I make.

You keep bringing up popular votes. Popular votes don't determine the President, electoral votes do. That is the point I made and the only valid one.

 

[Conservative65]

They will of the Republic, which is for the people and by the people.

no one is questioning that. however, it is not the will of the People.

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

The point is that the CONSTITUTION says electoral votes matter and make no mention of popular votes when it comes to choosing a President. That's all that matters.

Piss off little boy. Your bitch lost.

 

[danielpalos]

no one is questioning that. however, it is not the will of the People.

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

The CONSTITUTION says the electoral votes chooses the President. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you hate the Constitution?

Because he didn't get his way and now he is crying, if the situation was reversed he would have been praising the Electoral College and the process. If that is all you got, then that is all you got.

How long are these idiots going to bring up popular votes when the Constitution says absolutely nothing about them when it comes to choosing the President. It's safe to safe when the founders created a system where each State got electoral votes based on representation in Congress they didn't consider the concept of using popular votes to determine how those electoral votes within each State would be decided. The choice to use popular votes to determine how a State's electoral votes are decided is a State decision not one set by the Constitution.

it is about the right's claim to any popular mandate.

 

[danielpalos]

the electoral college is distinct from the popular vote.

Please log off and go read your Constitution.

i already did; that is why i noticed you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. did you have a point to make?

Apparently you haven't. The Constitution says electoral votes determine the President. It says nothing about popular votes playing a role in the process. That states use the popular vote to determine how their electoral votes are decided is a choice of the STATES not a mandate by the Constitution.

The People is not the same as the Electoral College. That is the Only point I make.

You keep bringing up popular votes. Popular votes don't determine the President, electoral votes do. That is the point I made and the only valid one.

so, no popular mandate; i got it.

 

[danielpalos]

no one is questioning that. however, it is not the will of the People.

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

The point is that the CONSTITUTION says electoral votes matter and make no mention of popular votes when it comes to choosing a President. That's all that matters.

Piss off little boy. Your bitch lost.

An electoral college mandate is not the same as a popular mandate.

 

[Conservative65]

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

The CONSTITUTION says the electoral votes chooses the President. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you hate the Constitution?

Because he didn't get his way and now he is crying, if the situation was reversed he would have been praising the Electoral College and the process. If that is all you got, then that is all you got.

How long are these idiots going to bring up popular votes when the Constitution says absolutely nothing about them when it comes to choosing the President. It's safe to safe when the founders created a system where each State got electoral votes based on representation in Congress they didn't consider the concept of using popular votes to determine how those electoral votes within each State would be decided. The choice to use popular votes to determine how a State's electoral votes are decided is a State decision not one set by the Constitution.

it is about the right's claim to any popular mandate.

It's about the right's claim that electoral votes not popular votes determine who is President.

 

[Conservative65]

Please log off and go read your Constitution.

i already did; that is why i noticed you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. did you have a point to make?

Apparently you haven't. The Constitution says electoral votes determine the President. It says nothing about popular votes playing a role in the process. That states use the popular vote to determine how their electoral votes are decided is a choice of the STATES not a mandate by the Constitution.

The People is not the same as the Electoral College. That is the Only point I make.

You keep bringing up popular votes. Popular votes don't determine the President, electoral votes do. That is the point I made and the only valid one.

so, no popular mandate; i got it.

It's an electoral college vote mandate and according to the Constitution that's all that matters. Are you too stupid to realize that is how it works?

 

[Conservative65]

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

The point is that the CONSTITUTION says electoral votes matter and make no mention of popular votes when it comes to choosing a President. That's all that matters.

Piss off little boy. Your bitch lost.

An electoral college mandate is not the same as a popular mandate.

An electoral college mandate is what determines who wins. Sorry little boy but that's how the Constitution set it up.

Face it, your bitch lost.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They will of the Republic, which is for the people and by the people.

no one is questioning that. however, it is not the will of the People.

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

The difference is both candidates ran to get the most electoral college votes--not the popular vote. Now if Trump ran to get the most people, he might have just won that battle too. But he didn't campaign for that. He campaigned to get the most electoral college votes.

Since both candidates were campaigning for the same thing, it's more than a fair contest. The popular vote is irrelevant because that was not the goal of either candidate.

What you're trying to say is that Trump won the election the way we've always had them, but Hillary won by a different set of rules. You can't change the rules after the game--only before.

 

[bodecea]

our are kids being taught that Christopher Columbus was worse than Hitler ??

Well, they definitely aren't being taught that Muslim depredations and violence were the primary reason Columbus made his voyage.

Where the heck did you get that?

 

[danielpalos]

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

The CONSTITUTION says the electoral votes chooses the President. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you hate the Constitution?

Because he didn't get his way and now he is crying, if the situation was reversed he would have been praising the Electoral College and the process. If that is all you got, then that is all you got.

How long are these idiots going to bring up popular votes when the Constitution says absolutely nothing about them when it comes to choosing the President. It's safe to safe when the founders created a system where each State got electoral votes based on representation in Congress they didn't consider the concept of using popular votes to determine how those electoral votes within each State would be decided. The choice to use popular votes to determine how a State's electoral votes are decided is a State decision not one set by the Constitution.

it is about the right's claim to any popular mandate.

It's about the right's claim that electoral votes not popular votes determine who is President.

our new chief magistrate of the Union was elected by the electoral college, not the popular vote of the whole and entire People.

 

[danielpalos]

i already did; that is why i noticed you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. did you have a point to make?

Apparently you haven't. The Constitution says electoral votes determine the President. It says nothing about popular votes playing a role in the process. That states use the popular vote to determine how their electoral votes are decided is a choice of the STATES not a mandate by the Constitution.

The People is not the same as the Electoral College. That is the Only point I make.

You keep bringing up popular votes. Popular votes don't determine the President, electoral votes do. That is the point I made and the only valid one.

so, no popular mandate; i got it.

It's an electoral college vote mandate and according to the Constitution that's all that matters. Are you too stupid to realize that is how it works?

not the point, for political purposes. winning the office is not the same as having a popular mandate for the office. the electoral college and the People, would have to be on the same page, for that.

 

[danielpalos]

no one is questioning that. however, it is not the will of the People.

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

The difference is both candidates ran to get the most electoral college votes--not the popular vote. Now if Trump ran to get the most people, he might have just won that battle too. But he didn't campaign for that. He campaigned to get the most electoral college votes.

Since both candidates were campaigning for the same thing, it's more than a fair contest. The popular vote is irrelevant because that was not the goal of either candidate.

What you're trying to say is that Trump won the election the way we've always had them, but Hillary won by a different set of rules. You can't change the rules after the game--only before.

the only thing i am trying to say is that the right is simply being disingenuous, like usual, when claiming any popular mandate for their candidate.

 

[Conservative65]

The CONSTITUTION says the electoral votes chooses the President. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you hate the Constitution?

Because he didn't get his way and now he is crying, if the situation was reversed he would have been praising the Electoral College and the process. If that is all you got, then that is all you got.

How long are these idiots going to bring up popular votes when the Constitution says absolutely nothing about them when it comes to choosing the President. It's safe to safe when the founders created a system where each State got electoral votes based on representation in Congress they didn't consider the concept of using popular votes to determine how those electoral votes within each State would be decided. The choice to use popular votes to determine how a State's electoral votes are decided is a State decision not one set by the Constitution.

it is about the right's claim to any popular mandate.

It's about the right's claim that electoral votes not popular votes determine who is President.

our new chief magistrate of the Union was elected by the electoral college, not the popular vote of the whole and entire People.

And? He was elected according to what the Constitution says is the way he should have been elected. You make it out as if the electoral votes Trump got, 304 by the way, had nothing to do with people voting.

Your bitch lost.

 

[Conservative65]

Apparently you haven't. The Constitution says electoral votes determine the President. It says nothing about popular votes playing a role in the process. That states use the popular vote to determine how their electoral votes are decided is a choice of the STATES not a mandate by the Constitution.

The People is not the same as the Electoral College. That is the Only point I make.

You keep bringing up popular votes. Popular votes don't determine the President, electoral votes do. That is the point I made and the only valid one.

so, no popular mandate; i got it.

It's an electoral college vote mandate and according to the Constitution that's all that matters. Are you too stupid to realize that is how it works?

not the point, for political purposes. winning the office is not the same as having a popular mandate for the office. the electoral college and the People, would have to be on the same page, for that.

Winning the office in a manner the Constitution says it works is the point and the only one that matters.

Since the Constitution you claim to have a knowledge of says electoral votes are the only ones that matter, you have no point.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, like that other fellow, you seem to forget the law of supply and demand. if you give everyone a voucher, the costs of htose private schools will go up. There's only a finite number of available teachers and a finite number of schools. Right now, private, religious and charter schools only serve 9% of school age kids. Who is going to take care of the other 91% if you start diverting public monies to these schools?

Private schools still have to compete with public schools, so their fees won't increase like we've seen with college.

Thing is, again, if we turned education into a free market, the market would correct. If private school tuitions went up too high, the market's response would be for someone to see the opportunity to undercut them and provide solid education for a much lower price. Let the actual consumers of the product (in this instance, education) do the shopping, and you will see the providers dropping prices and offering incentives to gain business, just like any other industry.

And yes, I know the leftists in the audience are OUTRAGED by me referring to education as a "product" and "industry", because they believe it's some holy, mystical, arcane sacrament that can only be provided by duly initiated high priests (ie. liberal unionized teachers), but the truth is, it's a commodity. That's why we pay people to produce it. And like any commodity, when it is produced by the government instead of the free market, it tends to be substandard.

That is the problem. We taxpayers look at education as a service we pay for, and they want to say it's a guaranteed entitlement.

I just get so sick of people using "the children" as an excuse to get more government goodies. Children then become pawns and shields. They want people to have children without the expenses like education, and pass that bill to the rest of society and say it's our problem.

As I stated earlier, I'm willing to do my part, but it has to be fair. I should not be paying the same or more for public schools as those with children in those schools. And like yourself, if you are taking on the job and expense of educating your own children, you should be able to keep at least some of the money you pay for public schools to help with your expenses of educating your own children.

 

[Conservative65]

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

The difference is both candidates ran to get the most electoral college votes--not the popular vote. Now if Trump ran to get the most people, he might have just won that battle too. But he didn't campaign for that. He campaigned to get the most electoral college votes.

Since both candidates were campaigning for the same thing, it's more than a fair contest. The popular vote is irrelevant because that was not the goal of either candidate.

What you're trying to say is that Trump won the election the way we've always had them, but Hillary won by a different set of rules. You can't change the rules after the game--only before.

the only thing i am trying to say is that the right is simply being disingenuous, like usual, when claiming any popular mandate for their candidate.

What you keeping saying is things about the popular vote. THEY DON'T MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTING A PRESIDENT.

 

[Conservative65]

Again, like that other fellow, you seem to forget the law of supply and demand. if you give everyone a voucher, the costs of htose private schools will go up. There's only a finite number of available teachers and a finite number of schools. Right now, private, religious and charter schools only serve 9% of school age kids. Who is going to take care of the other 91% if you start diverting public monies to these schools?

Private schools still have to compete with public schools, so their fees won't increase like we've seen with college.

Thing is, again, if we turned education into a free market, the market would correct. If private school tuitions went up too high, the market's response would be for someone to see the opportunity to undercut them and provide solid education for a much lower price. Let the actual consumers of the product (in this instance, education) do the shopping, and you will see the providers dropping prices and offering incentives to gain business, just like any other industry.

And yes, I know the leftists in the audience are OUTRAGED by me referring to education as a "product" and "industry", because they believe it's some holy, mystical, arcane sacrament that can only be provided by duly initiated high priests (ie. liberal unionized teachers), but the truth is, it's a commodity. That's why we pay people to produce it. And like any commodity, when it is produced by the government instead of the free market, it tends to be substandard.

That is the problem. We taxpayers look at education as a service we pay for, and they want to say it's a guaranteed entitlement.

I just get so sick of people using "the children" as an excuse to get more government goodies. Children then become pawns and shields. They want people to have children without the expenses like education, and pass that bill to the rest of society and say it's our problem.

As I stated earlier, I'm willing to do my part, but it has to be fair. I should not be paying the same or more for public schools as those with children in those schools. And like yourself, if you are taking on the job and expense of educating your own children, you should be able to keep at least some of the money you pay for public schools to help with your expenses of educating your own children.

Exactly. Continuing using the "it's for the kids" argument tells me they don't really care about the kids but getting more handouts of government goodies for those unwilling to do for themselves.