isadore;1760998 wrote:gerrymandered into their positions,

The only time you people care about gerrymandering is when you are out of power.

isadore;1760998 wrote: often not reading or interested in the legislation they are voting on. Often voting based on logrolling trade offs. And their team of experts-paid lobbyists who offer them contributions and future employment.

I agree an Americas got talent voting style is a much better way to go!

majorspark;1761035 wrote:The only time you people care about gerrymandering is when you are out of power.



I agree an Americas got talent voting style is a much better way to go!

gosh a ruddies you argue for representative democracy, then support a method that undermines it. A gerrymandered legislature is not truly representative and that is true which ever party is in power. Your arrogant disdain for the average American voter is repellent.

isadore;1761039 wrote:gosh a ruddies you argue for representative democracy, then support a method that undermines it. A gerrymandered legislature is not truly representative and that is true which ever party is in power.

I have argued on this forum that representative districts should be more geographic than demographic. Period.

isadore;1761039 wrote:Your arrogant disdain for the average American voter is repellent.

The average American voter in Ohio passed a state constitutional amendment a decade ago that stated that only a union between one man and one women can be recognized by the state. Our representative democracy has said otherwise. If you want to toss it up to the average American voter by all means go for it.

majorspark;1761060 wrote:I have argued on this forum that representative districts should be more geographic than demographic. Period.



The average American voter in Ohio passed a state constitutional amendment a decade ago that stated that only a union between one man and one women can be recognized by the state. Our representative democracy has said otherwise. If you want to toss it up to the average American voter by all means go for it.

gosh a ruddies its been settled law for over 50 years that your belief that state legislatures should be geographically based is a denial of the right of suffrage to American citizens period. Oh yes and today the majority of Ohio voters support gay marriage period.
http://www.wlwt.com/news/poll-narrow-support-for-gay-marriage-in-ohio/26024132

^^ ... Was that " gay marriage" thing passed by a ballot initiative? The ballot initiative that Majorspark cites was a bad law... As are most laws rammed thru by ballot initiatives written by special interest groups. While I voted yes on#3, consider that we would have had a law passed not by vetted, rigorous bi-partisan agreement, but decided "yes or no" on language written by/ dictated by special interests.... And it could be legal by the smallest fraction of a percent.
No.... That is NOT a good way to govern.

Representative democracy is as valid today as it was when our founders first set it up. It has nothing to do with"disdain" for the average voter... It has everything to do with the realization that the average citizen has their own job to do, and life to look after. They don't need to be full time legislators too.

HitsRus;1761084 wrote:^^ ... Was that " gay marriage" thing passed by a ballot initiative? The ballot initiative that Majorspark cites was a bad law... As are most laws rammed thru by ballot initiatives written by special interest groups. While I voted yes on#3, consider that we would have had a law passed not by vetted, rigorous bi-partisan agreement, but decided "yes or no" on language written by/ dictated by special interests.... And it could be legal by the smallest fraction of a percent.
No.... That is NOT a good way to govern.

Representative democracy is as valid today as it was when our founders first set it up. It has nothing to do with"disdain" for the average voter... It has everything to do with the realization that the average citizen has their own job to do, and life to look after. They don't need to be full time legislators too.

Doesn't matter if something passes by the smallest fraction of a percent. That's still majority rules and shows that a majority of the population of a specified area prefers that.

I'll go back to my previous argument. Why are you not OK with citizen-driven ballot initiatives decided by the people, but you're perfectly fine with those same people electing every other position? You say that the average voter has their own job to do and life to look after and can't/doesn't have the ability to research and vote intelligently on a proposed law. But somehow the average voter, who has their own job to do and life to look after, has the ability to research and vote intelligently for every single race that appears on their ballot? That makes zero sense whatsoever to me. If you can't trust a majority of the population to reasonably understand what a proposed law is asking and vote one way or the other on it, they you can't trust a majority of the population to reasonably elect officials to represent them.

HitsRus;1761084 wrote:^^ ... Was that " gay marriage" thing passed by a ballot initiative? The ballot initiative that Majorspark cites was a bad law... As are most laws rammed thru by ballot initiatives written by special interest groups. While I voted yes on#3, consider that we would have had a law passed not by vetted, rigorous bi-partisan agreement, but decided "yes or no" on language written by/ dictated by special interests.... And it could be legal by the smallest fraction of a percent.
No.... That is NOT a good way to govern.

Representative democracy is as valid today as it was when our founders first set it up. It has nothing to do with"disdain" for the average voter... It has everything to do with the realization that the average citizen has their own job to do, and life to look after. They don't need to be full time legislators too.

Gosh a ruddies! “rigorous bi partisan agreement,” what a laugh when legislation is pushed through by gerrymandered created partisan majorities. Great input not from the people but from paid lobbyists often writing legislation and providing money and future job offers for votes. What a joke to talk about a small percentage giving victory in a vote, that small percentage is often at a minimum tens of thousands of votes in the legislature it can be one person in each house as the difference in legislation. And that one person voting based on logrolling promises, party threats and lobbyist money. One thing that is true is the voters and the legislators vote based on their own personal self interest. When the mass of voters do at least the legislation represents the will of the people for better or worse rather than the narrow self interest of the representatives.

Al Bundy;1760962 wrote:Why does the medical even need to be voted on? We don't vote on any other medical drug.

Great point!

majorspark;1761035 wrote:The only time you people care about gerrymandering is when you are out of power.

What's interesting is in my interaction with some Dem and Pub party people over the summer is that I got the feeling that they threw their support behind Issue 1 for "political" reasons for lack of a better term that I can think of. I got the vibe that they didn't think it would pass but thought it wouldn't look good to not endorse it.

isadore;1761105 wrote:Gosh a ruddies! “rigorous bi partisan agreement,” what a laugh when legislation is pushed through by gerrymandered created partisan majorities. Great input not from the people but from paid lobbyists often writing legislation and providing money and future job offers for votes. What a joke to talk about a small percentage giving victory in a vote, that small percentage is often at a minimum tens of thousands of votes in the legislature it can be one person in each house as the difference in legislation. And that one person voting based on logrolling promises, party threats and lobbyist money. One thing that is true is the voters and the legislators vote based on their own personal self interest. When the mass of voters do at least the legislation represents the will of the people for better or worse rather than the narrow self interest of the representatives.

oh the irony......Isnt this what Obama, Reid, Pelosi did for years? I am sure you had a huge problem with it

Spock;1761174 wrote:oh the irony......Isnt this what Obama, Reid, Pelosi did for years? I am sure you had a huge problem with it

Gosh a ruddies and what had the Republicans offered as Speaker right before Nancy Pelosi. Newt Gingrich cheating on his wife while trying to impeach Clinton for Monica Lewinsky, forced from office for ethicss violations. Bob Livingston forced from office for cheating on wife while trying to impeach Clinton. And then we have Dennis Hastert. Nancy was a step up in honesty and class.

isadore;1761229 wrote:Gosh a ruddies and what had the Republicans offered as Speaker right before Nancy Pelosi. Newt Gingrich cheating on his wife while trying to impeach Clinton for Monica Lewinsky, forced from office for ethicss violations. Bob Livingston forced from office for cheating on wife while trying to impeach Clinton. And then we have Dennis Hastert. Nancy was a step up in honesty and class.

Clinton was not impeached for doing Monica Lewinsky.

He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Care to try again?

He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. And he was acquitted.

However, the perjury and obstruction of justice charges were as a result of his dalliance with her.

MoldyDog;1761505 wrote:He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. And he was acquitted.

...............and his law license was suspended.

BRF;1761509 wrote:However, the perjury and obstruction of justice charges were as a result of his dalliance with her.

Which is irrelevant.

wkfan;1762334 wrote:Which is irrelevant.

^^^^^ In your opinion.

My statement is a fact.

BRF;1762337 wrote:^^^^^ In your opinion.

My statement is a fact.

Yes, your statement is a fact.

He would have been impeached if he lied about Monica Lewinsky or anything else while under oath to tell the truth. Therefore, the underlying reason is irrelevant.

QuakerOats;1760884 wrote:I am not sure how advocating for less use of illegal drugs 'empowers the drug cartels'. Drug users and drug pushers are the dream teams of the drug cartels; they own you.

I'm not exactly sure what you consider a drug cartel. Are you stating that cartels from Central and South America would love for marijuana to be legal? Or are you considering pharma companies as cartel? Either way, the 3 deadliest drugs in the US are all legal. And they are not sold by Mexican, Central or South American drug cartels.

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/19/5727712/the-three-deadliest-drugs-in-america-are-all-totally-legal

Ohio legislature ..............

Medical Marijuana Bill Introduced

This week the House Medical Marijuana Task Force proposed a bill that would provide tightly regulated patient access to medical marijuana under physician supervision. On the task force, the proposal emerged as a consensus among the medical community, law enforcement, employers, and labor. These interests all worked together to defeat Issue 3 at the ballot last year, and are concerned about two new efforts to use the Ohio constitution to legalize medical marijuana, and allow home growth of marijuana. Medical marijuana legalization polls extremely popularly among Ohio voters. The proposal contains provisions sought by the OMA to protect workplace safety: It clarifies that employers are not required to accommodate an employee's use of medical marijuana; it allows an employer to refuse to hire, discharge, or take adverse employment action against a person because of that person's use of medical marijuana; and, disqualifies from eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits an individual who is discharged from employment because of that person's use of medical marijuana. The proposal would establish a Medical Marijuana Control Commission. The commission would be charged with regulating and licensing growers, dispensaries, labs, processors and physicians. Home cultivation would be prohibited. OMA chairman Bill Sopko, President, William Sopko & Sons Co., Inc., sits on the 15-member task force, which held seven hearings, and heard more than 100 witnesses for more than 23 hours. A select committee established by the House Speaker will have jurisdiction over the bill. 4/15/2016

QuakerOats;1791981 wrote:Ohio legislature ..............

Medical Marijuana Bill Introduced

This week the House Medical Marijuana Task Force proposed a bill that would provide tightly regulated patient access to medical marijuana under physician supervision. On the task force, the proposal emerged as a consensus among the medical community, law enforcement, employers, and labor. These interests all worked together to defeat Issue 3 at the ballot last year, and are concerned about two new efforts to use the Ohio constitution to legalize medical marijuana, and allow home growth of marijuana. Medical marijuana legalization polls extremely popularly among Ohio voters. The proposal contains provisions sought by the OMA to protect workplace safety: It clarifies that employers are not required to accommodate an employee's use of medical marijuana; it allows an employer to refuse to hire, discharge, or take adverse employment action against a person because of that person's use of medical marijuana; and, disqualifies from eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits an individual who is discharged from employment because of that person's use of medical marijuana. The proposal would establish a Medical Marijuana Control Commission. The commission would be charged with regulating and licensing growers, dispensaries, labs, processors and physicians. Home cultivation would be prohibited. OMA chairman Bill Sopko, President, William Sopko & Sons Co., Inc., sits on the 15-member task force, which held seven hearings, and heard more than 100 witnesses for more than 23 hours. A select committee established by the House Speaker will have jurisdiction over the bill. 4/15/2016

QuakerOats - the faux conservative GOP apparatchik who praises increasing the size and scope of government when it suits him.

I made no comment regarding the information I posted.


Is it weed and chardonnay today, or cabernet?

LOL!