A blueprint on how to steal the election.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/...will-steal-election/

quote Progressive organizations are quietly pushing a “popular vote” that could see only 14 states – those with the largest populations – decide the presidency for voters in all 50 states, according to a book released this week that’s now skyrocketing up bestseller charts. The book contains a bonus chapter on the subject and documents concerns over voter fraud in the upcoming presidential election. It also presents new information about a foreign-based company – Scytl – running hundreds of online U.S. voting systems. “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed” uncovers the template for Obama’s next four years – the actual, extensive plans created by Obama’s own top advisers and progressive strategists. The book is written by New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott. “Fool Me Twice” unveils all the main areas of Obama’s second-term domestic policy onslaught – jobs, wages, health care, immigration “overhaul,” electoral “reform,” national energy policy, Pentagon plans and more. National Popular Vote The vote for president is the only one in which all Americans vote for a national leader. In framing the U.S. Constitution, Klein and Elliott write, the Founding Fathers displayed their characteristic wisdom and subtlety in firmly rejecting a purely popular vote to elect the president, in order to balance the power of the larger states against the smaller. The Electoral College was fashioned as a compromise between an election of the president by direct popular vote and election by Congress. However, “Fool Me Twice” documents how a group backed by a who’s who of the progressive left, calling itself the National Popular Vote, or NPV, has already been successful in quietly pushing for abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a “popular vote.” “Under the rubric of a ‘National Popular Vote,’ this plan would allow the 14 most populous American states, mostly majority-Democrat, to determine the outcome of future presidential elections. The voters of the 36 less populous states would then effectively be disenfranchised,” warn Klein and Elliott. The plan is already gaining traction. In 2007, Maryland became the first state to approve a “national popular vote” compact. As a result, in a theoretical winner-take-all contest, Maryland would allocate all of its 10 electoral votes to the candidate who won the most votes nationally – even if the same candidate did not win the most votes in Maryland. By March 2012, eight states – California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, plus the District of Columbia – had enacted the “national popular vote” into law. Two other states, Colorado and Rhode Island, had passed it in both houses, but it had not been enacted. Ten more states had passed it in one house, and 10 others had passed it in a committee. Eleven states had held hearings on it, and nine more states had introduced bills. While organizational support comes almost exclusively from left-leaning groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters, the Soros-funded Common Cause and the Demos group, NPV’s army of lobbyists has also been pushing its plan to the Republican National Committee, the American Legislative Exchange Council and conservative think tanks such as the Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Widespread voter fraud is an essential part of Team Obama’s reelection strategy. Get the whole shocking story in the August issue of Whistleblower, “ROB THE VOTE.” There is, however, one hitch in the NPV plan: For a “national popular vote” to predominate, the full 270 electoral votes must be based on identical legislation (the “interstate compact”) passed by each state. “Fool Me Twice” also presents new information about SCYTL, an international company that recently purchased the leading U.S. electronic voting firm, SOE Software, including a future plan that allows ballots to be cast using Google and Apple smartphones and tablet computers. The company previously has faced questions about the security of its electronic voting technologies, which are now set to be deployed in 900 U.S. jurisdictions via its U.S. subsidiary. The firm already provides balloting for overseas U.S. military and civilian voting in nine states along with elections technologies in several districts. Released yesterday by WND Books, “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed” unveils all the main areas of Obama’s second-term domestic policy onslaught. “Just as ‘Unfit for Command’ provided the margin of defeat for John Kerry in 2004, ‘Fool Me Twice’ will ensure Obama serves only one term,” said WND Books publisher Joseph Farah. Just as in 2008, when Obama concealed his true presidential plans behind the rhetoric of ending partisan differences and cutting the federal deficit, his 2012 re-election theme of creating jobs conceals far more than it reveals about his true agenda for a second term. Most conservative books about Obama focus on his radical background and what he has done until now. A small number of ambitious projects attempt to show what America may look like after four more years of Obama based on generalities and what the president has already done. While many are expressing general concerns over Obama’s future ambitions, “Fool Me Twice” lays bare the devastating details and consequences of a second Obama term as president. The book is based on exhaustive research into Obama’s upcoming detailed presidential plans and policies, as well as the specific second-term recommendations of major “progressive” groups behind Obama and the Democratic leadership – the organizations that help craft legislation and set the political and rhetorical agenda for the president and his allies. Here are a few highlights of dozens and dozens of second-term plans uncovered in “Fool Me Twice:” •Government-funded, neighborhood-based programs to better integrate the newly amnestied immigrants into society, including education centers and health care centers. A “federal solution” to ensure that the amnestied immigrants are treated “equitably” across the United States. •The re-creation of a 21st century version of FDR’ Works Progress Administration program within the Department of Labor that would oversee a massive new bureaucracy and millions of new federal jobs. •Specific plans for a National Infrastructure Bank. This entity would “evaluate and finance infrastructure projects of substantial regional and national importance” and would finance “transportation infrastructure, housing, energy, telecommunications, drinking water, waste water, and other infrastructures.” •Wresting control of the military budget from Congress by attempting to place an “independent panel” in charge of military spending while slashing the defense budget in shocking ways. •The vastly reduced resources of the U.S. armed forces will be spread even thinner by using them to combat “global warming,” fight global poverty, remedy “injustice,” bolster the United Nations and step up use of “peacekeeping” deployments. •A new “green” stimulus program and the founding of a federal “green” bank or “Energy Independence Trust,” which would borrow from the federal treasury to provide low-cost financing to private-sector investments in “clean energy.” •Detailed plans to enact single-payer health care legislation controlled by the federal government. ”

Once again, I have to question the validity and the objectivity of your "news" source.

------------------

Drive safely!

I see you are happily trolling all my posts again today. I guess you really enjoy them.

This is getting ridiculous. 40% Of the topics on the first page of TO/T are made up of your political copy & paste posts. Since I'm pretty sure every single one of those threads carry the same message ("Obama sucks"), I'm going to consider this as a violation of the following posting rule if you don't tone it down:

quote Do not start threads about other threads. So you get in a heated discussion in one of the threads. You get the feeling you are not getting your point across. So you feel the need to start a new thread explaining what you meant in the first thread. Don't. Since there's already a thread on the subject, say it there.

So either tone it down, or create a single thread (you can call it "Avengador's Politics Corner" for all I care).

Or ask Neptune to not bump them all to the top at once. You will see that they are from different days and would have normally ran their course and dissappeared if he hadn't decided to bump them all to the top with his trolling nonsense.

The Democrats are ALWAYS trying to get rid of the electoral college... they don't understand the point and near election time (usually after an election) there are HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of news articles posing the question "Is the electoral college outdated?" Every single time...

It's annoying.

California and New York already control the election. Can you imagine how irrelevant the rest of the country would become if we had a popular vote. The politicians would be campaigning, NOT in the current battleground states but in about 8 states and the other 42 could go F-off, don't Dems get this?

The answer is YES, because the urban areas tend to vote Democratic while the Fly over states do all the owrk to support them.

NO THE ONE MAN ONE VOTE PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE IT

NO BS HE WON THE MOST VOTES
BUT LOST BECAUSE
THEY WERE NOT IN THE CORRECT LOCATIONS

EACH PERSON'S VOTE SHOULD COUNT THE SAME

THE electoral college IS A GIMMICK OF A BYGONE ERA

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 08-10-2012).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: THE NOWHERE FLYOVER PLACES SHOULD NOT GIMMICK ELECTIONS THERE IS A REASON NO SANE PERSON WANTS TO LIVE THERE

Somebody has to farm to feed your urban ass.

I for one would like us to take another look at the electoral college. It really was from a long time ago and we really do have a country with very little resemblance to the original. I'm not saying dump the constitution, but technology and the country have come a long way. I'm guessing that the electoral college was considered necessary due to a lack of educated populace. Although we are much better educated now, I'm often amazed that many educated citizens are apparently just as easily swayed by the media and propaganda as the less educated. There are some elitists right here on Pennocks who are certain that they are much better qualified than anyone else. I'm betting that I don't have to name names for you to know who I'm talking about. I'm not saying just dump it because it hasn't seemed to have caused a catastrophic failure yet. There are a lot of people who have expressed their doubt about it though and it warrants taking another look.

quote Originally posted by ray b: NO THE ONE MAN ONE VOTE PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE IT NO BS HE WON THE MOST VOTES BUT LOST BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT IN THE CORRECT LOCATIONS EACH PERSON'S VOTE SHOULD COUNT THE SAME THE electoral college IS A GIMMICK OF A BYGONE ERA

quote Originally posted by dratts: I for one would like us to take another look at the electoral college. It really was from a long time ago and we really do have a country with very little resemblance to the original. I'm not saying dump the constitution, but technology and the country have come a long way. I'm guessing that the electoral college was considered necessary due to a lack of educated populace. Although we are much better educated now, I'm often amazed that many educated citizens are apparently just as easily swayed by the media and propaganda as the less educated. There are some elitists right here on Pennocks who are certain that they are much better qualified than anyone else. I'm betting that I don't have to name names for you to know who I'm talking about. I'm not saying just dump it because it hasn't seemed to have caused a catastrophic failure yet. There are a lot of people who have expressed their doubt about it though and it warrants taking another look.

Whether we have an "educated populace" or not isn't a factor. It is about the 'concentration' of the populace. Just take a look at any national election map. You will clearly find, if looking at them without bias, that the concentration of the blue vote (can you say liberals and government housing) will win elections and strip rural areas of their influence.

rayb clearly expresses the lack of fairness of the left

quote Originally posted by ray b: THE NOWHERE FLYOVER PLACES SHOULD NOT GIMMICK ELECTIONS THERE IS A REASON NO SANE PERSON WANTS TO LIVE THERE

and their attitude about 'fairness' in elections.


Edit: If the populace were educated, Barack Obama would still be a street organizing thug!

[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 08-10-2012).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: NO THE ONE MAN ONE VOTE PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE IT NO BS HE WON THE MOST VOTES BUT LOST BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT IN THE CORRECT LOCATIONS EACH PERSON'S VOTE SHOULD COUNT THE SAME THE electoral college IS A GIMMICK OF A BYGONE ERA

I can't believe I am saying this... But I agree With Ray B!

Why Al Gore Wants to Get Rid of the Electoral College
http://politicaloutcast.com...llege/#ixzz25Q96HBcP

quote Ben Franklin said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” Thanks to government education, most people today believe that America is a “democracy.” But we’re not a democracy. We’re not “mob-ruled” as much as many would like us to be. Our country was founded to be ruled by law through representatives, which makes us a Constitutional Republic. This form of representation is not only manifested in the way our government is structured, but also in the way that we elect our presidents. The delegate process and the Electoral College are both forms of representation for voters. Liberals don’t like the Electoral College mainly because Al Gore lost the 2000 election because of it. Not surprisingly, Al Gore and other liberals are calling for the eradication of the Electoral College. This coming November, when we all go to the polls to vote in the general election, we’ll all pick a candidate. But, when we vote, we’re not actually voting for that candidate. We’re voting for the elector that represents that candidate. Different states have different processes for choosing electors, but most of them are chosen at the respective party state conventions. The number of electors is based on the number of representatives in each state. For instance, Georgia has 14 congressmen and 2 senators, so the total number of electors is 16. The U.S. has a total of 538 electors that will vote for president and vice president after we vote in the general election in November. The last time I remember the Electoral College being a big issue was the 2000 presidential election. Al Gore had won the popular vote, but George Bush had won a majority of the electoral votes, and ultimately, the electors are the ones that elect the president. I remember my liberal political science teacher ranting and raving about how we needed to abolish the Electoral College, because he said it was antiquated and also it just wasn’t fair. “How could it be that we end up with someone like Bush when most people voted for Gore?” he asked. But would liberals be as irate if their candidate had benefited from the Electoral College? Probably not. Recently, in an interview with Current TV, Al Gore stated concerning the Electoral College that people in non-swing states are “written off and ignored, and people are effectively disenfranchised in the presidential race.” He concluded, “I really do now think it is time to change that.” But the Electoral College system is important because it actually prevents densely populated regions from having an unfair advantage over everyone else. It actually gives everybody in the country more fair and equal representation than a direct popular vote would. Al Gore and other liberals would prefer a direct popular vote, but that would mean that a few densely populated cities could theoretically decide the election and “effectively disenfranchise” the rest of the country. And which way do most of the big cities swing? They’re mostly liberal, so getting rid of the Electoral College would mean an unfair advantage over the conservatives. No wonder liberals are in favor of scrapping the system. The Electoral College is also important from a state’s rights standpoint. It allows the states to choose the next president instead of a few populous cities. The founders knew what they were doing when they had this system incorporated into the voting process. It provides a check and balance to the “mob.” It protects the minority. And I thought the liberals were all about “protecting the minority.”

quote Originally posted by ray b: THE electoral college IS A GIMMICK OF A BYGONE ERA

It was not a gimmick, it is how this country is structured for good reason, and if you don't agree with our founders, you are more then welcome to move elsewhere. Perhaps Cuba would be more to your liking?

quote Originally posted by ray b: NO THE ONE MAN ONE VOTE PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE IT

This is idiotic rayb and even YOU should understand that. Plutarch was the first to point out that giving everyone an equal vote is a recipe for disaster. Because once poor people relize they can vote to give themselves the wealth of the rich they will stop working, and start stealing. And then....civilization ends.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
― Winston Churchill

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
― H.L. Mencken

"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.”
― Franklin D. Roosevelt

"In proportion as the mass of citizens who possess political rights increases, and the number of elected ruler’s increases, the actual power is concentrated and becomes the monopoly of a smaller and smaller group of individuals.”
― Paul Lafargue


Yeah yeah rayb...I know...they are all a bunch of NUT CONS.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 09-03-2012).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Why Al Gore Wants to Get Rid of the Electoral College http://politicaloutcast.com...llege/#ixzz25Q96HBcP

If we go back in history, only landed gentry could vote, or in todays slang, only business owners would vote.
After suffrage and equal rights, then, everyone could vote.
I wonder what working conditions and living conditions would be like if only the rich business owners could vote today?
But, behind the scenes, we don't know who is counting the votes, so perhaps they still do control the situation...

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Once again, I have to question the validity and the objectivity of your "news" source.

Here it is from "The Hill", with a video of Gore speaking. If you were better informed, you'd know this instead of dropping your usual turd.

Al Gore calls for an end to the Electoral College

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Here it is from "The Hill", with a video of Gore speaking. If you were better informed, you'd know this instead of dropping your usual turd. Al Gore calls for an end to the Electoral College

It was never about the source. It was Neptune's bumping all of Avengador's threads at the same time to get him in trouble with Cliff. It worked.

quote Originally posted by crashyoung: If we go back in history, only landed gentry could vote, or in todays slang, only business owners would vote. After suffrage and equal rights, then, everyone could vote. I wonder what working conditions and living conditions would be like if only the rich business owners could vote today? But, behind the scenes, we don't know who is counting the votes, so perhaps they still do control the situation...

I like how you equate business owners with being rich.

I can only take from your attitude that you haven't been successful in your life, you don't know many honest people, and you stay in a small circle refusing to learn new things.

Brad

quote Originally posted by 8Ball: I can't believe I am saying this... But I agree With Ray B!

I do to.. one person, one vote... my vote in Ohio should be every bit as valuable as a vote in California... it should not be "all or nothing" with electoral votes...I think the electoral college is a joke and not indicative at all of the will of "the people".

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: I like how you equate business owners with being rich. I can only take from your attitude that you haven't been successful in your life, you don't know many honest people, and you stay in a small circle refusing to learn new things. Brad

Class warfare at its core. " 'They' have something I cant have and it isn't fair. "

Preserved for posterity. Isn't bypassing the obscenity filter against forum rules?

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 09-03-2012).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Preserved for posterity. Isn't bypassing the obscenity filter against forum rules?

Of course you did too in the process

Not anymore.

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: I like how you equate business owners with being rich. I can only take from your attitude that you haven't been successful in your life, you don't know many honest people, and you stay in a small circle refusing to learn new things. Brad

I OWNED TWO BUSINESSES
NOT COUNTING 3 OTHER KID BIS THINGS

BUT WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ?

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: I like how you equate business owners with being rich. I can only take from your attitude that you haven't been successful in your life, you don't know many honest people, and you stay in a small circle refusing to learn new things. Brad

I have never met a poor business owner.
I like your ploy to say I am an uneducated, dishonest, unsuccessful, recluse. My attitude is to converse with ray b and ask what his opinion of the past and the present is.
You may continue to try to bait me, but it will fail.
I wish you well!
Turn your gaze inward and see your faults as I see them, before you try to point out mine...

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Of course you did too in the process

I'm missing it, please explain.

quote Originally posted by ray b: I OWNED TWO BUSINESSES NOT COUNTING 3 OTHER KID BIS THINGS BUT WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ?

ray b, brad is after me because I am a racist and upset him. it has nothing to do with you.

quote Originally posted by ray b: PLEASE TRY TO STOP SPINNING

"Pot, this is kettle; your black."

This racist thought of the day brought to you by the GOP. (JOKE OBVIOUSLY)

Careful, I got someone angry with me doing that...
OOPS! Angry is a racist word...

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: Here, is the reason that the Progressives will take ANY path to win an election, AND it is the BEST reason to vote for Romney. Once again, Conservatives will be left with the choice of wasting their vote on a third tier candidate or holding their nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, but we'll do it to get rid of Comrad Obama.

Yeah, as far back as I remember the third party candidate has been a challenge to the Republican side of the isle, meaning people didn't like the Republican candidate because he wasn't conservative enough, so a more conservative third party candidate enters the race. I don't remember ever seeing, people didn't like the Democrat candidate because he wasn't liberal enough, so a more liberal third party candidate enters the race.

So, when you actually stop and look at it, thank the third party candidates for shooting the conservatives in the foot as they are the ones hurt by a third party candidate running.

As to the "popular vote vs. Electoral College" I've posted about the Electroal College before. One vote one person is a nice ideal and considering, atleast when I lived in California, the vote in Cali usually was around 60/40 for the Dem sometimes closer, those 40% of votes were being told their vote didn't matter as all the electoral votes went to the Dem. Now, with the EC the way it is now, states like Cali don't get much attention come campaign time as they are considered in the bag for the Dem so why bother? Instead you end up with a select few states being the "battle ground" states and they see the most campaigning. I've often thought larger states wanting some attention in the campaign time would benefit by splitting their EC votes according to popular vote in the state, while smaller states ccould continue their all or nothing outcomes to retain some pull for campaigning. Several states already split their EC votes acccording to popular vote in that state, so maybe the populace of each state should look at what's going to benefit their state the most and push for that kind of EC system in your state. The problem now is, when a popular split or EC votes get's introduced in a states congress, the "in power party" of that state will shoot it down because they know they will lose EC votes as a result. It has to be a grassroots movement getting petitions and support by the populace to force it on the state. Still this push for 1 vote 1 person would have changed how many elections in the past? 4

1824, John Quincy Adams won with 38,000 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson. Neither won the electoral college, but Adams won the vote in the House.

1876, Hayes won with 264,000 fewer votes

1888, Harrison won with 95,000+ fewer votes

2000, Bush won with 536,000+ fewer votes

Also, Clinton did not win the Popular vote in 1992, but only won the plurality of the vote. This is because Perot recieved 19% of the popular vote, however Perot won no electoral votes.

So at most 5 times out of 56 elections. The popular vote idea would have resulted in less then 10% of the elections being changed.

quote Originally posted by Khw: I don't remember ever seeing, people didn't like the Democrat candidate because he wasn't liberal enough, so a more liberal third party candidate enters the race.

Your memory is short. I invoke the campaign of Ralph Nader in 2000, which arguably cost the Democrats and Al Gore the Presidency.

quote Originally posted by Khw: So at most 5 times out of 56 elections. The popular vote idea would have resulted in less then 10% of the elections being changed.

That's a big number if you consider the decisions and policies of presidents who won without the popular vote would not have happened. The entire complexion of our country would be different if those men had not been president because they lost the popular vote.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 09-04-2012).]

quote Originally posted by crashyoung: I have never met a poor business owner.

With how many small businesses are going under right now, I'd have to argue that point. I know a lot of self employed or small business people that are barely making ends meet right now. If I divide how much I personally make by how many hours I put in, I'd be slightly above minimum wage.

[This message has been edited by mptighe (edited 09-04-2012).]

quote Originally posted by crashyoung: I have never met a poor business owner. I like your ploy to say I am an uneducated, dishonest, unsuccessful, recluse. My attitude is to converse with ray b and ask what his opinion of the past and the present is. You may continue to try to bait me, but it will fail. I wish you well! Turn your gaze inward and see your faults as I see them, before you try to point out mine...

Oh, I must be wrong then, you must be successful, people have hardly ever done you wrong, and you love to constantly expand your horizons and learn new things.

Yep, I was completely wrong there.

By the way, your a horrible spin doctor, I never said you were uneducated, dishonest, or a recluse. You are a troll however.

Brad

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It was never about the source. It was Neptune's bumping all of Avengador's threads at the same time to get him in trouble with Cliff. It worked.

Avengador needed no help from anyone--he was perfectly adept at digging his own hole and even quicker to blame others for his own mistakes.