Wait... GS, are you saying YOU committed voter fraud in 1972?
Yep, and that was minor compared to some of the things I've done, all of on which the statute of limitations have expired.
Anyone who doesn't believe that millions of fraudulent votes are cast every national election has their head up their butt, and we know which party benefits from those fraudulent votes except perhaps ACLG and he is probably lying.
Back to the topic at hand:
"The republican party has leaders, the democrat party has bosses."
Harry S. Truman
Thirteen Democrat candidates for the United States Senate won on Tuesday. Ten of them were from the eleven most indebted states in the union. Not one state in those eleven elected anyone but a Democrat. Those eleven states are, with their per capita debt in parentheses, in order:
Connecticut ($4,490)
Massachusetts ($4,323),
Hawaii ($3,675),
New Jersey ($3,621),
New York ($2,981),
Delaware ($2,128),
Washington ($2,087),
Illinois ($1,877),
Rhode Island ($1,812),
California ($1,805).
and Oregon ($1,606).
(All of which pale in comparison to the per capita national debt from which no one in the world is going to bail us out, we stand alone as the last chance for a free world.)
(Rhode Island and New Jersey didn't elect any senators; New York elected two Democrats.)
The Democratic success runs far deeper than the U.S. Senate races. Although Republicans could make marginal gains in Oregon and New York, not one legislative chamber in any of those eleven states is controlled by Republicans. And whereas the rest of the Union replaced almost 700 Democrat legislators with Republicans, any Republican gains in these states were mostly quite modest; Hawaii, in fact, now has but a single Republican legislator in its upper chamber.
It might be easy to write these eleven states off as hopelessly liberal, but Minnesota had massive Democrat majorities going into last Tuesday, yet now has Republican majorities in both chambers. And that state has never in my lifetime voted for a Republican presidential candidate... not even Ronald Reagan! So what separates these states from Minnesota? It's not demographics. It's not income levels, demographics or unemployment.
It's debt.
So why would the states that are on the verge of insolvency due to their debt crises keep electing the same people who drove them into such debt? One frightening yet simple answer leaps to mind: they expect us to pay for it. A state couldn't really go bankrupt. The United States government, headed by the Obama administration couldn't possibly allow that to happen, right? That must be what they're thinking: why make the difficult spending cuts when Uncle Sam will always bail you out, right?
From data gathered at
dangus
If a state demands a federal bailout, there should be a price. Because the voters of the state have proven that they are not ready for republican self-government, Congress should invoke
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, where the federal government guarantees the states a republican government.
The state should lose its statehood and be demoted to territorial status.
Its senators and congressmen should be expelled from Congress.
Its governor, legislature and judges should be fired and replaced by traditional territorial governance from Washington.
The federal government should call a constitutional convention for the territory, or perhaps split the territory into more governable units and have each new territory hold a constiutuional convention.
From there the usual procedures would be followed in admitting new states.