It's been nearly 20 years since the GOP fielded somebody with any hope of winning the state and they're getting worse and worse.

Which is why BOTH Parties pretty much ignore WA. And many other States (MS, LA, as examples I actually pay attention to, having family in both).

If you want your State to be important to Presidential candidates, then it needs to go Red about half the time, and Blue about half the time.

Whether you go Red or Blue matters not at all if you ALWAYS (or even nearly always) go that way.

Or, cut defense spending. You'd still have the world's best military if you slash it by 30%, I bet.

If we were to reduce defense spending by 30%, we'd still have $500B+ deficits every year.

If we ZEROED defense spending, we'd still be running a deficit every year.

Note that the same is true for Social Security, for those on the other side of the fence - eliminate it entirely (except for the SS taxes part), and we'd still be running a deficit every year.

No, 100% of the States do not have to agree to make this change, only enough to constitute more than half of the total electoral votes.

Just curious, does this continue to function if reapportionment removes enough electoral votes from the States in question to reduce their total to below 270? Or does the agreement go away with the electoral vote majority?

I'm asking for anyone to try anything in an attempt to take one small step in any direction. It doesn't need to work, it just needs to be an attempt.

So, you'd consider it acceptable if Congress passed a law requiring every person over age 15 to own a fully-automatic (NOT semi-auto, which is what the EVIIILLL gun used to kill those kids was) rifle? After all, that would be a step "in any direction"?

Alternately, a law forbidding automobiles within 1000 yards of any school would work as "a step in any direction".

In other words, don't be an idiot!

If you want more gun control, more power to you. It won't work to reduce the number of guns out there, and it won't work to reduce gun crime, but it's perfectly fine that you want that (and even better that you say it, rather than mealy-mouthed crap like "a step in ANY direction").

Note, by the by, that you look at Sandy Hook as an example of the evils of guns. I see a crime that took place in a "gun-free zone" - no law-abiding citizen had any chance at all of stopping whatsisbutthead even if they'd wanted to.

And, oddly enough, the law forbidding firearms in schools did NOT prevent whatsisbutthead from bringing a gun in and killing people.

And if there'd been an "assault weapon" in place, he'd still have been able to kill those kids - a shotgun doesn't care from age of target, nor does a pistol....

Minus gun rights - Hell, Obama is the best guns salesman, ever.

Nah, Clinton sold more guns with HIS "assault weapon" ban.

That may change, once we get a new "assault weapon" ban - then I really expect to see guns flying off the shelves....

Actually there is a backdoor way to have it occur without a constitutional amendment- agreement by the states.

Hmm, 100% of the States agree to this to make the change...

Alternately, 75% of the States have to agree for a Constitutional Amendment.

Yah, it's sooooo much easier to get the States to bypass the amendment process....

6 attacks and both have airtight alibis?

They both don't need airtight alibis - if one of them as an airtight alibi, then both can use it, since they're identical....

A ball-peen hammer or garden sheers to the knuckles works wonders. Not a lot of sympathy for rapists.

Of course, only one of them is a rapist. A ball-peen hammer or garden sheers to the knuckles of the innocent twin evokes quite a bit more sympathy....

As for the many millions (billions now? could be I suppose) of rounds Obama has been having all the non-military agencies buy... I have heard no explanation.

If you're requiring all your Federal Agents to carry firearms (don't know if they are or not), then they're all required to qualify on their weapons. Which currently requires shooting anywhere from hundreds to thousands of rounds per year per agent.

Don't know if this is the explanation, but it's not an unreasonable explanation, especially if rules have been changed requiring all Feds to qualify to pack heat.

Note, by the way, that there are far more Federal agents than there are infantrymen in our military....

It's hard to say if, under the previous administration, we would still be in Iraq, since that was never a possible outcome. However, compared to the alternative (McCain's "100 more years!" explanation, Obama getting our troops out in his first term earns him a solid B+ from me on that promise.

Since Obama pulled out of Iraq on Bush's timetable (the one we negotiated with the Iraqi government), it's probably fairly safe to say we'd be out of Iraq, with or without Obama.

2. The Social Security Payroll Tax is not really used for Social Security - it just goes right back into the general fund, and even worse, the general fund has to pay interest to Social Security

Umm, no.

Those T-Bills we give the SSA are a zero-interest T-Bill (essentially, an IOU).

Oh, and our trade deficit has little, if anything, to do with our national debt. Our national debt goes up because Congress doesn't want to raise taxes enough to cover all the Federal spending we do. Nor does it want to reduce Federal spending to match tax revenues.

Historically, it should be noted that when we raise taxes, we raise spending. And when we lower taxes, we raise spending. See the problem?

In the real world, businesses use deficit spending to grow their ability to earn revenue all the time.

Businesses pay off their bonds from time to time.

The Feds, on the other hand, do deficit spending every year, regular as clockwork, with no intention of ever paying off the debt.

Note that deficit spending to accomplish some specific objective (as opposed to "we want to spend more money than tax revenues allow, so we'll borrow some more") wouldn't bother nearly so many people as you might think.

The problem with the deficit is that it's a permanent fixture in the budget, with no special benefit other than "yay! we get to spend more than we take in in revenue"....

Social security is not discretionary spending, and it is not part of the federal budget. It is a separate trust fund funded by separate taxes.

Umm, no. Social Security taxes are dumped into the General Fund and spent just like any other taxes. Ignore the rhetoric about "Social Security Trust Funds", and read the enabling legislation instead (yes, in spite of everything the government says on the subject, SSA is a pay-as-you-go thing just like every other Federal program).

why does our national debt keep going up? Aren't we paying it down or is the USA just making minimum payments.

We're making interest-only payments on it.

Then borrowing more every year on top of that.

Note that for all that Clinton "balanced the budget", the national debt has not decreased since before I was born. And I was alive for Kennedy's election (too young to care who (or what) the President was, but alive).

Slashdot readership (if it can really be called that, judging by how little is actually read by its posting users [slashdot.org]) is an older crowd; they are not college students. Chances are they will lament how times have changed, and then tell you to get off their lawn. Seriously, very few people here are going to be able to answer your question because they are not in college anymore.

Given the number of /.'ers who don't know the difference between "your" and "you're", or "there", "their" and "they're", or "rogue" and "rouge", I suspect that most /.'ers would consider the current levels of literacy in colleges/universities acceptably high.