Do republicans believe in women's rights?
Republicans only believe in their own rights.
Why do republicans oppose equal pay for equal work?
I am not a Republican, but I wonder what "equal pay for equal work" even means. By what criterion do we determine "equal work"? Is it number of hours? How tired the person is at the end of the day? Output/performance at a given specific job?Even if it's the last (and most seemingly economically defensible) of these, what determines the pay scale for given performance at a given job?"Equal pay for equal work" sounds more like a political football than a well-reasoned position. Yes, it seems reasonable on the face of it to say that two people deserve the same pay for the same economic impact, and I don't think too many people of any political stripe would disagree with it as a simple mantra or as an economic ideal, but I don't think that's what people are actually talking about here. They are talking about using threats from the government to enforce pay scales.
How will Republican nominee Ted Cruz reach out to women before the vote in November?
Well, I have to begin answering this question by pointing out that I think there is VERY VERY VERY slim chance Ted Cruz will be the Republican nominee.That said - I'll answer assuming that he is:Cruz would have an easier time winning over women than Donald Trump does - because Trump has the reputation of being offensive to women. As for Cruz, he is not going to win over the pro-choice women voters, particularly the ones for whom that issue is make-or-break in choosing a candidate.What Cruz would need to do, though, is appeal to other core issues women have, such as equal pay, and issues involving the health of their children. That will be TOUGH for Cruz to do, because it would mean he'd have to take on the massive food industry lobby, which puts a lot of awful additives into our foods.He would also have to take on big pharm regarding vaccinations, because there IS a middle ground between 1) no vaccinations and 2) status quo vaccinations. That middle ground is: 1) remove the PRESERVATIVES from vaccinations that give them a longer shelf life, which will make them SAFE, and 2) if that means a shorter shelf life and less profits for big pharm, well that's just TOO BAD.Of course, Cruz will have a problem appealing to women in this sense, because that would mean he'd have to take on big food and big pharm lobbyists. If he's prepared to do that, though, then he might have a longshot chance at actually becoming president.
Is Senator Jeff Sessions right that Republicans should become the "party of work," protecting American jobs, especially in light of Kellyanne Conway's poll on illegal immigration?
Jeff Sessions hasn't been correct (he's always right wing) since he first was elected to the Senate. The reason there are few jobs here in the US is as follows.1. Tax policy has allowed companies to get tax benefits when they outsource their business overseas. They also hide huge amounts of income by using various tax loopholes their supporters have inserted in the tax code.2. Making education more and more expensive has reduced the ability for many who could otherwise do college work to not afford college.3. Minimum wage stalling has kept millions of working families under the poverty level, often having to work 2 or more service jobs to keep a roof over the head of the family.4. Making "immigrants" the fall guy when there are millions of jobs in the worst industries and worst places that only those desperate enough to take these jobs. Did you know it was legal to hire children as young as 8 to work in Tobacco fields and sheds? 5. He has been a strong supporter of "Right to Work" laws, that have decimated unions in this country. Right to work really means right to work for less, or right to get fired with no recourse.6. He voted against equal pay for equal work, so even the low paying jobs pay less to women. And the high paying jobs pay less as well. Even the woman head of the GOP state committee in California got her pay cut by 30% when she took over from a man.7. He voted against extension of unemployment benefits. These payments return $1.75 to the economy for every dollar spent.
How many votes does a deligate is equal?
Delegate selection rules Washington Democrats meet in the legislative district caucuses. Washington Democrats meet in the legislative district caucuses. Under the Democratic Party's Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention,[5] delegates are awarded by proportional representation, with a minimum 15 percent threshold required in order to receive delegates. Each state party is required to publish its own state level delegate selection plan, indicating how the state will select delegates at the congressional and statewide level, how the delegation will implement the party's affirmative action policy, and how the delegation will ensure an equal balance between women and men. Those plans were adopted at state conventions and forwarded to the national party in mid-2007. In most state caucuses, the viability threshold must be met at each level in the process, from the precinct level upwards. This puts enormous pressure on the remaining candidates to gain the support of voters whose chosen candidates fall below the 15 percent mark.[8] The focus on viability is designed to weed out small, divisive factions from gaining delegates to disrupt the national convention. However, this can result in candidates gaining viability in some precincts but not in others, and a complicated "caucus math" is required to allocate delegates to the county and state conventions for each precinct.[9] In the primaries, the viability threshold is set based on statewide and congressional district votes. At-large and PLEO (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) delegates are allocated based on statewide votes, while district-level delegates are allocated by district votes.[5] Although journalists at several news outlets[10][11] have indicated that Puerto Rico's 63 delegates will all be awarded to a single candidate rather than proportionally, the party's Delegate Selection Plan states that delegates are to be allocated in a manner similar to other state caucuses.[12] The Washington Post Fact Checker has determined that the "winner take all" Puerto Rican primary is a myth.[13] The misconception is derived from the fact that by the time Puerto Rico votes, late in the primary season, there is often only one candidate still on the ballot.
Question about The Framers of the Constitution and Republicanism..?
First of all, it's -republicanism- with a small R. Republicans (capital R) are members of a political party. Republicans (small r) are people who believe in rule by the people. Okay, so the House of Representatives is elected directly by the people. States are divided into districts of the same size, each one getting a representative, but each state gets one representative no matter how small it is. Senators were originally elected by the state legislature of each state. Two senators per state, regardless of its size. In the early 20th century (before WWI) we decided to change it so that senators were elected directly by the people. The idea was that the House of Representatives represented The People directly. That's where the ideas for laws come from. Bills for laws must originate in the House. But the Senate was the 'grownups', the more deliberative house, run by people the politicians themselves picked. By the 20th century this was considered undemocratic, so we changed it to have senators elected directly. The president is elected by the Electoral College. Each state has a number of electors, one for each senator and congressman. So even a tiny state has three votes. Each state may divide its electors proportionately (so for instance if one candidate gets 30% of the popular vote he gets 30% of the electoral votes), or they may do 'winner take all' so the candidate who gets the most votes gets ALL that state's electoral votes. People sometimes say the electoral college came about only because top politicians didn't trust The People to pick the president, so they wanted one layer of control over them. But that's not true. The real reason for this setup has to do with a disagreement that came up when the Constitution was being framed. People in smaller states were afraid a few big states would join together and run the country. So a compromise was made to give smaller states proportionately more power. This is why even a tiny state gets at least one representative, two senators, and three electoral votes.