Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

46

Football / Re: NFL

« on: June 05, 2019, 06:01:51 PM »

Hey banks, you guys got any tight ends left?

47

Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration

« on: June 05, 2019, 05:51:34 PM »

The appointment of electors is a delegated right granted to the states by the Constitution and while that right can be amended( i.e.12th ) it cannot be amended without Congressional approval NOR  in any manner that changes the overall purpose of the presidential election system.

The overall purpose of the presidential election system is to elect a President.  The rule change Nevada proposed would not change that.

The question, which you are unable to articulate, would be if the courts see this rule change as only an end run around the electoral college.  And even if they did, this would be a textbook case of how a deeper interpretation of the Constitution needs to come to play to make a decision vs. some literal reading of the words written in the document (which you erroneously seem to think supports your case.)

The original purpose of the EC was a buffer against the provincial and misinformed masses.  The Electors were originally able to vote for whoever they wanted. Only later did it become customary for those electors to vote for the first past the post winner of the statewide popular vote, making the voting process itself pure formality (for all but two states anyway.)

So what is it for now?  I fully understand the argument that the EC supports smaller states who normally would get no attention in a nationwide race.  No, I don’t agree with this argument, and think in practice it now slices the other way, where New York and California and Texas are ignored while swing states wield all the power.   But what is to prevent a state from voluntarily putting itself in that position?  Why can’t they say “We will cast our votes, but defer to the whole country to tell us who to vote for?”

Nothing, from what I can see.  Certainly not anything in the Constitution.

Sure, someone would bring it to the courts, but having a case, let alone a “blatant” one?  That’s REDSTATEWAD partisanship speaking.  An argument he wouldn’t be making if the two recent candidates denied the Presidency despite winning the popular vote were Republicans.

You fail to understand the argument.
Nevada's law was vetoed because the Governor believed it was improper to force Nevadans' electoral college votes to go to someone who finished second  in the state's  winner-take-all election.

It is, in addition, blatantly unconstitutional since it violates Article 2 of the US Constitution that set uo the Electoral College and delegated the choosing of electors to the states.Moreover, delegated rights cannot be overturned without Congressional action.
This has nothing to do with whether there is a better system of selecting a President than the Electoral College. There is a constitutional path to change.  Nevada's law was not on that path.

Your argument is an incoherent mush. Same as it ever was.

48

Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration

« on: June 05, 2019, 02:42:21 PM »

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress" says nothing about how any determination for the Electors' voting.

Nor does anything in the 12th Amendment, or you would not have bitched and moaned about my not putting them in the same post.

You got bupkis.

No I have the Constitution.  The appointment of electors is a delegated right granted to the states by the Constitution and while that right can be amended( i.e.12th ) it cannot be amended without Congressional approval NOR  in any manner that changes the overall purpose of the presidential election system.  And that system is an indirect election carried out through the Electoral College.
What the Nevada Legislature was trying to do a was convert Nevada ELECTORS into agents of other states.
Blatantly unconstitutional.

Nothing in the Constitution instructs a state in how its electors must vote.

49

Football / Re: College Football

« on: June 05, 2019, 12:55:35 PM »

I think what needs to be restricted is tampering and recruiting by schools, not a kid's ability to choose a better path for himself.

50

Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration

« on: June 03, 2019, 08:50:15 PM »

Speaking of 'refugees';

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/aussie-models-shock-move-to-have-flight-assault-case-thrown-out/news-story/326832e88970c19a8b3c41a04968f057

An Australian model facing a potential 21-year jail sentence in the US for allegedly assaulting a flight attendant on a plane to Los Angeles has asked a Californian judge to toss her conviction.

Adau Akui Atem Mornyang will be sentenced in the US District Court in Los Angeles on June 24.

Ms Mornyang has enjoyed significant modelling success since moving to Australia as a refugee at the age of 10, including serving as a global campaign face for Sephora in 2016, a Miss World Victorian finalist in 2017 and Miss World Australia finalist and recently walked the runway at New York Fashion Week.

She said the incident had ruined her career.

Ms Mornyang’s US legal team told Judge Cormac Carney a jury convicted the model at a trial in March after prosecutors relied on “an inflammatory audiotape that purported to depict Ms Mornyang screaming racial slurs and obscenities”.

South Sudanese-born Ms Mornyang was convicted of a felony charge of interference with a United Airlines flight crew member and misdemeanour assault.
Melbourne-based Mornyang, 24, faces a statutory maximum sentence of 21 years in US federal prison.
Prosecutors said Ms Mornyang, during the January 21 Melbourne to LA flight, ordered “several alcoholic beverages”.

Earlier this year Ms Mornyang denied she had attacked anyone and described the episode as “an ordeal” that she did not remember after having mixed prescription drugs with alcohol to sleep during the flight.

“I was not intoxicated because I had only two glasses of wine during dinner service, requested a seat move and slept for what I believe to have been eight hours, just to wake up five hours and five minutes before landing to an arrest.

“Did I take my Prozac and oxycodone before the flight? Yes I did. But I was not drunk before boarding.”

Even though passengers on that flight and other flight attendants said there was never a slap, the evidence was ignored and they decided to believe (the flight attendant),” she said in a text message.

#####

Alcohol should be banned on planes.....as cockpit cabin doors should always be locked.

Hardly a terrorist.
Maybe she heard the alleged racial slurs and obscenities in Hollywood movies.

21 years in US federal prison for that?...allegedly screaming a few racial slurs and obscenities, and a hugely doubtful misdemeanour assault.
Now there's an absolute outrage.

Not 21 months in prison...but 21 YEARS!

Oh look, another Aussie being an asshole. Fuck them all.

51

Football / Re: College Football

« on: June 03, 2019, 08:45:31 PM »

I guess you weren't done. As usual your wont to disagree with any opinion I have has aggravated your syndrome. Giving you once more an itch you need to scratch. 

I agree.with you more than I disagree. You just personalize disagreements. My speculation is it is some deep seeded inferiority complex that makes you uncomfortable with having to engage in argument. There are other possible explanations.

FTR I never claimed victory. That's just your usual BS at work. If you are upset that I said your opinion sucked tough shit. It did.

And, again as always, I suppose I'll have to give you the last word because of your infantile need for it.

I envision you looking in a mirror while typing this.

Have at it bra.

I had the last word about four posts ago. You never countered my arguments. You just decided to insult instead.

52

Football / Re: College Football

« on: June 03, 2019, 08:05:11 PM »

Or just call your argument lane because he cannot handle.to discuss it on the merits and claim victory while.standing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner, like you.

53

Football / Re: College Football

« on: June 03, 2019, 04:26:15 PM »

I did note the context. Almost a contract equals not a contract. It is not horseshoes. Neither party is bound by the commitment. I disagree with saying the student has an obligation when s/he does not. Neither does the school

While you may have noted it you sure didn't understand it. But I'm used to that kind of ignorance from you. I meant it in a moral sense. Any rational thinking person that didn't knee-jerk disagree with me because he's obsessed with disagreeing with me could have deciphered that.

Behave as expected. "Everyone must actually agree with me! If they say they don't, it is because they are lying!"

Your rush to personalize every disagreement is noted. One of your defense mechanisms when cornered.

Who was cornered? LOL

You. Pressed by a counter argument you are more likely to pull out.an insult.than to engage in a discussion.

You, as always, mistake an incorrectly perceived personal defense mechanism to what is simply mild annoyance at your's and Skippy's usual psychoneurotic auto compulsive anal stupidity. Which is your wont for some syndromic reason.  Have a nice day.

Once again, your need to personalize arguments you find hard to counter is noted. And, to quote Diane Keaton, anal is a polite term for what you are.

54

Football / Re: College Football

« on: June 03, 2019, 12:11:28 PM »

This flippin Transfer Portal crap is getting out of hand...  they need to completely rethink it and overhaul it

With about 700 kids already in the portal I tend to agree with you. I'm not against the transfers but it's the quick turn leniency that the NCAA is granting that is the issue with me. The kids made a commitment. There should be some penalty for them stiffing the schools they committed to. If they want to be treated as adults then act like one when it comes to signing your name. If not then sit for a year an take the penalty for going against your word.  This is directed more at the underclassmen rather than the grad transfers.

It is their futures. If they realize the school is a bad fit for the., why hinder them from going to a better one?

No problem go somewhere else. But you made a commitment, almost like signing a contract. It's a good life lesson to realize early that if you skip out on your responsibilities there can be consequences. But I suppose for some people in this day and age a person's signed word doesn't mean much. So, of course, opinions vary.

In the law there is a word for "almost like signing a contract". It is "not a contract." Especially when the agreement is only really restrictable on one side.

How committed is the school? Schools can cancel the.scholarship at the end of a year, right? If the signed word of the school is not binding for four years, why should the kids word be? It makes some sense to limit transfers to prevent tampering and continual recruiting, but not to the extent of hampering these free choice of the kids.

I congratulate you, even in the off-season you are in Mid-Season blah blah blah form. Bravo.



First, look up the word, almost, apply it to the context of the post and get back to me on that.

I did note the context. Almost a contract equals not a contract. It is not horseshoes. Neither party is bound by the commitment. I disagree with saying the student has an obligation when s/he does not. Neither does the school

Second, how often do you see schools cancelling the scholarship unless it's for academic or disciplinary reasons? So STFU about that. 

More often do than you think. Some God's Conference teams had a reputation for over booming scholarships and the weeding out, which they have every right to do.

Of course you're welcome to your opinion, even though it sucks, and is somewhat supporting the dishonorable selfie attitude of most people in this country are invariably but relentlessly edging towards.

Besides if I had said it was a wonderful thing you(Like Skippy) would have said the opposite anyways. LOL

And have a nice day bro.

Your rush to personalize every disagreement is noted. One of your defense mechanisms when cornered.

55

Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration

« on: June 03, 2019, 12:03:58 PM »

Mind you, I think it is a bad idea to do it on a state by state basis. But your reason for arguing it's constitutionality is off.

Bad idea that is blatantly unconstitutional.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Actually, that goes for both "blatantly" and "unconstitutional." Your only argument, as always, is repetition, because you have no clue what the argument you poached from was actually arguing.

I on the other hand shamedly admit the monumental and unforgivable error staring at me from the middle of the second quoted sentence. I could blame autocorrect, but what is the point? I am going to have to go Faye Dunaway/Joan Crawford on my own ass. No possessive of it with an apostrophe! EVER!

56

Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration

« on: June 03, 2019, 08:58:05 AM »

https://www.yahoo.com/news/corporations-paid-91-billion-less-in-taxes-in-2018-under-trumps-tax-law-160745447.html?ncid=facebook_yahoonewsf_akfmevaatca

"Winning"

Like when the last major manufacturer of televisions in the US has to shut down because of the tariffs or Ford has to lay off thousands because of them.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/02/tariffs-china-blame-u-s-escalation-trade-war-china-says/1319985001/

So much winning!

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/trumps-two-front-mexico-china-trade-war-is-unsustainable.html

Winning everywhere!

Hey, but what about our balance of trade with China - much better, right? Sure, if you compare April to April. But if you compare Jan-Apr of 2019 to 2018 it is close to identical. And... oh, the hell with it! Look for yourselves:


You can have Mexico with it:


Winning, I tell you!

Holy crap! We're in A Fib!

57

Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration

« on: June 03, 2019, 08:52:18 AM »

How do Maine and Nebraska get away with splitting their electoral votes, then?  Just asking.

Both deal in proportions.

No they don't. They apportion by congressional district.

Applied to Nevada in 2016 instead of the State’s 6 electoral votes going to Hillary she would have received 2.88 and Trump 2.12( or thereabouts)

Nothing in the Constitution mandates how a state's electors vote.

Except that they vote for electors in their own state

Electors don't vote for electors. What in the name of God are you blathering about? If you mean VOTERS vote for.electors, that is not Constitutionally required. It is also irrelevant since states control how electors vote.

There is no requirement electoral votes be based on a popular election.[/ quote] all, except the electors for each candidate are chosen by party.

That is not Constitutionally required either.

which never has made a difference
 

That is why there are always faithless electors who vote for people who did not win the state's election. Indeed, sometimes even if they don't run. Faith Spotted Eagle got an electoral vote in 2016. So did Susan Collins.

whoopee.

Mind you, I think it is a bad idea to do it on a state by state basis. But your reason for arguing it's constitutionality is off.

Not bBy anyeverything you posted.

Fify.

58

Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration

« on: June 02, 2019, 08:51:27 PM »

How do Maine and Nebraska get away with splitting their electoral votes, then?  Just asking.

Both deal in proportions.

No they don't. They apportion by congressional district.

Applied to Nevada in 2016 instead of the State’s 6 electoral votes going to Hillary she would have received 2.88 and Trump 2.12( or thereabouts)

Nothing in the Constitution mandates how a state's electors vote. There is no requirement electoral votes be based on a popular election. That is why there are always faithless electors who vote for people who did not win the state's election. Indeed, sometimes even if they don't run. Faith Spotted Eagle got an electoral vote in 2016. So did Susan Collins.

Mind you, I think it is a bad idea to do it on a state by state basis. But your reason for arguing it's constitutionality is off.

59

Football / Re: College Football

« on: June 02, 2019, 08:40:06 PM »

This flippin Transfer Portal crap is getting out of hand...  they need to completely rethink it and overhaul it

With about 700 kids already in the portal I tend to agree with you. I'm not against the transfers but it's the quick turn leniency that the NCAA is granting that is the issue with me. The kids made a commitment. There should be some penalty for them stiffing the schools they committed to. If they want to be treated as adults then act like one when it comes to signing your name. If not then sit for a year an take the penalty for going against your word.  This is directed more at the underclassmen rather than the grad transfers.

It is their futures. If they realize the school is a bad fit for the., why hinder them from going to a better one?

No problem go somewhere else. But you made a commitment, almost like signing a contract. It's a good life lesson to realize early that if you skip out on your responsibilities there can be consequences. But I suppose for some people in this day and age a person's signed word doesn't mean much. So, of course, opinions vary.

In the law there is a word for "almost like signing a contract". It is "not a contract." Especially when the agreement is only really restrictable on one side.

How committed is the school? Schools can cancel the.scholarship at the end of a year, right? If the signed word of the school is not binding for four years, why should the kids word be? It makes some sense to limit transfers to prevent tampering and continual recruiting, but not to the extent of hampering these free choice of the kids.

60

Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration

« on: June 01, 2019, 05:54:40 PM »

democrat man bites progressive dogs.

Both houses of the democratic-controlled Nevada Legislature approved bill that would cast the state’s electoral votes for the presidential candidate who gets the most votes Nationally. However the democraticgovernor Steve Sisolak vetoed the measure.
.... joining other states in approving the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”

Three cheers for common sense.

Whatever point you’re to make is nullified by your insistence on using the equivalent of a school yard taunt.

Have a seat fool.

Meanwhile Governor Sisolak used a high minded argument to defend a breathtakingly stupid decision, which is precisely why you support that dumb shit.

So take up your argument with the Governor.
But he did do the Legislature a favor by preventing it from passing an unconstitutional bill.

And your basis for believing that it is unconstitutional?

Is it more unconstitutional than the bills that dictate a state's EV shall all go to the winner in that state, in your opinion?

Red has no idea on his own about constitutionality because he read so.eone who said it and does not comprehend the argument, and he will not.defend his comments. He never does.