Print

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

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[REDSTATEWARD]

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?

There is nothing unconstitutional about state’s requiring electors to vote for candidate who got the most votes in the state. It clearly goes against the US Constition to cast a state’s  electoral votes to someone who did not finish first in that state’s election.

"clearly"

Oh, where is that?!

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

12th Amendment:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

LOL!

Translation: "No, I have no basis for my claim that it is unconstitutional."

LOL!
The Constitution does not permit the direct election of a President by a national popular vote.
Your previous post confirmed that. That is why it was laughable.

[facilitatorn]

Red, still drunk as always, misses the point.

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:

“In such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” can very well be based on the results of the national popular vote as by any other method.

If you can’t read you are left pretending all the facts are on your side.

[arafura]

There's a simple solution to the overcrowding...an impenetrable wall/fence on the border...and the whole problem disappears.

We went through this once before, Bambi-ignorance, and you said you got it, so let's try it again.

Let us suppose your impenetrable wall and let us likewise assume that while it cannot keep out either the majority of drugs or the majority of folks living here without appropriate documentation, that it can keep out those from the south.

This still leaves thousands and thousands of homeless, terrified people searching for safe haven. It is not in Mexico. It is not in Honduras. It is not in Nicaragua. It is not anywhere they could get to.

You would have them die, uncared for and unsupported.

Or, as you put it, "the whole problem disappears."

Simple.

You seem to think that the whole of Mexico, Central America, South America, Africa, Middle East, N/S/E/W Asia can all move to America for a better life, free from persecution, and a life on welfare.
They can't.

Trump is correct, there has to be an orderly immigration system, with no one entering America illegally/undocumented.
The caravaners are safe in Mexico, so that's from where they should be seeking asylum.
Mexico let them in, so they're Mexico's problem.
Mexico overrun?   then that's Mexico's fault.
Mexico should set up UN refugee camps for them.

But, hang about for another year or so....Nancy and co will basically open the borders, have sanctuary cities, etc...and the real 'fun' will begin.

Australia was so overrun by boats and asylum seekers that the Leftist govt's of Rudd/Gillard/then Rudd again had them housed in resort hotels.
Free housing, $10,000 start up packs, whitegoods etc...and welfare cash for life.
The trickle became a flood.

All very nice...until 'We the People' said..."hang on a minute, where's my free home, $10,000 start up pack, and welfare cash for life?"
Gillard/Rudd drew a line in the sand, 'no more asylum seekers coming in boats will ever be settled in Australia'.

Some asylum seekers took a chance and tried it on...only to find themselves housed in shipping containers in PNG.
Some of them are still there, the housing has improved.

Open borders will work in America for a while, but eventually it will be overrun.

[facilitatorn]

Your shithole country is basically Arkansas with a coastline. You lead the world in incest, sheep fucking, and little else.

We dominated the last century of world history on the strength of the refugee immigrants we accepted, our idea of fairness and opportunity, and our rule of law.

Since it doesn’t seem you want to understand the environmental or social forces driving events, stay home and eat coal. 

[luee]

Your report makes no sense?

You have to read it all the way down to where they explain the metrics they use in defining welfare.   

And differentiate between permanent legal resident and undocumented.

Easy to understand. If you are far less educated and have more babies you will tend to have more on welfare and put a big strain on social services with a really large influx. Numbers support this according to Mr. Richwine.

[kiidcarter8]

Your shithole country is basically Arkansas with a coastline. You lead the world in incest, sheep fucking, and little else.

We dominated the last century of world history on the strength of the refugee immigrants we accepted, our idea of fairness and opportunity, and our rule of law.

Since it doesn’t seem you want to understand the environmental or social forces driving events, stay home and eat coal.

DOMINATED

[josh]

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?

There is nothing unconstitutional about state’s requiring electors to vote for candidate who got the most votes in the state. It clearly goes against the US Constition to cast a state’s  electoral votes to someone who did not finish first in that state’s election.

"clearly"

Oh, where is that?!

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

12th Amendment:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

LOL!

Translation: "No, I have no basis for my claim that it is unconstitutional."

LOL!
The Constitution does not permit the direct election of a President by a national popular vote.
Your previous post confirmed that. That is why it was laughable.

But it doesn't prevent states from allocating their electors on that basis. So, no.

That is why your "reasoning" is laughable.

[josh]

There's a simple solution to the overcrowding...an impenetrable wall/fence on the border...and the whole problem disappears.

We went through this once before, Bambi-ignorance, and you said you got it, so let's try it again.

Let us suppose your impenetrable wall and let us likewise assume that while it cannot keep out either the majority of drugs or the majority of folks living here without appropriate documentation, that it can keep out those from the south.

This still leaves thousands and thousands of homeless, terrified people searching for safe haven. It is not in Mexico. It is not in Honduras. It is not in Nicaragua. It is not anywhere they could get to.

You would have them die, uncared for and unsupported.

Or, as you put it, "the whole problem disappears."

Simple.

You seem to think that the whole of Mexico, Central America, South America, Africa, Middle East, N/S/E/W Asia can all move to America for a better life, free from persecution, and a life on welfare.

No.

You seem to think making up arguments for you to respond to constitutes reasoned discussion.

It doesn't.

[josh]

On a couple of occasions, I have tried to explain to Ward why it is that hard work and aptitude will not necessarily lead to success in America.

He has persistently had a hard time grasping why this might be the case, failing to understand what the word "luck" could possibly have to do with things in our meritocratic America. I suspect he is not the only one.

Here, then, are a couple articles that discuss elements of my point:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/incompetent-people-from-wealthy-backgrounds-are-more-likely-to-act-like-theyre-smart-and-people-believe-them-2019-05-21

and

http://time.com/5593706/hard-work-achievement-mindset/?xid=tcoshare
I do realize that this is unlikely to actually make the difference, but I figured that the rational among posters here might not have seen both of these and that you could put them to good use elsewhere, potentially.

And if light does dawn over Marblehead, then we can all give thanks.

[kiidcarter8]

On a couple of occasions, I have tried to explain to Ward why it is that hard work and aptitude will not necessarily lead to success in America.

What do you define as success?

[facilitatorn]

Having more than $400.00 to access in case of emergency is a good start.

[kiidcarter8]

Having more than $400.00 to access in case of emergency is a good start.

Those with high aptitude would certainly cover this

[LarryBnDC]

Having more than $400.00 to access in case of emergency is a good start.

Those with high aptitude would certainly cover this

You have no clue.

[kiidcarter8]

https://nypost.com/video/baltimore-police-arrest-teens-involved-in-massive-street-brawl/

Good Lord.

[REDSTATEWARD]

: "No, I have no basis for my claim that it is unconstitutional."
LOL!
The Constitution does not permit the direct election of a President by a national popular vote.
Your previous post confirmed that. That is why it was laughable.


But it doesn't prevent states from allocating their electors on that basis. So, no.
That is why your "reasoning" is laughable.

No

As the Nevada Governor observed with his veto:
Nevadans vote and their electoral votes will follow the Constitution and will be given, in toto, to the candidate who  finishes first in Nevada.

Amend the Constitution to change how we elect a President.