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

[barton]

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

[FlyingVProd]

We need to build a high speed train between Las Vegas and Anaheim, and Disneyland just built a new Star Wars park. Tourism creates over 160,000 jobs in Orange County, California, alone, and having a high speed train between Vegas and Anaheim would be good for everyone.

The economies in both Anaheim and Vegas are booming because of tourism. Thank God for tourism, tourism is saving us.

http://nevadanewsandviews.com/as-the-economy-surges-vegas-is-cashing-in/

Salute,

Tony V.

[REDSTATEWARD]

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

Both deal in proportions.
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)

[whiskeypriest]

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.

[REDSTATEWARD]

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 

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

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 by anything you posted.

[kiidcarter8]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/02/politics/navy-uss-mccain-shanahan/index.html

Truth comes out about ship.

[LarryBnDC]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/02/politics/navy-uss-mccain-shanahan/index.html

Truth comes out about ship.

The story doesn’t get any better, it just shifts the blame down to some anonymous kid.

"The fact some 23- or 24-year-old person on the advance team went to that site and said, 'Oh my goodness there's the John McCain, we all know how the President feels about the former senator, maybe that's not the best backdrop, can somebody look into moving it?' -- that's not an unreasonable thing to ask," Mulvaney told NBC's Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press."

[LarryBnDC]

: "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.

The Governor made a stupid decision for a dumb reason, but that’s probably why you agree with it. No, you agree because:

“...the system does (for now) make it easier for the Republican Party to win presidential elections without appealing to a majority of the national electorate. And it awards disproportionate influence over the Executive branch to the small fraction of states that happen to have a relatively similar number of Democratic and Republican residents.”

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/nevada-governor-vetoes-national-popular-vote-bill.html

[arafura]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/02/politics/navy-uss-mccain-shanahan/index.html

Truth comes out about ship.

Trump didn't do it, reportedly...but IMO he does and says some dumb things sometimes.

[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.

The Governor made a stupid decision for a dumb reason, but that’s probably why you agree with it.

Hmm. The Governor defended his constituents right to have their constitutional rights to vote and have those  votes  counted for the candidate they chose. And you call that” dumb”?
Lol.

[LarryBnDC]

: "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.

The Governor made a stupid decision for a dumb reason, but that’s probably why you agree with it.

Hmm. The Governor defended his constituents right to have their constitutional rights to vote and have those  votes  counted for the candidate they chose. And you call that” dumb”?
Lol

Yes. I do.

And fuck you with your ‘rights to vote and have those votes counted’ bullshit!

You know you don’t believe that shit for a minute considering your stance on GOP voter suppression. In fact you swore there is no ‘constitutional right to vote’ remember?

[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.

The Governor made a stupid decision for a dumb reason, but that’s probably why you agree with it.

Hmm. The Governor defended his constituents right to have their constitutional rights to vote and have those  votes  counted for the candidate they chose. And you call that” dumb”?
Lol

Yes. I do.

please explain.

And fuck you with your ‘rights to vote and have those votes counted’ bullshit!

You know you don’t believe that shit for a minute considering your stance on GOP voter suppression. In fact you swore there is no ‘constitutional right to vote’ remember?

Voter Suppression ?Minority voting is at record levels.
But I can see why you want  to change the  subject.

[LarryBnDC]

: "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.

The Governor made a stupid decision for a dumb reason, but that’s probably why you agree with it.

Hmm. The Governor defended his constituents right to have their constitutional rights to vote and have those  votes  counted for the candidate they chose. And you call that” dumb”?
Lol

Yes. I do.

please explain.

And fuck you with your ‘rights to vote and have those votes counted’ bullshit!

You know you don’t believe that shit for a minute considering your stance on GOP voter suppression. In fact you swore there is no ‘constitutional right to vote’ remember?

Voter Suppression ?Minority voting is at record levels.
But I can see why you want  to change the  subject.

Bitch, please.

You know you could take a second to correctly format your cut and paste talking points.

[facilitatorn]

Red can no more be honest than trump can.

Perpetual tax cheats are marked by their allergy to true statements.

[josh]

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

Those with high aptitude would certainly cover this

If they are lucky.