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

[josh]

: "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.

Being given in toto was a change that was done without changing the Constitution, Ward.

Try again.

You keep talking about the Constitution, but you have no passages from it that support your erroneous belief, nor the governor's. Just repetition.

[josh]

all, except the electors for each candidate are chosen by party.

which never has made a difference

It made one in 2016.

Neutral electors might well not have chosen the Manchurian Russian Candidate.

[josh]

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!

[josh]

Worst Attorney General, Barr none.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/barr-not-a-crime-for-trump-to-demand-staffers-lie-to-investigators?fbclid=IwAR2KYrrs_-6W3c5f9okdpX9HITdoA61_X67HOQsEKTrrOB30RaBTaW7NyGA

I missed this from last month, but it's a doozy!

“You . . . have a situation where a president essentially tries to change the lawyer’s account in order to prevent further criticism of himself,” Senator Dianne Feinstein told Barr during her allotted five minutes, pointing to the fact that the president told former White House counsel Don McGahn to lie to investigators about Trump instructing him to remove Mueller. Why, she wondered, is that not obstruction of justice? To which Barr responded, “Well, that’s not a crime.”

Yes, yes it is.

[josh]

The winningest win the world has ever known.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/domestic-terrorism-fbi-white-supremacy_n_5ce6e695e4b0a2f9f28ba855?gsw&utm_source=The+Marshall+Project+Newsletter&utm_campaign=9763fc527d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_28_11_50&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5e02cdad9d-9763fc527d-174498365

FBI Sees ‘Challenging’ Battle Against Domestic Terror Amid Rise In White Supremacist Threat

A senior FBI counterterrorism official said this week that current federal law makes bringing domestic terrorism cases “challenging” for the bureau as it works to combat a “significant” rise in instances of white supremacist violence.

Domestic terrorism arrests continue to outpace arrests for international terrorism, despite the fact that U.S. law makes it much easier to charge defendants who associate themselves with designated foreign terrorist organizations like ISIS and al Qaeda, the senior FBI counterterrorism official, who asked to be unnamed, told reporters at a briefing on Thursday.
...
Brad Wiegmann of DOJ’s National Security Division said it would be “highly problematic” for the government to designate domestic terrorism groups...

[josh]

But the Prez isn't winning all by himself!

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/30/third-house-republican-blocks-massive-disaster-aid-package-1348433

Conservative House Republicans succeeded again Thursday in their campaign to derail passage of a $19.1 billion disaster aid package.

Rep. John Rose (R-Tenn.) objected to passing the bill by voice vote. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who derailed the same measure earlier this week, was by Rose's side.

The move means the measure will not be sent to President Donald Trump for his signature until the House returns from recess Monday and takes a roll call vote.

This is the third time a member of the GOP’s most conservative wing has risen to block the bill from becoming law during the 10-day Memorial Day recess, sparking public scorn from some members of their own party.

The dissenting lawmakers argue that such a massive emergency aid package should not be passed without a recorded vote and that the funding should be offset by other spending reductions, rather than increasing the federal deficit.

They also contend that the president’s $4.5 billion request for extra border security funding should be included.

As Mick Mulvaney pointed out in an interview not all that long ago, nobody actually cares about the deficit. It's all just posturing.

Fortunately for the GOP, American voters are mostly not paying attentjon to Mick Mulvaney.

Hypcritical, amoral assholes who would be voting for this emergency funding if it were their districts.

[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.

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.

[whiskeypriest]

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!

[barton]

Or that's Trump's EKG after Stephen Miller slipped something into his cheeseburger. 

[NeedsAdjustments]

That time when after your father-in-law got you a Top Secret security clearance, you demonstrate exactly why you didn't get one to begin with:

https://www.axios.com/jared-kushner-trump-tower-meeting-fbi-axios-on-hbo-97b8f3d8-9c72-4a57-840d-75e1e22e6611.html

Correct answer is "Yes", Jared.  "Yes I would tell the FBI if Russia reached out to the campaign again. Not only is it the right thing to do, with my security clearance I am required to, BY LAW." 

[REDSTATEWARD]

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.

[whiskeypriest]

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!

[barton]

Trump mangles "primogeniture" as "primo genitals", then to cover embarassment gives Queen's boob a playful squeeze

Its a slow news day - people are having pointless arguments with Red and Bambu, and/or worrying about punctuation.  I had to do something.  Will post a link when I find one.







 

[oilcan]

For Bambu and the other Super Obvious Science deniers:

https://youtu.be/wQnDGDXHNWU

(Bill Nye sets a globe on fire)


BTW, all these arguments about "natural fluctations" - you guys know that all the others shifts in global temperature happened over thousands, sometimes millions, of years, right?  And there wasn't some race of saurians that had an industrial revolution and then, wham, in a century or two, it got really warm. 

[REDSTATEWARD]

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!

I didn't "poach" anything.  I quoted the Governor and added my opinion that the Compact Nevada was trying to join would be held unconstitutional.