L L wrote:
The Founders weren't trustful of the people voting in general.
The Constitution doesn't state that the popular vote in each state shall be rewarded all of its electoral votes, but that's pretty much how it works now.
We do not currently have either a system that the Founders wanted nor what the majority of the people today want.
LL - do you really want a majority rule governance? Do we not need safeguards?
Guantanamo is the entree. The hors d’oeuvre is rendition, torture, secret prisons, and then G-town, if you survive.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
You only need to ask yourself this. What would it take for tzees to turn their backs on trump? I'm going to go with maybe a recent murder on tape, anything short of that will be a nothingburger. The GOP will never vote to remove him.
There has to be a limit to how much sh*t Republicans are willing to take from Trump. They've had to spend time and risk their reputations by defending him with the Ukraine impeachment. He claims he's innocent, but wanting witnesses so he can be exonerated could end their political careers.
The impeachment isn't some Democrat trap he walked into; it's all on him. He's not clever enough to have hatched such a scheme which means he took advice from sleazy Giuliani. And the DNC server thing is nuts. There is no politician that has ever lived that would have tried to do what Trump did. Republicans should be very concerned with what he might do next.
But we all saw Trump decimating his GOP contenders in the primaries - he owns the party and most are scared to death.
Good luck
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
When someone is impeached and removed there is always a second vote that bans them from holding public office again. I presume that would happen with Tiny.
But I also believe that Tiny would run anyway and challenge the whole thing in the courts. So unless he dies in office, Tiny will still be on the ballot in November.
He couldn't challenge the ban in court any more than he could fight his removal from office.
Of course he could indeed challenge the ban. He could go to court and argue that the ban from holding public office is unconstitutional. You can file anything you want in a court of law. He could argue that the ban from holding public office conflicts with the people's right to vote for whomever they choose. Basically, the argument is that the constitution is in conflict with itself.
IMO, it's a weak argument, but it might be good enough to tie things up until after the election.
Tiny is running for president and there is nothing that will stop him unless he dies.
jesseriley wrote:
Guantanamo is the entree. The hors d’oeuvre is rendition, torture, secret prisons, and then G-town, if you survive.
I have visited Alcatraz and the Huntsville, Texas death chamber. I can handle Guantanomo. My cousin even worked at Sing Sing.
Sally Vix wrote:
jesseriley wrote:
Sally, you’re free to challenge the FISA warrant that they use to track you 24/7, if they admit that there is one!
Good luck
Jesse please read what I listed below. You might learn a lot about why the electoral college is necessary and indeed why it is great for our democracy! Rubles away!
To an American who hasn’t paid attention to other better functioning democracies and can’t think logically - sure yeah you would think it’s great for our democracy.
Trollminator wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Jesse please read what I listed below. You might learn a lot about why the electoral college is necessary and indeed why it is great for our democracy! Rubles away!
To an American who hasn’t paid attention to other better functioning democracies and can’t think logically - sure yeah you would think it’s great for our democracy.
I have to give a shout-out to Jesse on this one. I think I knew this meaning of rendition but I kind of forgot. His meaning is the second ...
Rendition
a performance or interpretation, especially of a dramatic role or piece of music:
"a wonderful rendition of “Nessun Dorma.”"
synonyms
performance, rendering, interpretation, presentation, execution, ... more
2.
the practice of sending a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly to be interrogated in a country with less rigorous regulations for the humane treatment of prisoners.
The real Pookie Washington wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Do you really want the Liberals in California and New York to determine every election? The Framers were brilliant in allowing those in smaller states an opportunity to influence the presidential election. It is so funny you Libs always want to do away with the Electoral College simply because it allows someone other than Libs to win elections. Not every one in those smaller states is a "redneck."
I want the majority to rule. Those white folks who socialize, live, work and go to school around nothing but white folks are trouble. I have NOTHING in common with them and I don’t want them having the power to choose our President. Haven’t you noticed how white folks in the city and suburbs who come in contact with people from other races are more fair minded. They tend to be more educated and tend to lean left or moderate(with some exceptions). White people who live in those rural towns who rarely if ever come in contact with minorities tend to be Trump voters who lean right....often far right. They are usually less educated....some people may call them dumb. They believe EVERYTHING that comes out of Trump’s mouth. I don’t want those dumb people having too much influence on elections.
I want every single vote to have the same allocation of power to elect. Millions of votes are simply disregarded because the other side cast more votes within a state.
The Irishman wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
That was OJ scrambling around the Riviera Country Club (where the memberships are like $1 millon) looking for the likely dirt-poo rapscallions who murdered his wife and Ron.
I was hesitant to note your mistake. Do you not know how to spell million? Is English a second language?
Sally is a troll who spends all day every day on here saying he doesn’t like Trump while defending Trump relentlessly. It’s an empty existence and he’s best ignored. He’s one in a millon ???
You were the hunter at Huntsville, now you’re the prey.
Sally Vix wrote:
jesseriley wrote:
I hope they don’t put you in Guantanamo, sally.
Those in Guantanamo are treated better than any guests in any Ritz Carlton nationwide. The meals are delicious. Six prayers a day are encouraged. They are coddled like no others. Please put me in Guantanamo ASAP! I want delicious food!
Your presence would be considered illegal torture to others.
The real Pookie Washington wrote:
If I was a RepubliKKKan in Cali or NY, I would want to get rid of the EC. Same goes for a Dem in Mississippi, Louisiana or Alabama. As it stands now, there is really no reason for them to vote. Their presidential vote doesn’t count.
Absolutely. For many years I've lived in a red state and my vote didn't count for squat.
Now my state has turned purple and my vote counts more than for most of you.
A Republican in Cali or NY should have as much say about who is president as I do.
Sally Vix wrote:
The real Pookie Washington wrote:
I want the majority to rule. Those white folks who socialize, live, work and go to school around nothing but white folks are trouble. I have NOTHING in common with them and I don’t want them having the power to choose our President. Haven’t you noticed how white folks in the city and suburbs who come in contact with people from other races are more fair minded. They tend to be more educated and tend to lean left or moderate(with some exceptions). White people who live in those rural towns who rarely if ever come in contact with minorities tend to be Trump voters who lean right....often far right. They are usually less educated....some people may call them dumb. They believe EVERYTHING that comes out of Trump’s mouth. I don’t want those dumb people having too much influence on elections.
So when the blacks in South Africa got to be the majority, you were all in on them taking estates of the whites and putting tires on the necks of whites and setting them afire? Were you okay with that? The "majority rules" has a dangerous precedent.
So you are for a minority ruling... why am I not surprised?
L L wrote:
The Founders weren't trustful of the people voting in general.
The Constitution doesn't state that the popular vote in each state shall be rewarded all of its electoral votes, but that's pretty much how it works now.
We do not currently have either a system that the Founders wanted nor what the majority of the people today want.
Sally thinks we still walk around with muskets in case there is tyranny and that information only gets around via pony express.
Trollminator wrote:
L L wrote:
The Founders weren't trustful of the people voting in general.
The Constitution doesn't state that the popular vote in each state shall be rewarded all of its electoral votes, but that's pretty much how it works now.
We do not currently have either a system that the Founders wanted nor what the majority of the people today want.
Sally thinks we still walk around with muskets in case there is tyranny and that information only gets around via pony express.
No, Trollimator. What I found astounding is that EVER Lib here is all gung-ho about abolishing the Electoral College simply because the Dems have been losing elections. They don't respect the US Constitution. They simply want to win and want power. They don't care about due process and fair elections. Just a shame.
Fat hurts wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
He couldn't challenge the ban in court any more than he could fight his removal from office.
Of course he could indeed challenge the ban. He could go to court and argue that the ban from holding public office is unconstitutional. You can file anything you want in a court of law. He could argue that the ban from holding public office conflicts with the people's right to vote for whomever they choose. Basically, the argument is that the constitution is in conflict with itself.
IMO, it's a weak argument, but it might be good enough to tie things up until after the election.
Tiny is running for president and there is nothing that will stop him unless he dies.
So Trump wins the election and on January 21st, 2021, the court upholds the ban.
Sally Vix wrote:
So when the blacks in South Africa got to be the majority, you were all in on them taking estates of the whites and putting tires on the necks of whites and setting them afire? Were you okay with that? The "majority rules" has a dangerous precedent.
When the black dude got to be President of the United States and the duly elected Senator from Kentucky effectively vetoed his Supreme Court nominee were you OK with that?
Sally Vix wrote:
LL - do you really want a majority rule governance? Do we not need safeguards?
Funny you say that because majority rule for the Republican primaries gave us Trump as a candidate.
And majority rule getting the entire balance of close swing states got him to be president.
By the way, if the election changed to a popular vote, I guarantee you that tons more Republicans in California and New York would vote, knowing their vote would matter.
Even your idol Trump has said as much. If the rules were different he would have campaigned to get more California Republicans and such.
Better believe I'm triggered wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
So when the blacks in South Africa got to be the majority, you were all in on them taking estates of the whites and putting tires on the necks of whites and setting them afire? Were you okay with that? The "majority rules" has a dangerous precedent.
When the black dude got to be President of the United States and the duly elected Senator from Kentucky effectively vetoed his Supreme Court nominee were you OK with that?
He vetoed the nominee. He never vetoed Obama. I love Obama. The guy vetoed the nominee. Kavanaugh was vetoed. They had ladies making up crap about him sexually assaulting them when later it was shown they were terrible liars. Just wretched liars.