|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 8, 2020 22:52:13 GMT -5
The Electoral College isn't even in my top two things I'd eliminate in American government. Number one was probably law and order judging from the excuses you had For the domestic terrorist
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 8, 2020 22:55:02 GMT -5
What domestic terrorist.
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 8, 2020 22:56:04 GMT -5
The Electoral College isn't even in my top two things I'd eliminate in American government. Number one was probably law and order judging from the excuses you had For the domestic terrorist They have backtracked on that already. Biden has changed stance and so has party it seems. Polls said I think it was 67% of African Americans polled said they opposed getting rid of police and I believe it wasn’t popular with moderates in their party either who opposed it.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Aug 8, 2020 22:56:12 GMT -5
I love law and order! One of my favorite quotes, and relevant to this thread's topic:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. ... The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; ... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Aug 8, 2020 22:56:33 GMT -5
Number one was probably law and order judging from the excuses you had For the domestic terrorist They have backtracked on that already. Biden has changed stance and so has party it seems. Polls said I think it was 67% of African Americans polled said they opposed getting rid of police and I believe it wasn’t popular with moderates in their party either who opposed it. Did Biden ever support it?
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 8, 2020 22:58:29 GMT -5
Number one was probably law and order judging from the excuses you had For the domestic terrorist They have backtracked on that already. Biden has changed stance and so has party it seems. Polls said I think it was 67% of African Americans polled said they opposed getting rid of police and I believe it wasn’t popular with moderates in their party either who opposed it. in other words, Democrats fickle and whatever way the wind blows up the skirt,.. they do.
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 8, 2020 22:58:49 GMT -5
They have backtracked on that already. Biden has changed stance and so has party it seems. Polls said I think it was 67% of African Americans polled said they opposed getting rid of police and I believe it wasn’t popular with moderates in their party either who opposed it. Did Biden ever support it? He didn’t come out and oppose it in anyway and he’s a presidential candidate cause all he does is hide in basement and occasionally come out and give us entertainment with gaffes
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 8, 2020 22:59:25 GMT -5
They have backtracked on that already. Biden has changed stance and so has party it seems. Polls said I think it was 67% of African Americans polled said they opposed getting rid of police and I believe it wasn’t popular with moderates in their party either who opposed it. Did Biden ever support it? . Depends who he was talking to, he got quite used to talking out of both sides of his mouth
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 8, 2020 22:59:55 GMT -5
They have backtracked on that already. Biden has changed stance and so has party it seems. Polls said I think it was 67% of African Americans polled said they opposed getting rid of police and I believe it wasn’t popular with moderates in their party either who opposed it. in other words, Democrats fickle and whatever way the wind blows up the skirt,.. they do. The try take a stance on what’s popular and when that turns on them so does stance.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Aug 8, 2020 23:00:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 9, 2020 3:10:07 GMT -5
He never said for people not to have money. He’s making the point that continually handing out money causes people to get lazy and not want to work. So you are saying farmers are the laziest people in the USA?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 9, 2020 3:20:33 GMT -5
How is "one man, one vote" not fair? Every other country in the world does it that way. Why would people in certain states even vote if only three states would matter in country. There would only be campaigning in three states and nobody would go to rest of country. They would be ignored Right now, it is claimed that only a few "swing states" matter. You are claiming that in a popular vote only a few large state would matter. OK, if you have to have a system where only a few states determine who gets to be president, should they at least be the states with the most people? Or should a much smaller number of people have the choice? Anyway, if we actually had a popular vote, it would not be true that "big states" would decide the outcome. If the people of California voted 51/49, the net votes for the winning candidate would only be 800,000. There are only 4 states with a population smaller than 800,000. So what it would really mean is that candidates wouldn't be able to ignore California. They would have to hustle for votes there, to make it close. Then they would have to work for votes in other states to make up any losses. Which would mean they would have to try to appeal to everyone in every state. Which would be ... um ... the entire point of voting.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 9, 2020 5:21:01 GMT -5
He never said for people not to have money. He’s making the point that continually handing out money causes people to get lazy and not want to work. So you are saying farmers are the laziest people in the USA? . Did farmers stop working? Do they have a choice what to charge for the product? You better stick to supporting the riots.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 9, 2020 5:25:40 GMT -5
heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-8-2020Lots of clear explanations in there. 1) Dems wanted a relief bill. 2) Senate GOP gave up on passing one, told the Dems to work with Trump. 3) Trump "negotiated" with the Dems by saying his plan was non-negotiable. 4) Dems refused to take the Trump plan as-is. 5) Trump used this refusal to say that the Dems are blocking Congressional action (when it is actually the Senate Republicans who are doing so). 6) Trump signs Executive Orders that it is likely could not face legal challenge. 7) Trump is ready to frame any legal challenge as "Dems are trying to block your benefits" (despite that the Dems passed a benefits bill more than a month ago and actually want there to be more benefits than Trump does). 8) States are supposed to pay 25% because Trump is taking the money from a disaster relief fund originally intended for things like hurricanes, etc. That law requires states to kick in 25%. IMO the Dems should just keep working with the Senate for Congressional action. The funds that Trump wants to spend will not cover the payments for very long. When it runs out, the Dems will be able to say "Trump's plan failed, the Senate can still choose to work with us to make a plan that will work."
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 9, 2020 5:27:20 GMT -5
Why would people in certain states even vote if only three states would matter in country. There would only be campaigning in three states and nobody would go to rest of country. They would be ignored Right now, it is claimed that only a few "swing states" matter. You are claiming that in a popular vote only a few large state would matter. OK, if you have to have a system where only a few states determine who gets to be president, should they at least be the states with the most people? Or should a much smaller number of people have the choice? Anyway, if we actually had a popular vote, it would not be true that "big states" would decide the outcome. If the people of California voted 51/49, the net votes for the winning candidate would only be 800,000. There are only 4 states with a population smaller than 800,000. So what it would really mean is that candidates wouldn't be able to ignore California. They would have to hustle for votes there, to make it close. Then they would have to work for votes in other states to make up any losses. Which would mean they would have to try to appeal to everyone in every state. Which would be ... um ... the entire point of voting. . Yet another example of hypocrisy from the liberal left. If it was in your favor to support The electoral college you would. If it was in your favor to be against the electoral college politically you would. What you people care about is getting what you want politically. Nots what’s best for the health of your country.
|
|