trashbaum

Name a single individual who proposed for that to happen. LOL that is easy, Nasty peeloosely The wicked witch of the west.

trashbaum

No fraud? Guess you have a new name for fraud, although not very logical.

straightUp Loc: California

What was the Russian collusion excuse?

straightUp Loc: California

I'm not talking about establishing Congress. I *AM* talking about electing the President.
I *have* read #68 and I KNOW why the EC was established. In fact I stated what that reason was...

Here's what I wrote...
"there's nothing wrong with the EC itself, which is another design by the founders, the purpose of which is to provide surrogate v**ers in place of the representatives themselves during p**********l e******ns to avoid corruption.

What part of this is so confusing for you? I can't make it any clearer than that JW - you just need to read what people are writing instead of reacting to what you THINK they are writing.


Well, I'm trying not laugh here. You are waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy off.

You even provided a link to a Bing search that provides more of the same definitions that I've been using, which are nothing like what you are describing.

I mean, here you are, talking about our e******n system while denying that we're a democracy... E******n systems don't exist outside a democracy! That *IS* the very definition of what a democracy is! If you have an e******n system, you ARE a democracy! Democracy is not a specific "ism", it's a broad category, so a democracy might not be direct (which is how some people are *trying* to redefine democracy) it could also an indirect or representative democracy, which is what WE are.

Some democracies don't might not even work very well and some seem to be more for show... but the definition of democracy is any system where citizens v**e. It *IS* that simple.

We ALSO just happen to be a republic, another broad category that covers any variety of government led by an elected president, which by itself would not be possible for a system that is NOT also a democracy because if you're not a democracy you can't elect a president!



I don't see that anywhere in the article I referenced. Are you looking at something different?

As for the request... which one? Trump's legal team *did* request a delay in the proceedings while they try to negotiate whether or not the United States of America can stand trial for what Trump said instead of himself. Are you referring to an excuse for negotiating that switch?

straightUp Loc: California

Oh, really? Nancy Pelosi proposed that ALL production should be owned by the state? Can you please show me where she said that?

Mikeyavelli

Hilliar lost because the Russians helped Trump.

straightUp Loc: California

Read the title in the address... it says "most dangerous cities IN CALIFORNIA"

I'm tipping my hat to Road Snacks for explaining their methodology, I actually found the table in the FBI data that they used.. It's 2019 data and the only way to get city-by-city comparisons is to look at one dataset at a time, or write a program to combine them.

These datasets BTW are available as CSV downloads. I loaded up the California data set in Excel and ran the same calculations... but I show Emeryville in 10th place and Oakland in 15th. Stockton is in 9th and San Bernardino is in 11th. But this was for violent crimes only, not property crimes. If you look at the Road Snacks website for Emeryville, you will notice the wide margin between violent crime and property crime. It's the property crime that puts Emeryville high on the list and I think I know why... I've been to Emeryville... Nice place... Wealthy people... LOTS of valuable things to steal.

I don't consider that "dangerous". If anything, it's a burden to insurance companies.

When you actually focus on violent crime, which you KNOW is what people are implying when they talk about dangerous cities... AND when you look at ALL the states, not just California the list looks much more like what I posted.

So this answers the charge that California has the most dangerous cities in the US with a resounding no, it does not.

As for the implication that the most violent cities are run by Democrats, that also has a simple answer...

Most violent cities have large and diverse populations. The size of the population INCREASES the likelihood of crime and diversity DECREASES the likelihood of a Republican being elected.

That means the Democrats are the only ones that are even dealing with the levels of crime found in major cities as the Republican mayors way out in the cornfields are busy planning this year's hoedown at the big barn, where you KNOW all those white folks will be yabbering about how THEY would be take control of the crime issue if only THEY were in charge.

straightUp Loc: California

Yeah, I never bought that BS. I don't think Hillary did either. I think there was evidence that Russians were trying to influence e******ns not just here but in France and several other places too, but I don't think anyone was actually equating that to THE REASON why she lost the e******n.

When Hillary spoke about having the e******n "stolen", she was referring to the EC results vs the popular results and even then she understood as well as I and everyone else with a brain, that it's the EC results that legally count. So there was no implied crime. There was simply a concern about the integrity of the system.

straightUp Loc: California

Well, I can't speak for ALL Americans like you can but among the people I know personally, it's only the Republicans that are collecting long term disability while in my opinion, being perfectly capable of finding work they can still do.

My Republican bass player for instance is collecting checks from the government because of a bad back... but he still races his car at a local track for fun, plays bass with us and he even consults for his former employer under the table (when he feels like it).

So... you're going to have a hard time convincing me that what you're saying is anything but over-generalized BS.

straightUp Loc: California

I don't find that to be the case at all. PeterS has ideas that tend to be a little left of your comfort zone but he's not advocating for c*******m for crying out loud. Why are you people so dramatic?

trashbaum

Need to bring in Hillary and the Russians so demo's can loose this next e******n.

trashbaum

We are not dramatic just don't want c*******m, You can tell yourself you aren't trying to become c*******t if you want to but that is exactly what you are doing.

Justice101

That means the Democrats are the only ones that are even dealing with the levels of crime found in major cities as the Republican mayors way out in the cornfields are busy planning this year's hoedown at the big barn, where you KNOW all those white folks will be yabbering about how THEY would be take control of the crime issue if only THEY were in charge.

Democrats tend to congregate in urban areas while Republicans tend to congregate in the suburbs and rural areas.
Missouri is a good example. Large area of Democrat population in St. Louis and Kansas City, with high crime . The suburbs of both areas are mixed to more conservative, but the middle of the state, North and South delivered enough v**es for Missouri to remain a RED State.

trashbaum

You learned to read on fairy tales.

Mikeyavelli

No one wants their Rolex stolen or their Panamera taken for a joy ride. Those are crimes no matter how rich or white the victims are.
California is becoming the modern Deadwood with a Cuban twist.
Totally sux.