One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: zombinis3
Page: <<prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 26 next>>
Aug 20, 2019 22:21:09   #
karpenter wrote:
These Are National Popular V**es
Which Is Not How We Elect Our Presidents
No One Threw Their E*******l V**es, Either
Although Gore Wanted To Change The Rules After The E******n

STATES Elect Presidents
The E*******l V**es Of The State
Goes To Who Carried The STATE In The E******n

As I Keep Pointing Out
Hillary's 3.2 Million V**es
Came From ONLY ONE State....California
And She Needed 4.5 Million V**es In California To Get It

It Wouldn't Matter If EVERY V**e In California
Had Been Cast For Hillary
Or If She Had Carried California By Only ONE V**e
California Has 58 E*******l V**es,
Regardless Of How Many, OR FEW, People V**e
California Still Gets The SAME Amount Of E*******l V**es
Because The E*******l V**es
Are Based On Congressional Representation
And EVERYONE Has Congressional Representation
Whether They V**e Or Are Too Young To V**e

It's The States That Elect The President

National Popular V**e Interstate Compact
Is High-Jacking The E******n Away From The Will Of Their Own Constituents
These Are National Popular V**es br Which Is Not H... (show quote)


U. S. E*******l College: Who Are the E*****rs? How Do They V**e?
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/e*******l-college/e*****rs.html#restrictions

Yes we do not elect the President by popular v**e but

Most states require that all e*******l v**es go to the candidate who receives the plurality in that state. After state e******n officials certify the popular v**e of each state, the winning slate of e*****rs meet in the state capital and cast two b****ts—one for Vice President and one for President. E*****rs cannot v**e for a P**********l and Vice P**********l candidate who both hail from an e*****r’s home state.

Are there restrictions on who the E*****rs can v**e for?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires E*****rs to v**e according to the results of the popular v**e in their states. Some states, however, require E*****rs to cast their v**es according to the popular v**e. These pledges fall into two categories—E*****rs bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that E*****rs be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from e*****rs to v**e for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless E*****rs" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid v**e and be replaced by a substitute e*****r. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to v**e as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No E*****r has ever been prosecuted for failing to v**e as pledged.

Today, it is rare for E*****rs to disregard the popular v**e by casting their e*******l v**e for someone other than their party's candidate. E*****rs generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of E*****rs have v**ed as pledged.

Like I pointed out with Gore and Bush the e*******l v**e didn't follow on what the state required them to do. The exception of Maine and Nebraska most state's have a winner take all policy. The winner is normally the states results of the popular v**e. My point being if enough of the E*****rs decide to v**e against what the states requires you can run into the problem of the winner being elected by a handful of people.
Go to
Aug 20, 2019 08:40:56   #
karpenter wrote:
No, It Didn't

2012 E******n In Arizona
Romney Had 1,233,654 V**es
Obama Had 1,025,232 V**es
Republicans Got All 11 E*******l V**es


Sorry color me embarrassed should have gone a little further back into the records. The contest used by the article was Gore vs Bush;
George W. Bush popular 50,456,002 e*******l 271
AL Gores popular 50,999,987 e*******l 266 [2]

This changes the view, but still has the same possible outcome of a handful of people picking the winner, If it treads out. Still that particular contest was pretty much in contention.
Go to
Aug 20, 2019 02:14:31   #
bmac32 wrote:
Several “blue” states are conspiring to circumvent the E*******l College by means of the “National Popular V**e Interstate Compact” initiative. These states will award all their E*******l v**es to the candidate who wins the majority of the so-called “popular v**e”.

The “National Popular V**e Interstate Compact” initiative is a very dangerous project. It attempts to bypass Constitutional protections against some forms of e******n f***d. In particular, it facilitates propagation of the ill effects of the e******n f***d in one or more states into other, fraud-free, states. If implemented, it can sink the ship America (figuratively speaking), as the example below explains.

A typical ship has bulkheads that subdivide its hull into several water-tight compartments. Such construction is supposed to prevent the sinking of the ship should the hull get locally damaged, as the bulkheads stop ocean water from seeping from the damaged compartment into undamaged compartments. As a result, the ship stays buoyant despite having a hole in its hull.

Removing the bulkheads creates a risk that a single hole in the ship’s hull may lead to sinking of the entire ship.

And that is, figuratively speaking, the main objective of the Left’s movement that attempts to dispose of the E*******l College in P**********l e******ns and replace it with the so-called “popular v**e”.

Without the E*******l College, massive e******n f***d (e.g., b****t box stuffing, v**e harvesting, non-citizen v****g, re-counting until the desired outcome is met, etc.) in two most populous states (say, California and New York) may easily, if facilitated aggressively by these states, decide the outcomes of any P**********l e******ns.

For one, it is much easier to execute a decisive e******n f***d in the “popular v**e” system then it is with the E*******l College in place. Just imagine, California delivering 40 million v**es (one v**e for one California resident) and New York 20 million v**es (one v**e for one New York resident), for a total of 60 millions v**es, in favor of the Left’s desired candidate. If that happens, in the absence of the E*******l College, v**ers in other states don’t need to v**e, as it is extremely unlikely that they can summon more than 60 million v**es for somebody else. (With the E*******l College, California and New York would produce just 84 e*******l v**es out of the total of 538 e*******l v**es, far less than needed to control the outcome of the e******n.)

Even if after such an e******n the Supreme Court objected to the idea that a state could deliver the number of v**es that is about equal to the number of its residents (mind you that in the past P**********l e******n, several counties in California delivered more v**es than they had adult residents), the “fix” for such a “detail” would be easy. Both California and New York, via “sanctuary” state laws and policies and such, would open themselves to mass illegal migration that would swell their populations to the point where a legal objection to their 60 million v**es in favor of the same candidate was no longer defensible.

Of course, this kind of “popular e******n” process would sink the ship America, and likely turn our great Republic onto something that resembled more the People’s Republic of China, Syria, Venezuela, or any other country that was a major feeder of current mass “migration” (legal and otherwise), with equally massive redistribution of incomes and property to follow.

This is why the Left and their pet minorities are vigorously pushing for disposing or bypassing of the E*******l College. They see the College as a serious obstacle in their well-concerted efforts of hostile takeover of the U.S. and the 20 trillion+ economy that comes with it.

It is good to remember that what the properly functioning E*******l College does, is - among other things - to stop propagation of e******n f***d, very much the same way like the bulkheads in a ship are to stop propagation of seeping ocean water within the damaged ship’s hull. The sad story of sinking of the RMS Titanic teaches us what is likely to happen to our country once these means of protection are rendered dysfunctional.

RMS Titanic
Several “blue” states are conspiring to circumvent... (show quote)


Most states already give the v**es to the person who get the most v**es right now with the exception of Maine and Nebraska. There were several e******ns before and including the 2000 e******n results started to bring questions about the wisdom of the college. To many of the results were made directly according to what the e*******l members wanted. It was always invisioned that college was expected to give its v**es to the popular winner but it was not required. According to the results of the 2000 e******n between Romy and Obama the college v**ed against the popular v**e in Arizona. If that tread had kept up throughout the college , the president would be elected by a handful of citizens.
Go to
Aug 16, 2019 08:29:58   #
plainlogic wrote:
Really curious now, why are liberals so joyous over losing their constitutional rights? or is it, just the rights they want to keep. Interesting indeed.


Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all humans by their creator, and which governments are created to protect.

Every person who insists that they have a right to have weapons have a tendency to forget the life part of the three examples of God given rights. Yes weapons are needed to protect all three unalienable rights. Common sense also has to be used in defending those same rights. At least 82 percent of the shootings have been with legally attained weapons. Not like the ones from some dark corner deal but from owners who were not responsible in the ownership of that same weapon. Look back into the seventies and eighties how shooting that were considered accidents were because the owner of the weapon was not responsible enough. Example a 4 year old will explore their surrounding. Find the weapon placed in unlocked drawer ,couple that with the movies that were being shown at the time. The weapon becomes a toy, but loaded like most want it to be available when needed for protection. Whose fault was the shooting? Some may say that it was the child's fault because it didn't do what they were told. How many times did you as a youngster disobey your parents? Even now when shootings have become almost common place there are still the young associated shootings with the child pulling the trigger. Every Right and Privilege has a Responsibility associated to it.
Go to
Aug 15, 2019 08:34:03   #
Response to Chameleon 12 qoute button didn't work

One question though, If we are talking about the same ones that Trump was referring to then three of the four are trying to change the government of the country that they are a member of. The fourth is naturalized. You are right most videos can be edited to show what needs to be proven. One more point you only hear what you want to hear this is an example,

When asked about paying the fines
"got carried away he obviously loves his country, and maybe he doesn't like seeing what's happening to the country, I've actually instructed my people to look into it, yes.”

This is taken out a statement made by Trump on Meet the press.

Trump said the man “got carried away” with his actions before saying he doesn’t condone violence. “He obviously loves his country, and maybe he doesn't like seeing what's happening to the country,” Trump told the show’s host, Chuck Todd. When asked if the billionaire businessman would pay the man’s legal fees if he could, Trump said: “I've actually instructed my people to look into it, yes.”

It can be easily done all reporting agency have gotten to the point of having a lean to their reporting. That is how they make their money they report
on what will. One problem is to many people only follow one source and that source normally is the one that follows their beliefs.
Go to
Aug 14, 2019 19:30:33   #
proud republican wrote:
Its on FOX right now...No other channel is showing...Because its police officers,if it was i*****l a***ns would of been shot,you can believe that CNN and MSNBC will be showing too...But they dont give a damn about police officers...


Nope it is being mentioned on the MSM and being shown on CNN and a couple of other channels.
Go to
Aug 13, 2019 21:04:35   #
Seth wrote:
Study harder. It was the Republicans that forced the bill -- more Dems v**ed against it, then r****t Lyndon Johnson used it to his advantage to become the founding father of the welfare society.

"This," he said to cronies, "will have the n****rs v****g Democrat for the next 200 years."


Your right the rep did push the bill through , but the amount of dems v**ed yes was the majority. Ether way the statement about the n****r , could have been said because he was not shy about using the n word in private. There is only one verification of him saying it, that was MacMillan a service member serving on board Airforce one , but MacMillian was editorializing the average belief of those who were championing the cause of equal rights figured if you weren't fully interested then you were just using the situation to better yourself. There was no independent verification on the statement being made. After JFK died LBJ went full throttle on it because of that , the Southern Democrats moved over to the Republican party.
Go to
Aug 11, 2019 23:58:05   #
fullspinzoo wrote:
Only problem he was isolated away from others, probably. If he was shanked, or course they would know it. I think we'll have to wait to see when more comes out. Being on suicide watch, he wouldn't be in general population it would seem to me.


Suicide watch was stopped at the end of July . He was then placed in the same place that el chapo was in.The place is used for high profile prisoners.
Go to
Aug 11, 2019 08:31:28   #
1ProudAmerican wrote:
You DO know that Roundup was in use before 2016....because you DEMON-RATS will eventually try to blame this on DJT.....


You're right it has been in use , directly he shouldn't but since his administration approved it. According to the logic that has been used in prior
adminstrations he is going to be whether he approved it or not.
Go to
Aug 11, 2019 08:23:40   #
Texas T***h wrote:
Shortly after that Monsanto tried to get permission to use cyanide in a pesticide formula to use on corn to control the root worms that are now immune to everything. Except cyanide. Can I get a yum yum!


That he did but the government has been leaning toward the corporate since Clinton and before.

2.) The provision's language was apparently written in collusion with Monsanto. Lawmakers and companies working together to craft legislation is by no means a rare occurrence in this day and age. But the fact that Sen. Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, actually worked with Monsanto on a provision that in effect allows them to keep selling seeds, which can then go on to be planted, even if it is found to be harmful to consumers, is stunning. It's just another example of corporations bending Congress to their will, and it's one that could have dire risks for public health in America.

But allowing the corporate representatives into government doesn't help ether.
This is where the v**e for party first screws everything and everybody. V****g for party and not holding those chosen accountable have gotten this country to where it is.
Go to
Aug 10, 2019 14:32:55   #
fullspinzoo wrote:
BTW, there was pretty strict protocol to prevent suicide, but who knows what exactly went on. There will be more conspiracy theories than Carter has little liver pills. Clinton had it done, Trump had it done, Someone in Hollywood had it done so Epstein wouldn't spill the beans for a better deal. They will start coming out of the woodwork. My book "What Really Happened to Jeffrey Epstein?" will be out in six months. Already have my ghost writer lined up. Hannity is in for 20% of the profits if he pushes it hard enough.
BTW, there was pretty strict protocol to prevent s... (show quote)


The protocol is strict but people who go in for what he don't last in jail.
Go to
Aug 10, 2019 12:51:27   #
proud republican wrote:
Well then move to one of Socialist country and take some of your buddies with you!!!....Pleaaaase!!!


You know your response pretty much sums up the main difference between what is claimed for conservative and liberals. One cares for people and one cares for themselves and businesses.
Go to
Aug 10, 2019 01:59:57   #
crazylibertarian wrote:
There is no right to v**e in the United States Constitution. There is a right to keep & bear arms.

Yet, liberals want to place background check restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms and have no background checks on the right to v**e.

Go figure.


Think you missed this

Amendment XXVI
RIGHT TO V**E AT AGE 18
Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971. The 26th Amendment changed a portion of the 14th Amendment

SECTION 1

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to v**e shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

SECTION 2

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Go to
Aug 8, 2019 08:05:53   #
ImLogicallyRight wrote:
What I became tired of was reading all of his examples were about so called hatred on the right. I find that same kind of hatred on the left so his tirade became meaningless and biased and full of crap.


Nope examples given are mostly from the right yes but can be from both sides of the current line that is dividing us. I have meet people who believe that there are ones who live off the govenment from both sides of that line. They also believe that the country should have protected borders but not the solid instance of a wall. Their belief is also people who need help have to have that help available ,without the consideration of differences. His opinon was that the leader of a country or group basically sets the general feelings and actions of the group.
Go to
Aug 8, 2019 07:58:25   #
proud republican wrote:
Who is inciting violence is not Tucker Carlson or Trump or his supporters...People who inciting violence are your people...Democrats...They are the ones who wish Mitch McConnell was stabbed through the heart....Politician of YOUR Party was doxxing President Trump's donors. There has been violence against Republicans and Trump supporters and you know it...What happened in El Paso was terrible,yes.. but this thing is happening in Chicago every single we!!!!ekend and i dont see any of your people ran to help them...Please spare me your "care"talk...You dont..You only spewing BS against President Trump and people who support him..And im getting sick and tired of it and im sure there are people on here who feel the same way i do!!!his supporters
Who is inciting violence is not Tucker Carlson or ... (show quote)


Doxxing is only done when the infomation is not public.

dox
/däks/
verb INFORMAL
gerund or present participle: doxxing
search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.
"hackers and online vigilantes routinely dox both public and private figures"
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 26 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.