Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46

Thread: Separate Elections, Too

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adolf_Twitler View Post
    America is not a White Nation- never has been- never will!
    To Adolf_Twitler: Asshole. Research the numbers from Colonial America up to today —— Ted Kennedy notwithstanding:

    1965: Senator Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Act turned immigration into an affirmative action program based on racial preferences. From the day LBJ began his losing war on poverty, Democrats told every legal and illegal immigrant the welfare state would take care of them if they vote for Democrats.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...79#post3018279

    Quote Originally Posted by Adolf_Twitler View Post
    We
    To Adolf_Twitler: Drop Victoria’s pronoun if you do not have a tapeworm:

    Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we." Mark Twain

    Quote Originally Posted by Adolf_Twitler View Post
    represent everyone's concerns here in America!
    To Adolf_Twitler: Parasites never did, nor will they ever, represent the majority of Americans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adolf_Twitler View Post
    And everyone's vote should count. That is Democracy!
    To Adolf_Twitler: Take your democracy and shove it up the furthest part of your parasite ass.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    Immigrants have voted in local and state elections in localities for over 200 years.
    To jimmymccready: NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,787 Times in 32,153 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    it does the opposite. You really have trouble with logic.
    then explain it logically.......if the census is used to determine how many representatives a state should have, why should illegals be counted?.....if it is used to determine how federal taxes should be spent, why should illegals be counted.......I want to hear you say it.....

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to PostmodernProphet For This Post:

    Flanders (06-28-2019)

  4. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    9,090
    Thanks
    3,487
    Thanked 3,433 Times in 2,367 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 888 Times in 802 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The right wing extremist parasites such as Flanders are mental and emotional cripples.

  5. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    8,274
    Thanks
    372
    Thanked 3,039 Times in 2,191 Posts
    Groans
    168
    Groaned 603 Times in 570 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    To Adolf_Twitler: Asshole. Research the numbers from Colonial America up to today —— Ted Kennedy notwithstanding:

    1965: Senator Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Act turned immigration into an affirmative action program based on racial preferences. From the day LBJ began his losing war on poverty, Democrats told every legal and illegal immigrant the welfare state would take care of them if they vote for Democrats.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...79#post3018279



    To Adolf_Twitler: Drop Victoria’s pronoun if you do not have a tapeworm:

    Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we." Mark Twain



    To Adolf_Twitler: Parasites never did, nor will they ever, represent the majority of Americans.



    To Adolf_Twitler: Take your democracy and shove it up the furthest part of your parasite ass.



    To jimmymccready: NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS.

    Here's one flying high above the CooCoo's nest! LOL!

    What a hateful uneducated bat-shit-crazy idiot!


  6. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    6,560
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 2,936 Times in 2,054 Posts
    Groans
    852
    Groaned 948 Times in 862 Posts

    Default

    I wish this was tough to understand, but it is not. Illegals cannot vote. They cannot get through the registration requirements, which include citizenship. They are here to make money and improve their lives. They send money back to their families.
    Why would they want to risk all that to vote in an election that does not concern them and they know nothing about? They would go through all the trouble and expense of coming here and throw it all away to vote. Does that make sense?
    And of course, they know nothing about American politics. Who would you vote for if you could vote in Mexico? You would not bother to learn all the politicians and programs.
    This is a typical stupid righty belief with no substance.

  7. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    GINSBURG UPDATE

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    So how about separating federal election ballots from state and local elections ballots.

    In other words a separate federal ballot would be required listing only the names of candidates for federal offices —— presidents and members of Congress.

    Separating elections by a year would simplify the process. Federal elections would be held in even numbered years, while statewide elections could be held in odd numbered years. The tab for both elections would also be separated. The feds pay for theirs, while state and local governments would pay for theirs.

    I love my suggestion, but I doubt if ACLU parasites would take kindly to losing control of the courts?
    The ACLU’s associate justice on the high court never had much use for the Constitution, but now she wants state governors to change the rules for federal elections:

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg decried a decision made by the Supreme Court’s majority blocking an extension to the absentee ballot deadline in Wisconsin, where the governor unsuccessfully tried to postpone in-person voting due to the coronavirus pandemic.

    The high court on Monday blocked a lower court’s extension of the ballot deadline in a 5-4 decision, just hours after the Wisconsin Supreme Court shut down Gov. Tony Evers’ last-minute executive order postponing voting in Tuesday’s contests.

    In her dissent, Ginsburg, who was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote that the ruling “will result in massive disenfranchisement.”

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg slams SCOTUS decision on Wisconsin absentee voting
    By Emily Jacobs
    April 7, 2020 | 9:34am

    https://nypost.com/2020/04/07/ruth-b...consin-voting/

    NOTE: I do not know where “. . . disenfranchisement.” appears in the Constitution, nor do I know when and who defined disenfranchisement before Ginsburg & Company decided to upgrade voting Rights without ratifying a constitutional amendment.

    Presumably, Democrat governors like Tony Evers need only write an executive order allowing them to make changes to federal elections, while known conservative governors would be impeached for exercising their constitutional authority.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  8. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    5,711
    Thanks
    1,208
    Thanked 3,175 Times in 2,096 Posts
    Groans
    31
    Groaned 80 Times in 80 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    Illegal aliens are under state law in terms of voting restrictions, not the federal government.

    This proposed overreach by the right wing to make the feds responsible for voting is Republican Big Government Progressivism.
    I find it hilarious how the "CON"- Servitudes proclaim to be Constitutionalist, then work overtime to restrict voting rights to anyone other than themselves.
    Please leave your Trump 2024 signs in your yard. That way, my dog will know where to take a dump.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tacomaman For This Post:

    jimmymccready (04-07-2020), Phantasmal (04-08-2020)

  10. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacomaman View Post
    I find it hilarious how the "CON"- Servitudes proclaim to be Constitutionalist,
    To Tacomaman: I find it tragic that Democrat freakazoids legitimated involuntary servitude. See this thread:


    VIII Amendment

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


    XIII Amendment

    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


    Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...41#post2782041

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacomaman View Post
    then work overtime to restrict voting rights to anyone other than themselves.
    To Tacomaman: I find it ludicrous that the Parasite Class (DEMOCRATS) fail to understand that Rights are not Rights until they are enjoyed by everyone. Failing to understand, or pretending they do not understand, allows Democrats to add voting rights to a long list of UNCONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS they invented.

    Notice that the coronavirus overrides the Constitution as though it never existed:

    The lockdowns imposed on law-abiding American citizens as part of governments' coronavirus response have demonstrated the extent to which our Constitution has become meaningless.

    Since World War II, American political leaders have increasingly ignored the United States Constitution, its limitations and requirements viewed as too constricting and the rights of citizens an inconvenience to politicians and unelected bureaucrats in advancing their agendas.

    The rights to privacy, abortion and gay marriage: None is even mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Meanwhile, the 10th Amendment – reserving all powers for the states and the people not delegated in the Constitution to the federal government – has been ignored entirely as though it were not there. Likewise, Article I gives Congress the sole power to declare war. The last time this provision was followed and Congress declared war in accordance with the Constitution was in 1941. Since then, well over 100,000 U.S. troops have died in wars around the world from Korea and Vietnam all the way through the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the longest war in American history, in Afghanistan. These were Americans killed in wars arguably not constitutional.

    In 1964 the Supreme Court invented a brand-new constitutional right. The "right to privacy" is found nowhere in the Constitution. The court created it out of thin air on the belief that it should be in there, citing emanations of penumbras. In other words, "What I'm creating isn't in there, but I'm reading between the lines, and I think this is what the writers of the Constitution really meant." Just a few years later, since there was now a right to privacy, the court decided there must also be a right for women to abort their children. And so the constitutional right to abortion was also simply added as a brand-new right alongside all those specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

    Interestingly, this constitutional right to privacy is completely ignored when it comes to the government establishing and operating secret FISA courts to get secret warrants to spy on American citizens, the never-ending incursions into the private lives of every American in the Patriot Act or the invasions of privacy and meddling in the private medical and financial affairs written into Obamacare. The judiciary only seems to create new rights when it comes to advancing liberal interests. Limiting liberals' use of government authority against the people is not a concern.

    Throughout our history, the Constitution offered protection from government attempts to violate citizens' rights. Beginning in the 1950s, the Supreme Court began expanding constitutional protections to apply to private businesses in matters such as civil rights, effectively deleting the First Amendment freedom of assembly and the correlated freedom of association. (The latter being a right established as a fundamental right by SCOTUS in the 1950s where it struck down government interference in NAACP activities. Contrast this with the current posture of many civil rights leaders demanding government intervention, tracking and harassment of conservative groups or organizations they call "right wing.") If it seems like the left has managed to have it both ways, creating robust new rights for themselves out of thin air while denying those same rights to others and ignoring explicit rights altogether, you are not alone. And while the Constitution now prohibits businesses from barring blacks from sitting at lunch counters or homeowners from agreeing to restrictive covenants, these prohibitions on discrimination are not applied to leftist private businesses like Twitter discriminating against conservative users or banks refusing service to gun stores.

    New rights were never supposed to be just made up. There is a constitutional process by which the Constitution can be amended. It was, in fact, amended several times over the document's first 190 years. But, since liberal jurists discovered the power to simply make up any right they believe should be in the document, nobody even tries to amend the Constitution anymore because it is much easier to simply get the court to rule a new right into the document.

    Sometimes, the exact constitutional issue seems to apply in a completely opposite way depending on who is advocating a position. When the Obama administration refused to enforce immigration laws, it forced states to enact their own laws to deal with the crime, human trafficking and crushing pressure on local services. SCOTUS ruled these laws invalid, declaring states constitutionally prohibited from interfering in immigration matters because it is a uniquely federal function. Immediately upon the election of Donald Trump, however, Democrats in state and local governments across America began declaring themselves "sanctuary cities" and enforcing their own immigration laws to protect illegal aliens. Again, the left gets to have it both ways.

    During this coronavirus panic, Americans are banned from attending church or assembling for meetings, weddings and the like – rights specifically enumerated in the First Amendment. Pastors have even been arrested for daring to hold worship services, and the mayor of New York threatened to permanently shut churches refusing to obey his order banning worship services. Likewise, medical procedures of all kinds have been stopped for the medical community to focus personnel and resources on fighting the coronavirus epidemic. But federal courts ruled abortions (that "right" found nowhere in the actual language of the Constitution) must not be interfered with. Specific, enumerated constitutional rights are violated without restraint, but a made-up right found nowhere in the document is so legally sacred it may not be limited for any reason, even during a pandemic.

    Under this mass house arrest of the American people, our freedom of movement, our right to freely use our property, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion are banned without so much as a hesitation from leaders regarding their constitutional authority to do so.

    We have wars without calling them wars, strict enforcement of constitutional rights found nowhere in the Constitution and now martial law without calling it martial law.

    We had wars that weren't 'wars,' now martial law not called 'martial law'
    By Sean Harshey
    Published April 7, 2020 at 7:14pm

    https://www.wnd.com/2020/04/wars-wer...d-martial-law/
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  11. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    5,711
    Thanks
    1,208
    Thanked 3,175 Times in 2,096 Posts
    Groans
    31
    Groaned 80 Times in 80 Posts

    Default

    Who required Wisconsinites to venture outside their homes to vote? Republicans. Nuff said.
    Please leave your Trump 2024 signs in your yard. That way, my dog will know where to take a dump.

  12. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacomaman View Post
    Who required Wisconsinites to venture outside their homes to vote? Republicans. Nuff said.
    To Tacomaman: Hardly required, but good advice if they want to cast a ballot. On the other hand Democrats require:



    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  13. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Frankly, I do not trust McConnell or establishment Republicans:


    With Sen. Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republicans in the 50-50 Senate voting against moving forward with the “For the People Act of 2021,” the Democrats’ plan to put elections under federal rather than state and local authority was shelved Tuesday. It was the proper ending for legislation that should have never been written.

    Republicans have saved this country’s two-party political system. At least for now. The power-hungry Democrats won’t give up easily, though. They’ll redouble their efforts to set themselves up as an unchallengeable political force that rules rather than governs.


    The Republic Is Preserved – But The Democrats Will Try Insurrection Again
    I & I Editorial Board
    June 23, 2021

    https://issuesinsights.com/2021/06/2...rection-again/

    Assuming Democrats can be stopped from rigging election, my suggestion is a better way to defeat the Democrat Party in every election:

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    So how about separating federal election ballots from state and local elections ballots.

    In other words a separate federal ballot would be required listing only the names of candidates for federal offices —— presidents and members of Congress.

    Separating elections by a year would simplify the process. Federal elections would be held in even numbered years, while statewide elections could be held in odd numbered years. The tab for both elections would also be separated. The feds pay for theirs, while state and local governments would pay for theirs.
    At best, Democrats will win a dozen or so congressional seats in federal elections.

    Democrats will do slightly better in hardcore parasite states and cities —— but not enough to prevent the Communist Party from being driven out of government in ten years.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  14. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Deporting them as soon as they are caught is the only way to stop from voting:
    We can require proof of citizenship for voter registration.

  15. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    We can require proof of citizenship for voter registration.
    To Flash: Good thinking, but I doubt if the Supreme Court will allow it.

    The Nifty Nine always find justification for doing everything Democrats want. Allowing illegal aliens to vote will be no different than sanctioning a stolen election:


    The Supreme Court stood by for the most part and allowed the Left’s ongoing experiment in social control to proceed unimpeded. Ditto for the election-related challenges brought by President Donald Trump and Republicans, which seem more and more justified with each passing day as post-election audits and investigations continue.


    The 'Conservative' Supreme Court's Love-Affair With Obamacare
    By Matthew Vadum
    June 23, 2021

    https://canadafreepress.com/article/...with-obamacare
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  16. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    29,740
    Thanks
    2,748
    Thanked 10,875 Times in 8,272 Posts
    Groans
    41
    Groaned 594 Times in 590 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    The measure would have had no practical effect even if it had passed. Illegal immigrants — and indeed noncitizens as a whole — are not legally able to participate in federal elections.
    Notice how leftists work... "not LEGALLY able to participate..." which in no way suggests that leftists will stop them from participating regardless.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Yakuda For This Post:

    Flanders (06-23-2021)

  18. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,961
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    The measure would have had no practical effect even if it had passed. Illegal immigrants — and indeed noncitizens as a whole — are not legally able to participate in federal elections.
    Why bother, no matter what you point out, he isn’t going to accept it unless it validates his bloviating dissertation above

Similar Threads

  1. 2 separate investigations!
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 04-15-2018, 08:59 PM
  2. Trump and wife -separate bedrooms
    By Micawber in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-29-2017, 01:35 PM
  3. SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL
    By Robo in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-08-2016, 12:34 PM
  4. After 115 years, couple goes their separate ways
    By Cancel 2018. 3 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-14-2012, 01:35 PM
  5. Separate schools for Gays!
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-12-2008, 08:17 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •