Hillary wants to abolish the Electoral College

[Chris]

:lmao



Crooked Hillary Unleashes on President Trump – Calls For Electoral College to be Abolished


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/hillary-white-rabbit-600x368.jpg




Twice-failed presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton unleashed on President Trump and called for the electoral college to be abolished on Tuesday.
Crooked Hillary hates middle America–she wants the coastal elites to choose the president of the United States.

The electoral college worked perfectly in 2016–mob rule of the coastal elites (and illegal aliens) was shut down and middle America was given a voice.

This is why Hillary wants to abolish the electoral college.

Hillary Clinton unleashed a tweetstorm Tuesday once again complaining about her crushing 2016 election loss–she even called out President Trump by name.

“Donald Trump refuses to be subject to the law. The legitimacy of our elections is in doubt,” Hillary said in a tweet.


Donald Trump refuses to be subject to the law. The legitimacy of our elections is in doubt. The president is waging war on the truth. The administration is undermining the national unity that makes democracy possible. And then there’s the breathtaking corruption.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 18, 2018

Hillary called for people to mobilize in the midterms so the Dems can do some “housecleaning.”

First: We’ve got to mobilize turnout in the midterms. There are fantastic candidates all over the country who’ll do great things, and we could finally see some congressional oversight of the White House.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 18, 2018

Then Crooked called for the electoral college to be abolished. (Shocker)

We need to improve and protect our elections, from instituting paper ballot backups to repairing the Voting Rights Act, getting secret money out of politics, and—you won’t be surprised to hear my support for this—abolishing the Electoral College.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 18, 2018

This isn’t the first time Crooked has called for the electoral college to be abolished.

Hillary told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in a September 2017 interview that she wants to see the EC eliminated.

When Anderson Cooper asked Hillary if the Electoral College should be abolished, she replied in the affirmative, “I said that in 2000 after what happened in the 2000 election with Al Gore.”

“I think it needs to be eliminated,” Hillary said of the Electoral College. “I’d like to see us move beyond it, yes.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/crooked-hillary-unleashes-on-president-trump-calls-for-electoral-college-to-be-abolished/

[djohn2oo8]

Chris loves some Hillary.

[hater]

:lmao

Shes the Republicans most powerful weapon :lmao

[hater]

:lmao James taking her to the Woodshed :lmao

https://twitter.com/realjameswoods/status/1042195335865614337?s=21

[Pavlov]

:lmao



Crooked Hillary Unleashes on President Trump – Calls For Electoral College to be Abolished


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/hillary-white-rabbit-600x368.jpgWhy should a California Republican's vote for president not count, Chris?

[djohn2oo8]

:lmao

Shes the Republicans most powerful weapon :lmao
how? She’s not running. :lmao

[hater]

Shitlery before she tweets:

https://twitter.com/lisakitter/status/1042196038075899905?s=21

[hater]

https://twitter.com/deplorablemari4/status/1042196641510514690?s=21

[Chris]

Why should a California Republican's vote for president not count, Chris?

Do you want to abolish the Electoral College - yes or no?

[Mikeanaro]

Let her Chardonnay do the talking.

[boutons_deux]

Why should a California Republican's vote for president not count, Chris?


why should any blue state Republican's vote for Pres not count?

While Hillary is at it, convert the Senate to proportional representation, from the anti-democratic travesty it is now.

[Anderson Cooper]

She claims to carry hot sauce everywhere and she still can't win the presidency? That's just sad.

[hater]

Do you want to abolish the Electoral College - yes or no?

:lmao good luck getting an answer :lol

[Sociopath Translator]

Why should a California Republican's vote for president not count, Chris?

The invading Mexicans know how to sign on the dotted line.

[Reck]

Kind of like Trump wanted to as well?

[Chris]

Trump

*ding

[hater]

Kind of like Trump

DING

[Reck]

So uninspiring unoriginal.

Pavlovs setting trends and you follow like the sheeples you are. :lol

[Spurtacular]

So uninspiring unoriginal.

Pavlovs setting trends and you follow like the sheeples you are. :lol

Can we get a tranny translator, too? I'm lost on this one. :lol

[spurraider21]

Do you want to abolish the Electoral College - yes or no?
as currently constructed? absolutely

[Blake]

Do you want to abolish the Electoral College - yes or no?

Oh look a question is answered with a different tangent question

[Blake]

as currently constructed? absolutely

Ditto. It's ridiculously outdated

[Chris]

as currently constructed? absolutely

Be specific with your discrepancies. That is incredibly vague. I'll be here after you're done with your google search telling you what not to like.

[spurraider21]

Be specific with your discrepancies. That is incredibly vague. I'll be here after you're done with your google search telling you what not to like.
chris: yes or no

i answer yes

chris: stop being vague

:lmao

[hater]

as currently constructed? absolutely

I dont think you understand the definition of abolish

[Chris]

chris: yes or no

i answer yes

chris: stop being vague

:lmao

I was asking Pavlov you weirdo. You routinely answer his questions and vice versa, so it's no surprise I thought he was your troll at one time. Still waiting on those discrepancies...

[spurraider21]

I was asking Pavlov you weirdo. You routinely answer his questions and vice versa, so it's no surprise I thought he was your troll at one time. Still waiting on those discrepancies...
what discrepancies.

you asked if the electoral college should be abolished, yes or no.

i answered yes.

and you're complaining

[spurraider21]

I dont think you understand the definition of abolish
https://media.giphy.com/media/Qa6aPhf1gD4Bi/giphy.gif

[hater]

https://media.giphy.com/media/Qa6aPhf1gD4Bi/giphy.gif


I dont think you understand the definition of abolish

[Reck]

I dont think you understand the definition of abolish

As currently constructed. He said he'd want it gone as it is now.

Not so hard bro.

[hater]

As currently constructed. He said he'd want it gone as it is now.

Not so hard bro.


I dont think you understand the definition of abolish

[Chris]

i answered yes.


as currently constructed? absolutely

Didn't see a yes in there. Your answer left the door open for my question which you are terrified to answer for some reason :lol

[Blake]

Didn't see a yes in there. Your answer left the door open for my question which you are terrified to answer for some reason :lol

God damn you're a retarded pussy

[spurraider21]

Didn't see a yes in there. Your answer left the door open for my question which you are terrified to answer for some reason :lol
absolutely is a strong yes. i think the current electoral college should be abolished.

and your question makes no sense. it asks for "discrepancies." discrepancy from what?

[Cuck Not Named Blake]

Ditto. It's ridiculously outdated

You're ricuckulously wise. :tu

[hater]

:lmao its like when Shaq wanted to abolish Free Throws after we bounced the Suns :lmao :lol :lmao

[Chris]

absolutely is a strong yes. i think the current electoral college should be abolished.

and your question makes no sense. it asks for "discrepancies." discrepancy from what?

As currently constructed = what are the problems that you have with it specifically or what are you disagreeing with ie: discrepancies. Now you're just stalling because you don't know anything about the Electoral College.

[hater]

:lmao

https://twitter.com/aarodd44/status/1042209053844418561?s=21

[hater]

:lmao getting schooled by a 16 year old

https://twitter.com/gayerthanvause/status/1042199091596484609?s=21

Dayum

[Chris]

You're ricuckulously wise. :tu

He's a chickenshit too. Never explains his vague sweeping statements and ducks out every thread.

A habitual loser.

[Spurtacular]

:lmao its like when Shaq wanted to abolish Free Throws after we bounced the Suns :lmao :lol :lmao

:rollin

[clambake]

shut

up

bitch

[Reck]

:lmao getting schooled by a 16 year old

https://twitter.com/gayerthanvause/status/1042199091596484609?s=21

Dayum

Telling an ex lawyer about the constitution and what the laws are. :lol

Your standards are really low. 16 year old :lol

BTW, there are tons of outdated laws from the 1800s that are totally irrelevant today.

[hater]

Telling an ex lawyer about the constitution and what the laws are. :lol

Your standards are really low. 16 year old :lol

BTW, there are tons of outdated laws from the 1800s that are totally irrelevant today.

How many of those laws are in the constitution genius?

16 year old is right, good lick trying to abolish it :lmao

[Reck]

How many of those laws are in the constitution genius?

16 year old is right, good lick trying to abolish it :lmao

No one is saying it will.

But hey, since you love you some Hillary, catch her on TV tonight.

[hater]

No one is saying it will.

But hey, since you love you some Hillary, catch her on TV tonight.

Shes on? As what? A balloon?

[boutons_deux]

The oligarchy is working hard state by state to switch "winner take all EC votes" to proportional voting.

and the oligarchy/Repug strategy is to pervert, weaponize the Constitution as is, so they'll NEVER approve changes.

USA is effectively an old, invalid, paralyzed, immobile country, in capable of change, probably should be moved to hospice care.

Touching the Constitution, even passing an Amendment is impossible, as impossible as a Repug Senate convicting a Repug Pres. Never happened, never will happen.

[spurraider21]

As currently constructed = what are the problems that you have with it specifically or what are you disagreeing with ie: discrepancies. Now you're just stalling because you don't know anything about the Electoral College.
as currently constructed = our electoral college system

i dont like how some people's votes count more than other people's votes. that's all

thats attributed to a few things. the fact that senate seats are considered already skews the electoral college in favor of some states, essentially disenfranchising voters of other states. and the "winner take all" system, whereby if you win a state 51%-49%, you get 100% of the electoral votes. that's a huge problem.

essentially makes it so that your vote only counts if you're in a swing state.

[hater]

as currently constructed = our electoral college system

i dont like how some people's votes count more than other people's votes. that's all

thats attributed to a few things. the fact that senate seats are considered already skews the electoral college in favor of some states, essentially disenfranchising voters of other states. and the "winner take all" system, whereby if you win a state 51%-49%, you get 100% of the electoral votes. that's a huge problem.

essentially makes it so that your vote only counts if you're in a swing state.

Still better than No Electoral College

[PassableTranny]

No one is saying it will.

But hey, since you love you some Hillary, catch her on TV tonight.

I know I saved the date.

[Chinook]

The EC is fucking stupid and should have absolutely been abolished as one of the post--Civil War amendments. We aren't a confederacy anymore. We are a nation divided into states, not a group of states coming together to form a country. The EC was made when the latter idea prevailed. It's outdated, and has been ever since we made it clear that states do not have the right to secede from the Union. If such change would result in one part gaining a massive upper hand due to having an inherently larger base, then the result would be the party coalitions shifting. Like maybe Republicans would have to care more about urban populations while democrats would have to try to appeal to more rural populations. This type of change is normal; the only folks who'd really hate it are the politicians who are way too comfortable with the status quo and maybe states like Iowa and New Hampshire who get off on leveraging their slight importance in the current system.

[Pavlov]

Do you want to abolish the Electoral College - yes or no?As currently constructed? Absolutely.

[ElNono]

I don't particularly have a problem with the Electoral College. I think it does a fair job of balancing the fact that it would be very difficult for the rural population to live by the rules of the urban population (which is pretty much what would effectively happen if we went to something like the popular vote. It's just simple math). That doesn't mean I don't like the idea of straight up popular vote, but realistically it does come with some strings attached.

IMO, what's much worse is that in this day and age places like DC or PR do not have statehood and thus representation.

[boutons_deux]

The EC is fucking stupid

the Senate is more stupid, destructive, disenfranchising, since it screws the country every year, while the EC operates only every 4 years.

the situation 5 years ago, now it's worse:

The Small-State Advantage in the United States Senate


The Constitution has always given states with small populations a lift, but the scale of the gap has grown in recent decades.


These 62 senators represent about one-fourth of the people in the United States.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2013/03/04/senate/314b226ba74fa5d4207ef989f82e6637e5b44bc7/group1.jpg



https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/small-state-advantage.html

so 40 senators represent 75% of the population

=====================

Smaller States Find Outsize Clout Growing in Senate

The disproportionate power enjoyed in the Senate by small states is playing a growing role in the political dynamic on issues as varied as gun control, immigration and campaign finance.

http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/democracy-tested.html

iow, US govt is deeply broken, but it will never be fixed, because the oligarchy benefits from the brokenness of govt, which is owned/operated by the oligarchy.

[Brazil]

Electoral college enables the candidate with less number of votes being elected.. this is beyond stupid :lol

[hater]

Yeah why dont we make elections just like in the shithole called Brazil :lmao

[baseline bum]

Yeah why dont we make elections just like in the shithole called Brazil :lmao

Dude we're a shithole country too

[hater]

Dude we're a shithole country too

Sure but Brazil:
- imprisoned last 2 presidents
- last one was a soft coup
- knifed down leading presidential candidate in campaign trail
- military about to take charge of the country

Lets strive for that :lmao

[CitizenDwayne]

EC sucks. Republicans like it because without it their party would never win elections in today’s world

[dabom]

Getting rid of the electoral college makes it so the Presidents dont have to pander to shitty swing states.

[Spurminator]

I'm with her.

[CosmicCowboy]

She would do it retroactively if she could.

[Will Hunting]

The “muh rural vote!” argument is hilarious....rural American has gradually hollowed out for decades, and neither party has gone beyond superficial campaign pandering about how “rural voters are the backbone of America!” to actually help rural voters. No amount of voter handicapping is going to change the fact that life in rural America is increasingly shitty.

[hater]

The “muh rural vote!” argument is hilarious....rural American has gradually hollowed out for decades, and neither party has gone beyond superficial campaign pandering about how “rural voters are the backbone of America!” to actually help rural voters. No amount of voter handicapping is going to change the fact that life in rural America is increasingly shitty.

Good point

But same thing can be said about urban voters. Especially minorty urban voters. No amount of Electoral College abolishments is going to make minority urban voters lives less shitty

Its all pandering from both sides. Always has been

[Will Hunting]

Oh and Hilary needs to keep her fucking mouth shut. She lost states that had been carried by Democrats in every election since 1988, she doesn’t get to blame the EC for that. She shouldn’t have been greedy in thinking she could win Texas + Georgia while not even visiting Michigan or Wisconsin.

[Will Hunting]

Good point

But same thing can be said about urban voters. Especially minorty urban voters. No amount of Electoral College abolishments is going to make minority urban voters lives less shitty

Its all pandering from both sides. Always has been
Agreed, by no stretch of the imagination am I saying that a pure popular vote would somehow lead to the enrichment of inner city America :lol

[Blake]

Sure but Brazil:
- imprisoned last 2 presidents
- last one was a soft coup
- knifed down leading presidential candidate in campaign trail
- military about to take charge of the country

Lets strive for that :lmao

Yes because all that will happen if we scrap the electoral college

[Spurminator]

People in the inner city don't vote though.

[Blake]

I'm with her.

You forgot the #

[boutons_deux]

The “muh rural vote!” argument is hilarious....rural American has gradually hollowed out for decades, and neither party has gone beyond superficial campaign pandering about how “rural voters are the backbone of America!” to actually help rural voters. No amount of voter handicapping is going to change the fact that life in rural America is increasingly shitty.

but rurals are pandered to in campaigns because it's cheap compared to national campaigns, and rural states elect reliable huge number of right wing Senators to overwhelm the Senators from the heavily populated states.

[Will Hunting]

but rurals are pandered to in campaigns because it's cheap compared to national campaigns, and rural states elect reliable huge number of right wing Senators to overwhelm the Senators from the heavily populated states.
You’re completely missing my point.

[Spurminator]

You forgot the #

Nah, that has an altogether different meaning. I just agree with her on the electoral college.

[hater]

Yes because all that will happen if we scrap the electoral college

Could happen. I could see retards like Booker or Kamala Harris being voted president by idiot urbanites :lol

2 terms of these clowns could easily take us to a military coup :lol

They would make Trump look like G Washington

[Will Hunting]

Could happen. I could see retards like Booker or Kamala Harris being voted president by idiot urbanites :lol

2 terms of these clowns could easily take us to a military coup :lol

They would make Trump look like G Washington
This is where the dramatics from the right get ridiculous. Cory Booker is a centrist corporate shill who’s currently propped up by the fact he’s the closest thing team blue has to another Obama. If he were president, all that would happen is maintaining the current status quo. The notion that he’s some kind of bleeding heart communist is completely divorced from actual facts.

[boutons_deux]

You’re completely missing my point.

you made several points. which one did you think I missed?

Repugs mastered the art of suckering rural states with social issues (abortion, guns, gays, Christian supremacy/Muslim hate), then did nothing to help rural states, and even have had plans, concrete, imminent intentions to hurt rural states, like closing 1000s of post offices, cutting Medicare/Medicaid, not expanding Medicaid, permitting for-profit colleges to screw (rural) students with no-value "degrees", etc.

Urbanization has been happening for 100 years, and will continue. Cities/suburbs are where the jobs are, not in rural areas.

[Will Hunting]

you made several points. which one did you think I missed?

Repugs mastered the art of suckering rural states with social issues (abortion, guns, gays, Christian supremacy/Muslim hate), then did nothing to help rural states, and even have had plans, concrete, imminent intentions to hurt rural states, like closing 1000s of post offices, cutting Medicare/Medicaid, not expanding Medicaid, permitting for-profit colleges to screw (rural) students with no-value "degrees", etc.

Urbanization has been happening for 100 years, and will continue. Cities/suburbs are where the jobs are, not in rural areas.
You’re more or less restating what I was saying, which is effectively that the EC has yet to and isn’t going to reverse the century long macroeconomic trends that make it so there are no jobs available in rural areas.

Regarding senate seats, I agree the current system is a joke.

[Blake]

Could happen. I could see retards like Booker or Kamala Harris being voted president by idiot urbanites :lol

2 terms of these clowns could easily take us to a military coup :lol

They would make Trump look like G Washington

No it couldn't. Not that soon any way.

[hater]

This is where the dramatics from the right get ridiculous. Cory Booker is a centrist corporate shill who’s currently propped up by the fact he’s the closest thing team blue has to another Obama. If he were president, all that would happen is maintaining the current status quo. The notion that he’s some kind of bleeding heart communist is completely divorced from actual facts.

Maybe you are right.

But given that there are crazies being supported by urbanites today does not bode well

And yes our current pres is a crazy. But I was hoping we are hiting rock bottom and not starting a trend

[CosmicCowboy]

Commenting on Christine Blasey Ford's allegation that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her at a beer party some 36 years ago and that the FBI must investigate the matter now before she will testify about the supposed incident, Juanita Broaddrick tweeted that if the FBI goes back that far then it must also "investigate my RAPE allegations against Bill Clinton, too."

"If you want the FBI to go back that far @HillaryClinton @MSNBC to investigate Ford's allegations .... let's investigate my RAPE allegations against Bill Clinton, too. Seems only fair," Broaddrick tweeted on Sept. 18.

Juanita Broaddrick, a retired nursing home administrator, has long maintained that Bill Clinton, when he was the Arkansas Attorney General, raped her -- a "forcible, brutal rape" -- in a hotel room in Little Rock, Ark., on April 25, 1978. At the time, Broaddrick was 35, Clinton was 31.

LOL

[hater]

:lmao served

[Brazil]

Yeah why dont we make elections just like in the shithole called Brazil :lmao

I'm not Brazilian, I don't vote in brazil dumb fuck

for the rest I let you judge about shithole you are an expert :lol

[hater]

I'm not Brazilian, I don't vote in brazil dumb fuck

for the rest I let you judge about shithole you are an expert :lol

Ma brasilian brotha, you are about to elect one of the following:
- bolsonaro - donald Trump on PCP :lol
- Gomez - an ex general :lol
- haddad - just a random nobody picked by Lula(who is currently in jail :lol)

Please concentrate on your own land. If any of those clowns wins Brasil Military might take charge anyway :lmao

Boa Sorte :lmao

[Brazil]

Ma brasilian brotha, you are about to elect one of the following:
- bolsonaro - donald Trump on PCP :lol
- Gomez - an ex general :lol
- haddad - just a random nobody picked by Lula(who is currently in jail :lol)

Please concentrate on your own land. If any of those clowns wins Brasil Military might take charge anyway :lmao

Boa Sorte :lmao

I'm not going to elect anyone and I'm not Brasilian

[in2deep]

Hllary should maybe try to shut up a bit

[hater]

I'm not going to elect anyone and I'm not Brasilian

Skipping this election huh?

But what do you think about Bolsanaro??? Niga is basically Trump on high grade pure colombian PCP

I hope he loses, he makes Duterte look like Bernie Sanders :lmao

He is the strongest candidate tho. Fuck can u imagine when Pres Bolsanaro and Trump meet? Add the Hungarian president and Duterte and you basically have the cast for Hellraiser 9

[DMC]

Chris loves some Hillary.

Every time someone mentions her you liberals cringe and scream. :lol

It's Hillaryous. You've invented memes and insta-responses to seeing her name here in an attempt to cover up the past.

Nope. Not going to happen mustard boy.

[hater]

Every time someone mentions her you liberals cringe and scream. :lol


Cant blame bellthen tbqh. Happens to me too :lol

[Mikeanaro]

But but...
https://i.redd.it/onvhjexs21z01.gif

[Blake]

Every time someone mentions her you liberals cringe and scream. :lol

No, every time a staunch Trumpian mentions her it's literally "lol ding".

[Blake]

But but...
https://i.redd.it/onvhjexs21z01.gif

Lol ding

[Mikeanaro]

Lol ding
https://i.redd.it/onvhjexs21z01.gif

Hilda is not going anywhere.

[djohn2oo8]

Every time someone mentions her
It says more about you that you keep mentioning her :lol

Not sure how somebody is irrelevant when you can’t stop thinking about em lol

[Spurtacular]

https://i.redd.it/onvhjexs21z01.gif

Hilda is not going anywhere.

Maybe if it had been hot sauce.

https://i.imgflip.com/12uhmy.jpg

[Spurtacular]

It says more about you that you keep mentioning her :lol

Not sure how somebody is irrelevant when you can’t stop thinking about em lol

:lmao Can't run fast enough from your loser.

[Roscoe P. Coltrane]

God damn you're a retarded pussyYou use the word diito and then call someone a pussy.

[djohn2oo8]

:lmao Can't run fast enough from your loser.
She can spell potato correctly

[Spurtacular]

She can spell potato correctly

Speaking of old coping mechanisms.

[djohn2oo8]

Speaking of old coping mechanisms.
Potatoe

[Spurtacular]

Potatoe

Come to me when your hero isn't a 17-year-old stooge.

[djohn2oo8]

Potatoe

[Pavlov]

coeping mechanism!

[spurraider21]

Come to me when your hero isn't a 17-year-old stooge.
^ Hogg derangement syndrome

[djohn2oo8]

coeping mechanism!
Lol

[baseline bum]

^ Hogg derangement syndrome

:lol

[Spurtacular]

^ Hogg derangement syndrome

:lmao Just throwing out trending buzzwords
:lmao Today's chump lite

[Blake]

https://i.redd.it/onvhjexs21z01.gif

Hilda is not going anywhere.

Lol ding

[Chris]

Poor Blake doesn't understand the ding thingy.

[Mikeanaro]

Maybe if it had been hot sauce.

https://i.imgflip.com/12uhmy.jpg

https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/imageedit_1526_4645647052.jpg
It seems all that hot sauce backfired, ripping her a new asshole.

[spurraider21]

spends free time thinking of hillary hot sauce

[Blake]

Poor Blake doesn't understand the ding thingy.

:lol of course I do.

But feel free to explain what you think it means.

[Blake]

https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/imageedit_1526_4645647052.jpg
It seems all that hot sauce backfired, ripping her a new asshole.

Lol ding.

Meanwhile Trump carries a bible he's never read.

[Chris]

:lol of course I do.

But feel free to explain what you think it means.

^poor fella

[ducks]

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/42174196_1920171154698419_8850573535601491968_o.jp g?_nc_cat=0&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=ae14f4c074cdeebf8576d0ad0985eec8&oe=5C214A57

[Blake]

^poor fella

Poor Chris.

Can't help thinking of Hillary.

[Spurtacular]

Lol ding.

Meanwhile Trump carries a bible he's never read.

According to you, that's a good thing.

[Chris]

Poor Chris.

Can't help thinking of Hillary.

Some day you will understand the ding thing. Until then, I would stop using it :tu

[DMC]

It says more about you that you keep mentioning her :lol

Not sure how somebody is irrelevant when you can’t stop thinking about em lol

She was the presidential candidate for the left. She's not irrelevant. She serves as a figurehead for the left, what you brought to the ring the last time you were given a title fight. Now she's your flowers in the attic but we know she's up there. Every time she opens her pie hole we're going to go on and on about it. You'll see.

[DMC]

Potatoe

That's not how it's spelled. Good lord.

[spurraider21]

She was the presidential candidate for the left. She's not irrelevant. She serves as a figurehead for the left, what you brought to the ring the last time you were given a title fight. Now she's your flowers in the attic but we know she's up there. Every time she opens her pie hole we're going to go on and on about it. You'll see.
i don't think that's been disputed. no need to prove that one up

[spurraider21]

That's not how it's spelled. Good lord.
ur a bit behind on ur spurstalk storylines

[DMC]

ur a bit behind on ur spurstalk storylines

Your sarcasm detector didn't make it off the boat.

[DMC]

i don't think that's been disputed. no need to prove that one up

It's not about proof. It's about the reckoning.

[spurraider21]

Your sarcasm detector didn't make it off the boat.
https://i.imgur.com/GfWWQBH.jpg

[spurraider21]

It's not about proof. It's about the reckoning.
:lol "you'll see!"

we already knew you'll obsess over her

[DMC]

:lol "you'll see!"

we already knew you'll obsess over her

I didn't add an exclamation point.

You're getting awfully close to taking a stance. Better tread lightly.

[spurraider21]

I didn't add an exclamation point.
i did


You're getting awfully close to taking a stance. Better tread lightly.
this is your white flag every time.

[DMC]

https://i.imgur.com/GfWWQBH.jpg

I had you figured for a motherfucker, didn't think you were white though.

[DMC]

i did


this is your white flag every time.

Changes my post
Claims victory

today's Philo

[Blake]

According to you, that's a good thing.

You're babbling nonsense.

[Blake]

Some day you will understand the ding thing. Until then, I would stop using it :tu

I've got it just fine. You'll never say what you think it means so you pretend you're smart.

Poor stupid Chris.

[Blake]

Every time she opens her pie hole we're going to go on and on about it. You'll see.

No shit. Trumpies like you can't help it.

[DarrinS]

It seems the EC comes under attack when you don’t get the outcome you want.

[Pavlov]

It seems the EC comes under attack when you don’t get the outcome you want.
Your team goes with vote fraud when you lose.

[Chris]

People that want to abolish the EC either have an agenda, or are simply misinformed.

All presidential electors are chosen by the voters.

Almost anyone can be an elector.

Only 2 states run proportional representation as opposed to the winner take all system.

People that want to abolish the EC either have an agenda, or are simply misinformed.

The electors are subject to corruption just like anyone else.

HRC still can't figure out why she lost.

People that voted for HRC are malleable, and will adopt any policy she promotes no matter how radical it is.

People that want to abolish the EC either have an agenda, or are simply misinformed.

[ElNono]

Or maybe people just have a differing opinion... whether somebody thinks the system is fair or not doesn't have to be connected to Shillary at all, tbh...

Heck, I'm fairly confident if Trump would've won the popular vote but lost the election, you'd be calling to abolish the EC...

[Chris]

Considering all the illegal voters and DNC corruption at the polls, I'm fairly confident Trump won the popular vote regardless of what the numbers say. If Trump would have lost the election, I doubt any rational Conservative would want to abolish the Electoral College. This is a knee jerk reaction reserved for the Radical Left.

[ElNono]

Considering all the illegal voters and DNC corruption at the polls, I'm fairly confident Trump won the popular vote regardless of what the numbers say. If Trump would have lost the election, I doubt any rational Conservative would want to abolish the Electoral College. This is a knee jerk reaction reserved for the Radical Left.

It's not all a conspiracy, tbh... someday you'll have to come to grips with that.

[spurraider21]

Considering all the illegal voters and DNC corruption at the polls, I'm fairly confident Trump won the popular vote regardless of what the numbers say. If Trump would have lost the election, I doubt any rational Conservative would want to abolish the Electoral College. This is a knee jerk reaction reserved for the Radical Left.
i'll just bet you are

[Spurtacular]

It's not all a conspiracy, tbh... someday you'll have to come to grips with that.

Yea, it is. I live in California. I know they're pretty much bending over backwards to allow illegals to vote. Then these assholes release their reports saying it's all on the up. You don't have to come to grips with that. I suspect you won't.

[Pavlov]

Considering all the illegal voters and DNC corruption at the pollsProve your claim.

[Pavlov]

Yea, it is. I live in California. I know they're pretty much bending over backwards to allow illegals to vote.Prove it.

[ElNono]

Yea, it is. I live in California. I know they're pretty much bending over backwards to allow illegals to vote. Then these assholes release their reports saying it's all on the up. You don't have to come to grips with that. I suspect you won't.

But that wouldn't be illegal either. You know where the problem stems? That the Constitution never framed who has a right to vote. It was left to the states to decide that (in large part because originally only white land owners were allowed to, but let's skip past the racial undertones). Eventually women were enfranchised, and then racial minorities.

Even then, California is just one state, solidly blue at that, and there's more to it than just illegals (if you live there, you know exactly what I mean).

Is it really surprising Democrats continually win the popular vote? It's only been happening for how many presidential elections? Urbanites far outnumber rural folks. It's not even a dig at Trump, same happened with Bush-Gore.

[boutons_deux]

"Eventually women were enfranchised, and then racial minorities."

nope

1870: Non-white men and freed male slaves are guaranteed the right to vote by the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion).

1920: Women are guaranteed the right to vote by the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion). In practice, the same restrictions that hindered the ability of poor or non-white men to vote now also applied to poor or non-white women.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

[ElNono]

Sorry, you're correct it was the 15th first, then the 19th.

That said, some women were already able to vote legally in select States before 1920. The Nineteenth amendment simply made it mandatory for every State. It's on the link you posted.

And the point I made still stands: There's no right to vote granted by the Constitution, it's left to the States. The 15th and 19th Amendment actually don't grant any new rights directly, they simply forbid States from disallowing voting disenfranchisement on the basis of color, race and sex.

[Blake]

Considering all the illegal voters and DNC corruption at the polls, I'm fairly confident Trump won the popular vote regardless of what the numbers say. If Trump would have lost the election, I doubt any rational Conservative would want to abolish the Electoral College. This is a knee jerk reaction reserved for the Radical Left.

Chrispiracy!

[Blake]

Yea, it is. I live in California. I know they're pretty much bending over backwards to allow illegals to vote. Then these assholes release their reports saying it's all on the up. You don't have to come to grips with that. I suspect you won't.

Derpspiracy!

[pgardn]

Summary


Red Team stance:

There are quite a few undesirable lazy poor people who If vote, will swing the direction of blue team who promise handouts.

Blue team stance:

There are large numbers of disenfranchised who do not vote. We need to get them to the polls anyway possible as they are more likely to vote our way. Because they don’t have a strong political voice we will not need to cater to them after we are in office. Just get them to the polls and push blue. If they do actually participate further than the elections they might go too far asking for too much.

[Brazil]

Skipping this election huh?

But what do you think about Bolsanaro??? Niga is basically Trump on high grade pure colombian PCP

I hope he loses, he makes Duterte look like Bernie Sanders :lmao

He is the strongest candidate tho. Fuck can u imagine when Pres Bolsanaro and Trump meet? Add the Hungarian president and Duterte and you basically have the cast for Hellraiser 9

smh... I'm not skipping this election, I can't vote bro.. that's not my choice.. Brazilians will elect who the fuck they want.

Brazil is a fucking mess, if they go haddad PT stays in power, corruption will continue like crazy and they will kill lava jato operation... Bolsonaro is indeed Trump but in worst with a risk to see army taking over once again the country.

I'm sad for the Brazilians tbh.. they are so fucked. I love Brazil and living there, this country is a blast but if things go south I'll come back home.. it is quite selfish but there is not much I can do

[hater]

Understand. Its sad that brazilians want to escape their own country but its understandable. You cant even make up that kind of mess

If Trump or some other retard like Shitlery/Rubio(or even Haley good lord :lol) are elected in 2020 I myself am also escaping this American shithole

Probably going to New Zealand. Sure they are american puppets but they still possess some civility and are not completely controlled by Israel

[hater]

If biden is elected Id probably stay for the lolz :lol

[Spurtacular]

But that wouldn't be illegal either. You know where the problem stems? That the Constitution never framed who has a right to vote. It was left to the states to decide that (in large part because originally only white land owners were allowed to, but let's skip past the racial undertones). Eventually women were enfranchised, and then racial minorities.

Even then, California is just one state, solidly blue at that, and there's more to it than just illegals (if you live there, you know exactly what I mean).

Is it really surprising Democrats continually win the popular vote? It's only been happening for how many presidential elections? Urbanites far outnumber rural folks. It's not even a dig at Trump, same happened with Bush-Gore.

Forming a more perfect union implies citizenship. The framers didn't spell it out because having invaders vote would've been preposterous.

[Pavlov]

Forming a more perfect union implies citizenship. The framers didn't spell it out because having invaders vote would've been preposterous.They spelled out that the president has to be a natural born citizen. Was that preposterous of them?

Yes or no.

[dabom]

https://i.imgur.com/GfWWQBH.jpg

Picture doesnt make sense. The joke goes over the jokester's head? That's fucking stupid. :lmao

[boutons_deux]

Scotus selections need a makeover

oligarchy have made it a partisan shit show circus

[spurraider21]

Picture doesnt make sense. The joke goes over the jokester's head? That's fucking stupid. :lmao
unironically, the joke went completely over your head

[RandomGuy]

having invaders vote would've been preposterous.

I can think of a few native American tribes who might agree.

[Blake]

Forming a more perfect union implies citizenship. The framers didn't spell it out because having invaders vote would've been preposterous.

:lol invaders.

Jeez you're stupid

[boutons_deux]

"Forming a more perfect union implies citizenship"

ignorance w/o limits,

The Constitution permits the states to decide who CAN vote (citizenship optional), while Feds decide whose vote CANNOT be denied.

America has never been a democracy.

The Constitution was written by more or less well-off, land-owning, slave-owning white males FOR THEMSELVES, denying participation by non-white, non-males, non-wealthy.

iow, USA was an oligarchy from birth, with a few digressions into periods of diminished oligarchical power, which has ALWAYS returned, eg, the return to power of the VRWC/oligarchy since 1980 with Useful Idiot St Ronnie and nasty hit men, with, as is always the American case, the non-oligarchy getting screwed.

[Spurtacular]

They spelled out that the president has to be a natural born citizen. Was that preposterous of them?

Yes or no.

Who just got done ruling them?

:lol You thought you had something.

[Pavlov]

Who just got done ruling them?

:lol You thought you had something.
You didn't answer the question.

We're the founders being preposterous for spelling out the citizenship requirements of presidents?

Yes or no.

[Spurtacular]

I can think of a few native American tribes who might agree.

Yup. I don't get to go to Indian reservations and vote for that reason.

[Spurtacular]

:lol invaders.

Jeez you're stupid

Triggered cuck again. :lmao

[Blake]

Triggered cuck again. :lmao

Yes you triggered a round of lols. Well played, dummy.

[Spurtacular]

Yes you triggered a round of lols.

Laughing at you is the norm.


Well played, dummy.

:lol cuckbacks

[Blake]

Laughing at you is the norm.



:lol cuckbacks

Everyone here laughs at you. Everyone.

[koriwhat]

Everyone here laughs at you. Everyone.

nah we def laugh at you ButtfuckmywifeBlake

[Blake]

nah we def laugh at you ButtfuckmywifeBlake

Everyone here laughs at you too, druggy. Everyone.

[Chris]

Only other person I have heard use the word "druggy" is this guy :lol


https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FNgHFKgeS_T0%2F hqdefault.jpg&f=1

Even your insults suck.

[koriwhat]

Everyone here laughs at you too, druggy. Everyone.

what you and the other queers just like you here? that's like being sad because the glee club makes fun of you behind closed doors. no one fucking gives a fuck about you, those like you here, nor the glee club which you belong to.

fucking sissy.

[koriwhat]

Only other person I have heard use the word "druggy" is this guy :lol


https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FNgHFKgeS_T0%2F hqdefault.jpg&f=1

Even your insults suck.

he thinks i'm a druggy because i like bud. guess i need to find me a rehab to join because my "addiction" is getting out of control. i've hit skidrow!

[Blake]

Only other person I have heard use the word "druggy" is this guy :lol


https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FNgHFKgeS_T0%2F hqdefault.jpg&f=1

Even your insults suck.

K, Chris what do you think would be a better way to describe a drug user like kw?

[Blake]

he thinks i'm a druggy because i like bud. guess i need to find me a rehab to join because my "addiction" is getting out of control. i've hit skidrow!

K, drug user

[Chris]

K, Chris what do you think would be a better way to describe a drug user like kw?

How about you take the high road for once in your life and abstain from insults altogether?

[ElNono]

Forming a more perfect union implies citizenship. The framers didn't spell it out because having invaders vote would've been preposterous.

Well, the framers were very careful on what rights they granted, especially for minorities. Don't forget that's who the Constitution largely protects. It's likely that giving voting rights to slaves would've been considered way too edgy at the time. Or maybe it just wasn't even considered.

I don't know about that whole 'more perfect union citizenship' thing, it's your opinion, and certainly valid.

[koriwhat]

K, Chris what do you think would be a better way to describe a drug user like kw?

reefer madness! you're a schmuck.

[Blake]

How about you take the high road for once in your life and abstain from insults altogether?

K, hypocrite

[koriwhat]

K, hypocrite

:cry

[Blake]

:cry

K, drug user

[koriwhat]

K, drug user

what's your vice blake, watching your ex take it up the pooper while you cuddle the corner of the room and cry? i can't relate but a little bit of weed will help you get over it.

[Blake]

:cry

K, drug user

[Spurtacular]

Well, the framers were very careful on what rights they granted, especially for minorities. Don't forget that's who the Constitution largely protects. It's likely that giving voting rights to slaves would've been considered way too edgy at the time. Or maybe it just wasn't even considered.

I don't know about that whole 'more perfect union citizenship' thing, it's your opinion, and certainly valid.

The Constitution wanted to create equity for all in as much as possible; I'd stop short of saying it was "especially for minorities" in today's terms.

As far as slavery goes, the framers knew that it was a problem that would hit a head within five generations / was a problem that could explode in any given generation; that's why some such as T-Jeff wanted a rider to end slavery within two decades.

[ElNono]

The Constitution wanted to create equity for all in as much as possible; I'd stop short of saying it was "especially for minorities" in today's terms.

As far as slavery goes, the framers knew that it was a problem that would hit a head within five generations / was a problem that could explode in any given generation; that's why some such as T-Jeff wanted a rider to end slavery within two decades.

The Constitution inherently protects from the mob or majority. ie: even if the vast majority of people find KKK speech offensive and reprehensible, the constitution protects it. If you're in the majority, you're much less likely to need such protection. Works the same with pretty much every other right. Even if a State like New York or California wants to outright ban weapons, and that's the view of the majority, the Constitution protects the minority.

There's obviously a formal process that the majority can use to change the rights granted by the Constitution, but it has a high bar and a long consensus process, as it should.

Talking about consensus, that's what the framers had to deal with when it came to voting. States clearly didn't want to allow slaves or women to vote, and having a Constitution in place was much more important than delaying it for those reasons.

They punted, and that makes sense. There was a mechanism to correct that wrong, and over time, it did. But the lingering issue is that there's no Constitutional right to vote, there's some voting discrimination protections that were enshrined later on.

Circling back to the starting argument, it shouldn't be shocking that a State would like to grant non-national citizens the right to vote. We can discuss that on the merits, but barring a Federal law outlawing it, it would be perfectly within their realm.

[Spurtacular]

The Constitution inherently protects from the mob or majority. ie: even if the vast majority of people find KKK speech offensive and reprehensible, the constitution protects it. If you're in the majority, you're much less likely to need such protection. Works the same with pretty much every other right. Even if a State like New York or California wants to outright ban weapons, and that's the view of the majority, the Constitution protects the minority.

There's obviously a formal process that the majority can use to change the rights granted by the Constitution, but it has a high bar and a long consensus process, as it should.

Talking about consensus, that's what the framers had to deal with when it came to voting. States clearly didn't want to allow slaves or women to vote, and having a Constitution in place was much more important than delaying it for those reasons.

They punted, and that makes sense. There was a mechanism to correct that wrong, and over time, it did. But the lingering issue is that there's no Constitutional right to vote, there's some voting discrimination protections that were enshrined later on.

Circling back to the starting argument, it shouldn't be shocking that a State would like to grant non-national citizens the right to vote. We can discuss that on the merits, but barring a Federal law outlawing it, it would be perfectly within their realm.

The Constitution never granted (governmental/citizen-level) rights to non citizens. A lot of liberals love to believe that it did.

[Chris]

non-national citizens


https://media1.giphy.com/media/pPhyAv5t9V8djyRFJH/giphy.gif

[Chris]

The Constitution never granted (governmental/citizen-level) rights to non citizens. A lot of liberals love to believe that it did.

Looks like your bs detector went off at the same time :lol

[Pavlov]

The Constitution wanted to create equity for all in as much as possible; I'd stop short of saying it was "especially for minorities" in today's terms.

As far as slavery goes, the framers knew that it was a problem that would hit a head within five generations / was a problem that could explode in any given generation; that's why some such as T-Jeff wanted a rider to end slavery within two decades.

But they didn't.

And they spelled out the citizenship requirements for president.

Which you think is ridiculous.

lol

[Spurtacular]

Looks like your bs detector went off at the same time :lol

No passage exists that say non citizens get the same right as citizens. A constitution by definition is applicable to the people creating it. Nor can I just write a constitution for the people of Afghanistan.

[Pavlov]

The Constitution inherently protects from the mob or majority. ie: even if the vast majority of people find KKK speech offensive and reprehensible, the constitution protects it. If you're in the majority, you're much less likely to need such protection. Works the same with pretty much every other right. Even if a State like New York or California wants to outright ban weapons, and that's the view of the majority, the Constitution protects the minority.

There's obviously a formal process that the majority can use to change the rights granted by the Constitution, but it has a high bar and a long consensus process, as it should.

Talking about consensus, that's what the framers had to deal with when it came to voting. States clearly didn't want to allow slaves or women to vote, and having a Constitution in place was much more important than delaying it for those reasons.

They punted, and that makes sense. There was a mechanism to correct that wrong, and over time, it did. But the lingering issue is that there's no Constitutional right to vote, there's some voting discrimination protections that were enshrined later on.

Circling back to the starting argument, it shouldn't be shocking that a State would like to grant non-national citizens the right to vote. We can discuss that on the merits, but barring a Federal law outlawing it, it would be perfectly within their realm.
Props to you for constantly throwing your pearls before these swine.

They aren't smart enough to understand what you're saying.

[Spurtacular]

Props to you for constantly throwing your pearls before these swine.


:lmao Today's sociopath.

[Spurtacular]

But they didn't.

And they spelled out the citizenship requirements for president.

Which you think is ridiculous.

lol

Not my argument, bruh. Not a strong day for you.

[Pavlov]

Not my argument, bruh. Not a strong day for you.it was.

Sorry, you're stupid.

lol "implied" requirements

[Pavlov]

:lmao Today's sociopath.
El Nono is exponentially smarter than you.

Sorry, derp.

You're stupid.

[Spurtacular]

it was.

Sorry, you're stupid.

lol "implied" requirements

I had no constitutional argument regarding the president.

:lmao Doubling down on your sociopath truth.
:lmao Par.

[Spurtacular]

El Nono is exponentially smarter than you.

Sorry, derp.

You're stupid.

:lol Desperate for a W.
:lol Get him, big brother!

[Pavlov]

I had no constitutional argument regarding the president.

:lmao Doubling down on your sociopath truth.
:lmao Par.
Your argument was it would've been stupid for the founders to spell anything out and deliberately implied requirements for voting.

Do you realize how stupid that argument is?

lol

[pgardn]

Props to you for constantly throwing your pearls before these swine.

They aren't smart enough to understand what you're saying.

They need help.
Its nice to see some legit stuff coming for team red. (Even though I don’t think this fits any team)
This site is better with genuine stuff instead of Chris and the constant twitter quotes coming from the abyss of ignorance.

[Spurtacular]

Your argument was it would've been stupid for the founders to spell anything out and deliberately implied requirements for voting.

Do you realize how stupid that argument is?

lol

What does this have to do with the president? Are you enjoying moving the goalposts?

[Pavlov]

What does this have to do with the president? Are you enjoying moving the goalposts?
What makes you think they would spell one out and imply the other?

Explain your theory.

[Spurtacular]

What makes you think they would spell one out and imply the other?

Explain your theory.

This has been explained in this thread.

[Pavlov]

This has been explained in this thread.It has not.

Why would they spell out one and merely imply the other allowing themselves to be misinterpreted?

Explain.

[Spurtacular]

It has not.

Why would they spell out one and merely imply the other allowing themselves to be misinterpreted?

Explain.

Yea, you're right. I just make up my own truth. Oh wait, that would be you, sociopath. :lmao

[Pavlov]

Yea, you're right. I just make up my own truth. Oh wait, that would be you, sociopath. :lmaoYou certainly are trying hard tonight not explain your theory.

Why would they spell out one thing and leave the other open to misinterpretation, derp?

Step up.

[pgardn]

The founders clearly understood that once you start creating voting hurdles, only the inherited upper classwould be making decisions on rulers. They did not want this. We must remember what many of them came from and who they were; Risk taking, resourceful people who did not fit with the born in elite. Very able, unrecognized or rejecting inherited status... people who had seen all sorts of treachery in leadership and revolution. They knew the type of crap familial inherited elite could create. And the horrors that occur if mob/populists decided it was time for scapegoating while throwing out a rotten monarchy or corrupt elite. Europe had seen so much bloodshed time and time again when leadership vascillated between extremes.

So of course the constitution is important. But what the actual people had been through directly, or through their painful past, helps in interpretation. Naked power grabs or a populist culture’s fickle menace scared them. The real intellectuals had seen and read it all. And they had real disagreements on how to avoid what scared them.

imo...

[Spurtacular]

You certainly are trying hard tonight not explain your theory.

Why would they spell out one thing and leave the other open to misinterpretation, derp?

Step up.

Tell me what the motivation is to explaining it? It's not like it'll bring contrition to a sociopath such as yourself. It can't be for the W; I get W's on you daily anyhow. Tell me a new or good motivation and I'll show you how you're being your standard jackass self.

[Pavlov]

Tell me what the motivation is to explaining it? It's not like it'll bring contrition to a sociopath such as yourself. It can't be for the W; I get W's on you daily anyhow. Tell me a new or good motivation and I'll show you how you're being your standard jackass self.
I know you don't want to explain yourself and will whine and bitch and act out until you can change the subject.

That's all you have at this point.

You will never explain yourself.

You will never defend your claims.

You're afraid.

You're terrified.

You're stupid.

That's all.

[ElNono]

The Constitution never granted (governmental/citizen-level) rights to non citizens. A lot of liberals love to believe that it did.

That's actually not true. The Constitution largely refers to 'people' or 'persons', except where it's very specific about citizenship (ie: Executive office).

There's case law about it. For example, see: Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) In the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”

Also, illegal aliens that have been in the country for over 2 years are required to have hearing, and their due process must be respected. That's why I mention non-national citizens, where citizen doesn't imply actual nationality, but the sense of belonging to a certain society after a period of time.

[ElNono]

https://media1.giphy.com/media/pPhyAv5t9V8djyRFJH/giphy.gif


Looks like your bs detector went off at the same time :lol

Do you have a question?

[ElNono]

No passage exists that say non citizens get the same right as citizens. A constitution by definition is applicable to the people creating it. Nor can I just write a constitution for the people of Afghanistan.

Yes there is, and it's quite explicit:

Fifth Amendment: "No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Fourteen Amendment has 3 clauses: privileges and immunities, due process, and equal protection. The privileges and immunities clause applies to "citizens of the United States" while the due process and equal protection clauses apply to "persons."

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Again, aliens are not afforded all the rights, but certainly some rights. More case law: Castro v. Cabrera, 742 F. 3d 595 (5th Cir. 2014), Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003).

There's also a 'sliding scale' SCOTUS standard applied for the rights that do apply to aliens in the US (see United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez).

Actually, most recently, this whole topic came to the fore with Garza v. Hargan.

[Spurtacular]

I know you don't want to explain yourself and will whine and bitch and act out until you can change the subject.

That's all you have at this point.

You will never explain yourself.

You will never defend your claims.

You're afraid.

You're terrified.

You're stupid.

That's all.

I ask for motivation, and you throw out every lame come-on in your quiver. :lol

[Spurtacular]

Yes there is, and it's quite explicit:

Fifth Amendment: "No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Fourteen Amendment has 3 clauses: privileges and immunities, due process, and equal protection. The privileges and immunities clause applies to "citizens of the United States" while the due process and equal protection clauses apply to "persons."

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Again, aliens are not afforded all the rights, but certainly some rights. More case law: Castro v. Cabrera, 742 F. 3d 595 (5th Cir. 2014), Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003).

There's also a 'sliding scale' SCOTUS standard applied for the rights that do apply to aliens in the US (see United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez).

Actually, most recently, this whole topic came to the fore with Garza v. Hargan.

Person in the fourteenth amendment would be specific language to designate blacks no longer as 3/5th a person.

Person in the fifth amendment would've been used quite likely because the inhabitants considered their personage above national citizenry (most were higher on state citizenry at the time). Also, again citizenship was obviously implied. The Constitution wasn't written as a document to be used by foreign nationals for instance.

The Supreme Court often takes liberty with interpretation. That doesn't mean much to me as it relates to the original framework of the Constitution.

[ElNono]

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211-12 (1982) (illegal aliens protected by equal protection clause);

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896) (resident aliens entitled to fifth and sixth amendment rights);

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S.356, 369 (1886) (fourteenth amendment protects resident aliens).

[ElNono]

Person in the fourteenth amendment would be specific language to designate blacks no longer as 3/5th a person.

Person in the fifth amendment would've been used quite likely because the inhabitants considered their personage above national citizenry (most were higher on state citizenry at the time). Also, again citizenship was obviously implied. The Constitution wasn't written as a document to be used by foreign nationals for instance.

The Supreme Court often takes liberty with interpretation. That doesn't mean much to me as it relates to the original framework of the Constitution.

Even legal residents are not citizens and clearly enjoy Constitutional protections, at least within the jurisdiction of the US, so that's a bridge that was burned a long time ago (case law dates back to the 1800's).

If anything, the fact that everybody, including most illegal aliens will get their day in court speaks very highly of the American judicial system, something other countries can't really match.

[ElNono]

I don't particularly think that was unintentional by the framers. Especially when they very very specific on what and where they required citizenship.

Then again, I can totally see the outrage in this day and age if some State came up with the idea of aliens voting.

[spurraider21]

The Supreme Court often takes liberty with interpretation. That doesn't mean much to me as it relates to the original framework of the Constitution.
Yet here you are taking liberty with interpretation


Also, again citizenship was obviously implied.

[boutons_deux]

If anything, the fact that everybody, including most illegal aliens will get their day in court speaks very highly of the American judicial system, something other countries can't really match.

lawyers work extremely hard to keep the court house door closed, seeking plea deals, settlements, etc.

Esp bad when innocent (non-white) people are railroaded into pleas (5 years if plead guilty, 25 years if you don't)

The corruption of DAs and prosecutors has been well documented.

And of course the oligarchy's SCOTUS, esp so-called Catholic Scalia, has horribly reduced what constitutes a class in class actions

Forced arbitration as condition of employment also slams the court house door shut.

Fascist Incarceration Nation (for profit) shit stains America so-called judicial system.

Elected judges', as in state supreme courts, with campaigns financed by the oligarchy? :lol

"very highly of the American judicial system," :lol Just another fucking myth Americans lie to themselves with.

[ElNono]

lawyers work extremely hard to keep the court house door closed, seeking plea deals, settlements, etc.

Esp bad when innocent (non-white) people are railroaded into pleas (5 years if plead guilty, 25 years if you don't)

The corruption of DAs and prosecutors has been well documented.

And of course the oligarchy's SCOTUS, esp so-called Catholic Scalia, has horribly reduced what constitutes a class in class actions

Forced arbitration as condition of employment also slams the court house door shut.

Fascist Incarceration Nation (for profit) shit stains America so-called judicial system.

Elected judges' campaign financed by the oligarchy? :lol

"very highly of the American judicial system," :lol Just another fucking myth Americans lie to themselves with.

Nobody is forced to take a plea deal, tbh, but I also think it's also part of the balance of having a speedy trial system.

It's not perfect, but sure better than most others out there.

[boutons_deux]

"Nobody is forced to take a plea deal"

?? I've read articles where INNOCENT people were given a "choice" of, eg, 5 years with plea, or decades with no plea.

Then there is forced confessions after long hours of tortuous, brutal questioning.

[koriwhat]

K, drug user

K, faggot. sancho went from fucking your ol lady to becoming your ol man.

[koriwhat]

lawyers work extremely hard to keep the court house door closed, seeking plea deals, settlements, etc.

Esp bad when innocent (non-white) people are railroaded into pleas (5 years if plead guilty, 25 years if you don't)

The corruption of DAs and prosecutors has been well documented.

And of course the oligarchy's SCOTUS, esp so-called Catholic Scalia, has horribly reduced what constitutes a class in class actions

Forced arbitration as condition of employment also slams the court house door shut.

Fascist Incarceration Nation (for profit) shit stains America so-called judicial system.

Elected judges', as in state supreme courts, with campaigns financed by the oligarchy? :lol

"very highly of the American judicial system," :lol Just another fucking myth Americans lie to themselves with.

you've never been to jail nor know wtf you're talking about. white guilt has you losing your fucking mind.

i am/was an innocent white male who was railroaded for 3 yrs and declined the plea deal. tell me again how much you know about the judicial system.

you know nothing except posting articles you don't read and neither do we. you're a pathetic sissy boy.

[RandomGuy]

When the Republican party sends people to Washington they're not sending the best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to Washington. They're bringing drugs. They are bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

[CosmicCowboy]

When the Republican party sends people to Washington they're not sending the best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to Washington. They're bringing drugs. They are bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Actually, I don't think any party sends their best.

The best won't put up with the shit they have to do to get elected. In this political environment one can't possibly get elected without lying and compromising their values.

[DarrinS]

When the Republican party sends people to Washington they're not sending the best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to Washington. They're bringing drugs. They are bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.


You tripped over Bill Clinton there. :lol

[RandomGuy]

You tripped over Bill Clinton there. :lol

Hastert, what?

[Spurtacular]

Even legal residents are not citizens and clearly enjoy Constitutional protections, at least within the jurisdiction of the US, so that's a bridge that was burned a long time ago (case law dates back to the 1800's).

If anything, the fact that everybody, including most illegal aliens will get their day in court speaks very highly of the American judicial system, something other countries can't really match.

Rights are one thing. Privileges are another.

[Spurtacular]

Yet here you are taking liberty with interpretation

Yea, big liberty to state that an American constitution was for Americans. :lmao

[spurraider21]

Yea, big liberty to state that an American constitution was for Americans. :lmao
states "people" in some sections, and "citizens" in others.

that was deliberate

[Spurtacular]

states "people" in some sections, and "citizens" in others.

that was deliberate

Doesn't state foreign residents anywhere. That was "deliberate".

[spurraider21]

Doesn't state foreign residents anywhere. That was "deliberate".
they are still people

[Blake]

Doesn't state foreign residents anywhere. That was "deliberate".

Yeah why do you think they didn't clearly say "citizens" in every section instead of "people"?

State your theory on that.

[ElNono]

Rights are one thing. Privileges are another.

???

[spurraider21]

???
dont mind him. he's just taking liberty with interpretation

[Chris]

Hey ElNono, what's a "non-national citizen"?

[Spurtacular]

???

There are natural human rights that Americans have acknowledged go to everyone. Other rights are specific to Americans within the American system. A guy living in Russia doesn't just suddenly break into social security; well, you never know with the Democrats though....

[ElNono]

Hey ElNono, what's a "non-national citizen"?

I was probably wrong in labeling it 'citizen'. It should have been 'resident'.

ie: A legal resident alien. Not a natural born person, but a resident of the US for jurisdiction purposes.

I've got citizen and resident mixed up, since citizen is the expression for resident in other languages.

[ElNono]

There are natural human rights that Americans have acknowledged go to everyone. Other rights are specific to Americans within the American system. A guy living in Russia doesn't just suddenly break into social security; well, you never know with the Democrats though....

Well, that's what I was trying to point out. Not all rights apply to non-citizens, but some do. You mentioned that there was no explicit rights granted by the Constitution that can be applied to non-citizens, and that's what I wanted to correct. Not being pedantic, just because I think it's important that's well known.

[DMC]

I was probably wrong in labeling it 'citizen'. It should have been 'resident'.

ie: A legal resident alien. Not a natural born person, but a resident of the US for jurisdiction purposes.

I've got citizen and resident mixed up, since citizen is the expression for resident in other languages.

Today's non-Manu ElNono smh :lol

[ElNono]

Today's non-Manu ElNono smh :lol

:lol Even after 20+ years in the US, I still get mixed up with languages all the time. It's my fault though, gotta admit to that.

[Spurtacular]

Well, that's what I was trying to point out. Not all rights apply to non-citizens, but some do. You mentioned that there was no explicit rights granted by the Constitution that can be applied to non-citizens, and that's what I wanted to correct. Not being pedantic, just because I think it's important that's well known.

Ruh roh. Chumpettes might accuse you of not knowing what pedantic means. :lol

[ElNono]

Ruh roh. Chumpettes might accuse you of not knowing what pedantic means. :lol

As long as you and I agree on what it means, we're golden, tbh

[Chris]

I was probably wrong in labeling it 'citizen'. It should have been 'resident'.

ie: A legal resident alien. Not a natural born person, but a resident of the US for jurisdiction purposes.

I've got citizen and resident mixed up, since citizen is the expression for resident in other languages.

Fair enough :tu

[Winehole23]

interesting thread on the electoral college:

1089403845380395008

[Spurtacular]

interesting thread on the electoral college:

1089403845380395008

You're right. This is a problem. Democrats should take the lead and break up the electoral votes in California.

[Winehole23]

You're right. This is a problem. Democrats should take the lead and break up the electoral votes in California.not sure what you mean.

explain?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/13/us/california-closer-to-split-into-three-states-trnd/index.html

[Winehole23]

This is why I hate this system. The government is run by these swing state rhetoric. They can't talk to the 100%.We adopted the EC primarily to count slaves for apportionment.

The "failure rate" (electoral/popular inversion) for elections closer than 3% in the popular vote is about 30%.

That's the original compact, but is it fair?

Additionally, if it doesn't prevent an incompetent crook like Trump from taking the presidency what is it good for?

[Mikeanaro]

Exactly, that way 3 states can pick the president all the time.
Wana hir dose voices!

[Spurtacular]

The thing that bugs me is why the fuck is coal a fucking talking point in 2016. Coal is dead. A couple thousand people. But that shit will win an election. :lol

:lmao Idiot

https://i.imgflip.com/113jff.jpg

[Pavlov]

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/i_WhTRImiRNM/v1/-1x-1.png

[ElNono]

interesting thread on the electoral college:

1089403845380395008

The solution to this is simply making more states competitive. If anything, this is an indictment to the general ineptitude of a large swat of politicians to engage their electorate in meaningful ways.

I don't think this is actually a failure of the political game itself, but a failure of the players.

[boutons_deux]

I don't think this is actually a failure of the political game itself, but a failure of the players.

:lol the "players" play the "game" as they are paid to play it, "throwing the game" to BigDonor.

The electoral college was created as an anti-democratic (anti-popular vote) mechanism to restrict the influence of The People whom the oligarchic (white wealthy MEN), racist (no vote for blacks or Indians), misogynist (no vote for women) FFs detested, or at very least, deeply mistrusted, on the assumption that electors were more trusted and reasonable to override the unruly, uneducated, unsophisticated masses of The People.

The Constitution was never meant to be operate USA as a representative, proportional, "popular" democracy, but as an oligarchy of wealthy white men

eg, an incompetent, criminal, inexperienced non-politician like Trash voted in by wild, crazy, suckered, demagogued People would blocked by the EC.

The EC hasn't worked, so PVL Trash is so-called Pres, and EC must die, and as must the Senate as defined

Also, the cap of 435 Reps for a country of 330M (2019) is also now fucking up any pretension of "democracy", since 435 was fixed in 1911 century for population of 95M.

"There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. Federal law, passed on Aug. 8, 1911, determines how many members are in the House of Representatives (https://www.thoughtco.com/house-of-representatives-3322270).

That measure raised the number of representatives to 435 from 391 because of population growth (https://www.thoughtco.com/population-growth-rates-1435469) in the United States.

The first House of Representatives in 1789 had only 65 members.

The number of seats in the House was expanded to 105 members after the 1790 Census, and then to 142 members after the 1800 headcount.

The law that set the current number of seats at 435 took effect in 1913. But it isn't the reason the number of representatives has been stuck there.

"Why There Are 435 Members

There's really nothing special about that number.

Congress regularly increased the number of seats in the House based on the nation's population growth from 1790 to 1913, and 435 is the most recent count.

The number of seats in the House has not been increased in more than a century, though, even though every 10 years the census shows the population of the United States (https://www.thoughtco.com/current-usa-population-1435269) growing.

Why the Number of House Members Hasn't Changed Since 1913

There are still 435 members of the House of Representatives a century later because of the Permanent Apportionment Act (http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/) of 1929, which set that number in stone."

https://www.thoughtco.com/members-in-the-house-of-representatives-3368242 (https://www.thoughtco.com/members-in-the-house-of-representatives-3368242)

btw, the which party DOMINATED Congress in 1929? :lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/71st_United_States_Congress

The party of the Haves

The Constitution, now rigged and weaponized by the oligarchy, prioritized area (50 areas) over population, and is horribly anti-representative.

and even the House is fucked up, as CA (40M people) may lose a Rep to, IIRC, MT (1M).

So now 30% of the people in low-population, rural states control 60% of Senators.

iow, USA is governed by anti-democratic House, fucked up anti-democratic Senate, anti-democratic, oligarchic EC, so that

rigged America is ruled by minority and BigDonor oligarchy.

So, Let's Fix It!

Nope, that window is closed and glued shut, never to re-open, as the oligarchy has $Ts available to control rigged govt, and will spend whatever $100B is takes to defend its rigging status quo.

Even the Dem establishment is anti-progressive, anti-democratic as Pelosi, etc have every intention of shutting down and out the newly elected, diverse, progressive Reps, who managed to slip by the Dem establishment's efforts to block their candidacies.

[Mikeanaro]

:lol the "players" play the "game" as they are paid to play it, "throwing the game" to BigDonor.

The electoral college was created as an anti-democratic (anti-popular vote) mechanism to restrict the influence of The People whom the oligarchic (white wealthy MEN), racist (no vote for blacks or Indians), misogynist (no vote for women) FFs detested, or at very least, deeply mistrusted, on the assumption that electors were more trusted and reasonable to override the unruly, uneducated, unsophisticated masses of The People.

The Constitution was never meant to be operate USA as a representative, proportional, "popular" democracy, but as an oligarchy of wealthy white men

eg, an incompetent, criminal, inexperienced non-politician like Trash voted in by wild, crazy, suckered, demagogued People would blocked by the EC.

The EC hasn't worked, so PVL Trash is so-called Pres, and EC must die, and as must the Senate as defined

Also, the cap of 435 Reps for a country of 330M (2019) is also now fucking up any pretension of "democracy", since 435 was fixed in 1911 century for population of 95M.

"There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. Federal law, passed on Aug. 8, 1911, determines how many members are in the House of Representatives (https://www.thoughtco.com/house-of-representatives-3322270).

That measure raised the number of representatives to 435 from 391 because of population growth (https://www.thoughtco.com/population-growth-rates-1435469) in the United States.

The first House of Representatives in 1789 had only 65 members.

The number of seats in the House was expanded to 105 members after the 1790 Census, and then to 142 members after the 1800 headcount.

The law that set the current number of seats at 435 took effect in 1913. But it isn't the reason the number of representatives has been stuck there.

"Why There Are 435 Members

There's really nothing special about that number.

Congress regularly increased the number of seats in the House based on the nation's population growth from 1790 to 1913, and 435 is the most recent count.

The number of seats in the House has not been increased in more than a century, though, even though every 10 years the census shows the population of the United States (https://www.thoughtco.com/current-usa-population-1435269) growing.

Why the Number of House Members Hasn't Changed Since 1913

There are still 435 members of the House of Representatives a century later because of the Permanent Apportionment Act (http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/) of 1929, which set that number in stone."

https://www.thoughtco.com/members-in-the-house-of-representatives-3368242 (https://www.thoughtco.com/members-in-the-house-of-representatives-3368242)

btw, the which party DOMINATED Congress in 1929? :lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/71st_United_States_Congress

The party of the Haves

The Constitution, now rigged and weaponized by the oligarchy, prioritized area (50 areas) over population, and is horribly anti-representative.

and even the House is fucked up, as CA (40M people) may lose a Rep to, IIRC, MT (1M).

So now 30% of the people in low-population, rural states control 60% of Senators.

iow, USA is governed by anti-democratic House, fucked up anti-democratic Senate, anti-democratic, oligarchic EC, so that

rigged America is ruled by minority and BigDonor oligarchy.

So, Let's Fix It!

Nope, that window is closed and glued shut, never to re-open, as the oligarchy has $Ts available to control rigged govt, and will spend whatever $100B is takes to defend its rigging status quo.

Even the Dem establishment is anti-progressive, anti-democratic as Pelosi, etc have every intention of shutting down and out the newly elected, diverse, progressive Reps, who managed to slip by the Dem establishment's efforts to block their candidacies.



Is not Trump´s fault that Hilda sat on her ass during the whole campaign expecting the ¨landslide¨.