Home
Donald Trump!
5 posters
HE has come.....THE Chosen One...
cream919- Fanboy Apprentice
- Posts : 527
Join date : 2017-05-05
Location : Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
Blondy's former Rep, Joe Walsh is going to announce his candidacy for President. Do I vote for him or Bill Weld or write in Kasich again?
What will Kark do? As I recall, he jacked his meat raw for Joe Walsh a few years ago.
What will Kark do? As I recall, he jacked his meat raw for Joe Walsh a few years ago.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
I'd go with Weld or Kasich.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
cream919 wrote:Donald Trump!
Where are the Evangelicals now? Not only has he called himself the "Chosen One" but he has acknowledged himself (via a Tweet he had to either retype or cut and paste) as the "Second Coming of God". Of course, he's to moronic to know that the Jews haven't acknowledged the "first coming".
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
alohafri wrote:Blondy's former Rep, Joe Walsh is going to announce his candidacy for President. Do I vote for him or Bill Weld or write in Kasich again?
What will Kark do? As I recall, he jacked his meat raw for Joe Walsh a few years ago.
As if on cue, Kark is calling Joe Walsh a "loon".
cream919- Fanboy Apprentice
- Posts : 527
Join date : 2017-05-05
Location : Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell
The Evangelicals will most likely accept him as the second coming of Christ or whatever. That's what brainwashing does to you. They worship this fool. He's God's servant that's saving them from the liberal scourge.
Fucking lame-brained morons.
Fucking lame-brained morons.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
cream919 wrote:The Evangelicals will most likely accept him as the second coming of Christ or whatever. That's what brainwashing does to you. They worship this fool. He's God's servant that's saving them from the liberal scourge.
Fucking lame-brained morons.
Trump did what Clinton did as far as fucking around on his wife (although Trump did it when she was pregnant) but somehow it's no one's business when Trump does it.
On another note, why hasn't someone pushed Jeannie Pirro in front of a steamroller yet?
sharpy- Fanboy
- Posts : 915
Join date : 2017-05-10
alohafri wrote:Blondy's former Rep, Joe Walsh is going to announce his candidacy for President. Do I vote for him or Bill Weld or write in Kasich again?
What will Kark do? As I recall, he jacked his meat raw for Joe Walsh a few years ago.
Just vote for trump .. voting for any 3rd party or write in candidate is just a vote for trump. So don't think you "living with yourself" because you aren't literally voting for trump - you're just looking the other way as the country goes to shit ...
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
sharpy wrote:alohafri wrote:Blondy's former Rep, Joe Walsh is going to announce his candidacy for President. Do I vote for him or Bill Weld or write in Kasich again?
What will Kark do? As I recall, he jacked his meat raw for Joe Walsh a few years ago.
Just vote for trump .. voting for any 3rd party or write in candidate is just a vote for trump. So don't think you "living with yourself" because you aren't literally voting for trump - you're just looking the other way as the country goes to shit ...
If you think my "popular vote" in blue Illinois matters, you need to sit in my class for a few days (next year, of course, when I return to 8th grade).
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
alohafri wrote:sharpy wrote:alohafri wrote:Blondy's former Rep, Joe Walsh is going to announce his candidacy for President. Do I vote for him or Bill Weld or write in Kasich again?
What will Kark do? As I recall, he jacked his meat raw for Joe Walsh a few years ago.
Just vote for trump .. voting for any 3rd party or write in candidate is just a vote for trump. So don't think you "living with yourself" because you aren't literally voting for trump - you're just looking the other way as the country goes to shit ...
If you think my "popular vote" in blue Illinois matters, you need to sit in my class for a few days (next year, of course, when I return to 8th grade).
What I don't get is the rationale that if we did away with the electoral college, then politicians would only campaign in the big cities and small towns would be ignored. Dan Crenshaw was just making this argument on Twitter. I asked him if he could tell me the last time a Democrat running for president campaigned in Idaho or Utah. Crickets. Candidates would go to every state and every town trying to win every last vote if the popular vote elected the president.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
Currently, the next election will be decided by only a few states and that's where the candidates will campaign. PA, WI, MI, AZ, GA, FL. I guess that's better than every American having an equal voice.
I have yet to hear an argument that's even the slightest bit sensible that our votes ought to not all count equally. I know there's this notion that "all of the people in the city" will decide elections. Those people in the cities are people just like the people in the country and rural areas. Why ought we give city folk less voting power than people in the sticks? I have nothing against city or rural folks. To each their own. But they are all Americans and there's no reason we ought to assign more voting power to land mass than to people. Yes, I'm well aware of what the constitution says, but that part of the constitution is dumb and exists out of a need to placate original slave owner states, who weren't going to ratify the constitution unless they were given some credit for the population of the slaves in their states. The electoral college exists as a symptom of slavery, so it's of very little meaning to this American who wants an equal vote.
Currently, the smaller your state, the more electoral power you have in the electoral college. A vote in Wyoming or North Dakota is worth 2.5 to 4 times as much in electoral college vote strength as a vote in a larger state such as NY, Texas, Cali or FL. For the life of me, I don't understand those who think that's fair, except for the rural folk who think it's just awesome. it sure as hell doesn't give us a proportionally representative government.
As it stands, the GOP senate majority holds 54 or so of the seats, but represents about 40% of the population of this country. I don't expect those two numbers to perfectly line up, but if they're not at least similar, i.e. 54 seats and a population represented of between 50 and 60%, then something is amiss. I believe history has shown us that when people don't believe they are getting fair representation over a longer period of time, violence, revolution and chaos erupts. Somebody better figure this shit out.
I have yet to hear an argument that's even the slightest bit sensible that our votes ought to not all count equally. I know there's this notion that "all of the people in the city" will decide elections. Those people in the cities are people just like the people in the country and rural areas. Why ought we give city folk less voting power than people in the sticks? I have nothing against city or rural folks. To each their own. But they are all Americans and there's no reason we ought to assign more voting power to land mass than to people. Yes, I'm well aware of what the constitution says, but that part of the constitution is dumb and exists out of a need to placate original slave owner states, who weren't going to ratify the constitution unless they were given some credit for the population of the slaves in their states. The electoral college exists as a symptom of slavery, so it's of very little meaning to this American who wants an equal vote.
Currently, the smaller your state, the more electoral power you have in the electoral college. A vote in Wyoming or North Dakota is worth 2.5 to 4 times as much in electoral college vote strength as a vote in a larger state such as NY, Texas, Cali or FL. For the life of me, I don't understand those who think that's fair, except for the rural folk who think it's just awesome. it sure as hell doesn't give us a proportionally representative government.
As it stands, the GOP senate majority holds 54 or so of the seats, but represents about 40% of the population of this country. I don't expect those two numbers to perfectly line up, but if they're not at least similar, i.e. 54 seats and a population represented of between 50 and 60%, then something is amiss. I believe history has shown us that when people don't believe they are getting fair representation over a longer period of time, violence, revolution and chaos erupts. Somebody better figure this shit out.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
SoxIlliniRob wrote:
Currently, the smaller your state, the more electoral power you have in the electoral college. A vote in Wyoming or North Dakota is worth 2.5 to 4 times as much in electoral college vote strength as a vote in a larger state such as NY, Texas, Cali or FL. For the life of me, I don't understand those who think that's fair, except for the rural folk who think it's just awesome. it sure as hell doesn't give us a proportionally representative government.
And if a candidate wins Wyoming, they get a whole 3 electoral votes.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:
Currently, the smaller your state, the more electoral power you have in the electoral college. A vote in Wyoming or North Dakota is worth 2.5 to 4 times as much in electoral college vote strength as a vote in a larger state such as NY, Texas, Cali or FL. For the life of me, I don't understand those who think that's fair, except for the rural folk who think it's just awesome. it sure as hell doesn't give us a proportionally representative government.
And if a candidate wins Wyoming, they get a whole 3 electoral votes.
Understood, but we're not talking about just Wyoming. We're talking about the entire country. Every voter in every state not called California has more electoral voting power than someone in CA. Every voter in every state not called California, NY or Texas has more electoral voting power than TX, NY or CA. If we assigned electoral voting power to the states according to only their population in an effort equalize electoral power, states like Wyoming or ND or SD would have 1 electoral, or even a fraction of an electoral, such as .42 electoral votes. Or if we left those small states as they are, we'd need to increase states like TX and CA by two or three times their current electoral value to level the value of a vote in the US. This argument I'm making is based on leaving the electoral college in place, which means someone who isn't a majority popular vote getting could still win an election, but at least levels the power of an individual vote in that process. I get it that the constitution allows/dictates for the electoral college, but I don't understand why we can't level off the assigning of that electoral power so that my vote is equal in electoral vote value to a vote in Texas, or Utah or Wyoming.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:
Currently, the smaller your state, the more electoral power you have in the electoral college. A vote in Wyoming or North Dakota is worth 2.5 to 4 times as much in electoral college vote strength as a vote in a larger state such as NY, Texas, Cali or FL. For the life of me, I don't understand those who think that's fair, except for the rural folk who think it's just awesome. it sure as hell doesn't give us a proportionally representative government.
And if a candidate wins Wyoming, they get a whole 3 electoral votes.
Understood, but we're not talking about just Wyoming. We're talking about the entire country. Every voter in every state not called California has more electoral voting power than someone in CA. Every voter in every state not called California, NY or Texas has more electoral voting power than TX, NY or CA. If we assigned electoral voting power to the states according to only their population in an effort equalize electoral power, states like Wyoming or ND or SD would have 1 electoral, or even a fraction of an electoral, such as .42 electoral votes. Or if we left those small states as they are, we'd need to increase states like TX and CA by two or three times their current electoral value to level the value of a vote in the US. This argument I'm making is based on leaving the electoral college in place, which means someone who isn't a majority popular vote getting could still win an election, but at least levels the power of an individual vote in that process. I get it that the constitution allows/dictates for the electoral college, but I don't understand why we can't level off the assigning of that electoral power so that my vote is equal in electoral vote value to a vote in Texas, or Utah or Wyoming.
Because that's not the way the system works. We don't directly elect the President. We directly elect everybody else...senators, representatives, governors, mayors, etc. I'm a registered Republican in Illinois. I know my vote in for President means shit. Should I cry and gnash my teeth?
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:
Currently, the smaller your state, the more electoral power you have in the electoral college. A vote in Wyoming or North Dakota is worth 2.5 to 4 times as much in electoral college vote strength as a vote in a larger state such as NY, Texas, Cali or FL. For the life of me, I don't understand those who think that's fair, except for the rural folk who think it's just awesome. it sure as hell doesn't give us a proportionally representative government.
And if a candidate wins Wyoming, they get a whole 3 electoral votes.
Understood, but we're not talking about just Wyoming. We're talking about the entire country. Every voter in every state not called California has more electoral voting power than someone in CA. Every voter in every state not called California, NY or Texas has more electoral voting power than TX, NY or CA. If we assigned electoral voting power to the states according to only their population in an effort equalize electoral power, states like Wyoming or ND or SD would have 1 electoral, or even a fraction of an electoral, such as .42 electoral votes. Or if we left those small states as they are, we'd need to increase states like TX and CA by two or three times their current electoral value to level the value of a vote in the US. This argument I'm making is based on leaving the electoral college in place, which means someone who isn't a majority popular vote getting could still win an election, but at least levels the power of an individual vote in that process. I get it that the constitution allows/dictates for the electoral college, but I don't understand why we can't level off the assigning of that electoral power so that my vote is equal in electoral vote value to a vote in Texas, or Utah or Wyoming.
Because that's not the way the system works. We don't directly elect the President. We directly elect everybody else...senators, representatives, governors, mayors, etc. I'm a registered Republican in Illinois. I know my vote in for President means shit. Should I cry and gnash my teeth?
if your vote is worth much less than people in other areas, then yes, you should cry, gnash teeth, or raise a bit of hell. I guess I don't look at something that appears unfair on the surface and then just throw up my hands and say "Oh well, that's how it works." Maybe it shouldn't work that way. Mind you, I'm not using this thread to insist on a pure popular vote system where we directly elect the president (although I'd like that). I'm just bitching (yes, I'm bitching) about the current system not applying voting power equitably across the electoral college system of voting.
As I'm suggesting, we could keep the electoral college and still have it work the same general way it currently works, but whereby electoral votes are applied based purely on population proportions. If California has twice the population of another state, it ought to have twice the electoral vote power. If it has 50 times the population of another state, the it ought to have 50 times the electoral vote power. That strikes me as a very fair suggestion that would still easily allow for someone to win an election via the electoral college without having a popular vote majority. While I personally dislike the electoral college system, I see its value, and I see why they did it (outside of placating slaveowners) and would just like to see it used equitably.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:
Currently, the smaller your state, the more electoral power you have in the electoral college. A vote in Wyoming or North Dakota is worth 2.5 to 4 times as much in electoral college vote strength as a vote in a larger state such as NY, Texas, Cali or FL. For the life of me, I don't understand those who think that's fair, except for the rural folk who think it's just awesome. it sure as hell doesn't give us a proportionally representative government.
And if a candidate wins Wyoming, they get a whole 3 electoral votes.
Understood, but we're not talking about just Wyoming. We're talking about the entire country. Every voter in every state not called California has more electoral voting power than someone in CA. Every voter in every state not called California, NY or Texas has more electoral voting power than TX, NY or CA. If we assigned electoral voting power to the states according to only their population in an effort equalize electoral power, states like Wyoming or ND or SD would have 1 electoral, or even a fraction of an electoral, such as .42 electoral votes. Or if we left those small states as they are, we'd need to increase states like TX and CA by two or three times their current electoral value to level the value of a vote in the US. This argument I'm making is based on leaving the electoral college in place, which means someone who isn't a majority popular vote getting could still win an election, but at least levels the power of an individual vote in that process. I get it that the constitution allows/dictates for the electoral college, but I don't understand why we can't level off the assigning of that electoral power so that my vote is equal in electoral vote value to a vote in Texas, or Utah or Wyoming.
Because that's not the way the system works. We don't directly elect the President. We directly elect everybody else...senators, representatives, governors, mayors, etc. I'm a registered Republican in Illinois. I know my vote in for President means shit. Should I cry and gnash my teeth?
if your vote is worth much less than people in other areas, then yes, you should cry, gnash teeth, or raise a bit of hell. I guess I don't look at something that appears unfair on the surface and then just throw up my hands and say "Oh well, that's how it works." Maybe it shouldn't work that way. Mind you, I'm not using this thread to insist on a pure popular vote system where we directly elect the president (although I'd like that). I'm just bitching (yes, I'm bitching) about the current system not applying voting power equitably across the electoral college system of voting.
As I'm suggesting, we could keep the electoral college and still have it work the same general way it currently works, but whereby electoral votes are applied based purely on population proportions. If California has twice the population of another state, it ought to have twice the electoral vote power. If it has 50 times the population of another state, the it ought to have 50 times the electoral vote power. That strikes me as a very fair suggestion that would still easily allow for someone to win an election via the electoral college without having a popular vote majority. While I personally dislike the electoral college system, I see its value, and I see why they did it (outside of placating slaveowners) and would just like to see it used equitably.
Fair is a place where people judge hogs and cows.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:
if your vote is worth much less than people in other areas, then yes, you should cry, gnash teeth, or raise a bit of hell. I guess I don't look at something that appears unfair on the surface and then just throw up my hands and say "Oh well, that's how it works." Maybe it shouldn't work that way. Mind you, I'm not using this thread to insist on a pure popular vote system where we directly elect the president (although I'd like that). I'm just bitching (yes, I'm bitching) about the current system not applying voting power equitably across the electoral college system of voting.
As I'm suggesting, we could keep the electoral college and still have it work the same general way it currently works, but whereby electoral votes are applied based purely on population proportions. If California has twice the population of another state, it ought to have twice the electoral vote power. If it has 50 times the population of another state, the it ought to have 50 times the electoral vote power. That strikes me as a very fair suggestion that would still easily allow for someone to win an election via the electoral college without having a popular vote majority. While I personally dislike the electoral college system, I see its value, and I see why they did it (outside of placating slaveowners) and would just like to see it used equitably.
Fair is a place where people judge hogs and cows.
True. I hate that word (fair). Maybe I should concentrate on "equitable" or "proportional" more and "fair" less.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:
if your vote is worth much less than people in other areas, then yes, you should cry, gnash teeth, or raise a bit of hell. I guess I don't look at something that appears unfair on the surface and then just throw up my hands and say "Oh well, that's how it works." Maybe it shouldn't work that way. Mind you, I'm not using this thread to insist on a pure popular vote system where we directly elect the president (although I'd like that). I'm just bitching (yes, I'm bitching) about the current system not applying voting power equitably across the electoral college system of voting.
As I'm suggesting, we could keep the electoral college and still have it work the same general way it currently works, but whereby electoral votes are applied based purely on population proportions. If California has twice the population of another state, it ought to have twice the electoral vote power. If it has 50 times the population of another state, the it ought to have 50 times the electoral vote power. That strikes me as a very fair suggestion that would still easily allow for someone to win an election via the electoral college without having a popular vote majority. While I personally dislike the electoral college system, I see its value, and I see why they did it (outside of placating slaveowners) and would just like to see it used equitably.
Fair is a place where people judge hogs and cows.
True. I hate that word (fair). Maybe I should concentrate on "equitable" or "proportional" more and "fair" less.
Short of amending the Constitution and going with a complete popular vote, you won't do it. I can solve this problem right now. I get to choose. I promise not to choose myself, but I will choose the President of the United States until I depart from this world.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:
if your vote is worth much less than people in other areas, then yes, you should cry, gnash teeth, or raise a bit of hell. I guess I don't look at something that appears unfair on the surface and then just throw up my hands and say "Oh well, that's how it works." Maybe it shouldn't work that way. Mind you, I'm not using this thread to insist on a pure popular vote system where we directly elect the president (although I'd like that). I'm just bitching (yes, I'm bitching) about the current system not applying voting power equitably across the electoral college system of voting.
As I'm suggesting, we could keep the electoral college and still have it work the same general way it currently works, but whereby electoral votes are applied based purely on population proportions. If California has twice the population of another state, it ought to have twice the electoral vote power. If it has 50 times the population of another state, the it ought to have 50 times the electoral vote power. That strikes me as a very fair suggestion that would still easily allow for someone to win an election via the electoral college without having a popular vote majority. While I personally dislike the electoral college system, I see its value, and I see why they did it (outside of placating slaveowners) and would just like to see it used equitably.
Fair is a place where people judge hogs and cows.
True. I hate that word (fair). Maybe I should concentrate on "equitable" or "proportional" more and "fair" less.
Short of amending the Constitution and going with a complete popular vote, you won't do it. I can solve this problem right now. I get to choose. I promise not to choose myself, but I will choose the President of the United States until I depart from this world.
Nobody is going to amend a constitution anytime soon. Shit, the R's and the D's wouldn't even be able to ratify that the sky is blue and the sun is hot at this juncture. My only hope is that the National Popular Vote Compact continues to gain steam and passes in a few more states. I would say that has about a thousand times better chance than a constitutional amendment happening. I believe they are only a handful of states (4 to 7 states) away from being able to move forward in a way whereby enough states would change their way of assigning their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes nationally. A man can dream.
sharpy- Fanboy
- Posts : 915
Join date : 2017-05-10
Pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, the legislature of each state determines the manner by which its electors are chosen.
So as you can see below, the GOP controls about 61% of all the legislatures in this country, so they are responsible for naming 61% of the electors of the Electoral College. A recent court decision states that the members of the Electoral college ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO VOTE FOR THE POPULAR VOTE WINNER in their state. Therefore, Joe Biden can win a the popular vote by a landslide in Florida - and not one electoral college elector is required to vote for him ...and since they are probably all republicans, they can, by the court's decree, vote for the guy who loses the popular vote by a landslide.
But I've been accused of over -reacting ...so maybe I have this all mixed up. But it seems to me that court decision may be a bigger deal than anyone thought
So as you can see below, the GOP controls about 61% of all the legislatures in this country, so they are responsible for naming 61% of the electors of the Electoral College. A recent court decision states that the members of the Electoral college ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO VOTE FOR THE POPULAR VOTE WINNER in their state. Therefore, Joe Biden can win a the popular vote by a landslide in Florida - and not one electoral college elector is required to vote for him ...and since they are probably all republicans, they can, by the court's decree, vote for the guy who loses the popular vote by a landslide.
But I've been accused of over -reacting ...so maybe I have this all mixed up. But it seems to me that court decision may be a bigger deal than anyone thought
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
sharpy wrote:Pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, the legislature of each state determines the manner by which its electors are chosen.
So as you can see below, the GOP controls about 61% of all the legislatures in this country, so they are responsible for naming 61% of the electors of the Electoral College. A recent court decision states that the members of the Electoral college ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO VOTE FOR THE POPULAR VOTE WINNER in their state. Therefore, Joe Biden can win a the popular vote by a landslide in Florida - and not one electoral college elector is required to vote for him ...and since they are probably all republicans, they can, by the court's decree, vote for the guy who loses the popular vote by a landslide.
But I've been accused of over -reacting ...so maybe I have this all mixed up. But it seems to me that court decision may be a bigger deal than anyone thought
I think you are spot on.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
sharpy wrote:Pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, the legislature of each state determines the manner by which its electors are chosen.
So as you can see below, the GOP controls about 61% of all the legislatures in this country, so they are responsible for naming 61% of the electors of the Electoral College. A recent court decision states that the members of the Electoral college ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO VOTE FOR THE POPULAR VOTE WINNER in their state. Therefore, Joe Biden can win a the popular vote by a landslide in Florida - and not one electoral college elector is required to vote for him ...and since they are probably all republicans, they can, by the court's decree, vote for the guy who loses the popular vote by a landslide.
But I've been accused of over -reacting ...so maybe I have this all mixed up. But it seems to me that court decision may be a bigger deal than anyone thought
Wouldn't surprise me to see them try testing this the same way they blocked Obama's SCOTUS appointment and the same as how McConnell decided that they'd filibuster every single bill during Obama's terms. Why not test the limits when it's never come back to bite them yet?
cream919- Fanboy Apprentice
- Posts : 527
Join date : 2017-05-05
Location : Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell
I will choose the President of the United States until I depart from this world.
*******************************************************************
Was that you who called me earlier?
*******************************************************************
Was that you who called me earlier?
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
cream919 wrote:I will choose the President of the United States until I depart from this world.
*******************************************************************
Was that you who called me earlier?
Yeah, you're machine hung up on me. I moved on to Jay.
cream919- Fanboy Apprentice
- Posts : 527
Join date : 2017-05-05
Location : Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell
Yeah, you're machine hung up on me. I moved on to Jay.
********************************************************************
No doubt it thought you were a bot.
********************************************************************
No doubt it thought you were a bot.
|
|
|