wrongthink is not allowed

[Scouts Honor]

1 hour ago, fishbane said:

Oh are you talking about Hamtramock?  Isn’t that tweet misleading?  Hamtramock passed a law allowing only five flags to be flown on city property.  A ban of any one flag, as implied in the tweet, would be unconstitutional.  It also only applies to flags flown by the city and city property.  Residents can display whatever flags they like.  A limit on what flags resident could display would also be unconstitutional. 

yes a bit misleading. but some govt's openly display it. including biden's white house.

but im wondering why there is no outrage to the govt NOT displaying it... 

if san fran said the same thing.. there would be outrage.

can you explain it? 

[red viking]

I"m actually all for uniting, but justice needs to be delivered first, with an IRON FIST!!!! Do that first, THEN unite!!! 

[Scouts Honor]

wait, i was told that was why Palestine can't unite with Isreal, b/c they have been radicalized by those mean vengeance seeking jews.

isn't what you are saying the same thing? 

are or you saying that Americans can take a licking and keep on ticking?

unlike those others you speak of all the time? 

[Scouts Honor]

it's islamophobia to ask where are the women and children refugees

 

[Rassling]

5 minutes ago, red viking said:

I"m actually all for uniting, but justice needs to be delivered first, with an IRON FIST!!!! Do that first, THEN unite!!! 

you are?? Ok, let’s see.

You just got your “justice” and that’s by taking control of both chambers of congress. Other forms of justice will be attempted over the next 2 years by the D’s numerous times through the court system.

So there, you got your “iron fist,” so what’s your plan to unite? 

[fishbane]

14 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

Maybe this is why they don't get the vote and also a reason the rich get residency in these areas

What the Federal Income Tax Exemption Covers

The exemption is tied to residency, not citizenship or ethnicity. A bona fide resident of Puerto Rico excludes Puerto Rico-source income from federal gross income under Section 933 of the Internal Revenue Code.¹ Instead of paying federal income tax on that money, the resident pays income tax to the territorial government. Bona fide residents of the Virgin Islands file with the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue rather than the IRS.² Guam, the CNMI, and American Samoa follow similar patterns for their resident

 

 

Referendums on the topic in Puerto Rico and Guam have shown a preference for statehood.  Statehood is a strong preference for the residents in Washington DC too.  They even have it on the license plates there.

I am sure that's a reason why some rich Americans move to the territories (other than DC), but a majority of voters select statehood when it's been put on the ballot. 

[fishbane]

18 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

yes a bit misleading. but some govt's openly display it. including biden's white house.

but im wondering why there is no outrage to the govt NOT displaying it... 

if san fran said the same thing.. there would be outrage.

can you explain it? 

Well I am not outraged either way.  If you are asking why the residents would be outraged in San Francisco and not Hamtramck?  I don't think I agree with the question.  Some residents in Hamtramck are outraged.  Some sued unsuccessfully to have the courts overturn the ban and others have started flying the flag outside the personal residences and businesses since the government took down the flag.  That wouldn't happen if there was no outrage.  There would be more outrage in San Francisco, but that all comes down to differences in constituency.  There are far more gay residents in San Francisco.

[Scouts Honor]

you still don't understand why...

or just won't admit it.

[fishbane]

38 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

you still don't understand why...

or just won't admit it.

Feel free to explain it.

[JimmySpeaks]

3 hours ago, fishbane said:

I don't know that eliminating either the Senate or the electoral college is incongruent with freedom.  Plenty of countries have freedom, but no other has an electoral college.  Not that I am in favor of eliminating either.  You premise just doesn't make much sense.  I will go out on a limb and predict that the electoral college, the senate, and the presidency remain after 10 years regardless of which party controls the executive and legislative branches.

I think what is harder to square with the concept of freedom is not giving a voting representative in the legislature to the 4M+ Americans that live in US Territories. 

Our system was set up as a republic to have the checks and balances needed to prevent one party from permanently taking over.  House has representation based on population and the Senate has equal representation.  It’s worked as intended to ensure that our constitutional rights aren’t decided by a simple majority.  Dems are supposedly the party for minorities  you’d think they’d want the rights of the minority voter protected too.   

 Btw, Those territories can petition to become a state if they want to right?  

Edited 8 hours ago by JimmySpeaks

[JimmySpeaks]

3 hours ago, red viking said:

OMG you are an idiot. As @fishbanesaid, the Senate and electoral college have less than 0% to do with freedom. Those 110% need to be abolished. A person in WY has several times the voting power at the federal level that somebody in CA or NY has. It's 110% B.S. and wrong, and THAT is what takes somebody's freedom away. 

It's a convenient way to ensure that the wealthy land owners in more rural states have more power than the poorer people that are packed into more densely populated states. It's that simple. BURN the senate and electoral college to the ground (but let those people live and get new jobs)!!!!!!!

...and for the 15th time, nobody is trying to take your guns away. We don't need people owning military- or assault-style weapons. Heck, if you idiots are going to allow that, you may as well allow people to own tanks and anti-tank weapons, 50 cal machine guns, etc. How about nukes? Stupid. Gotta draw a line somewhere. 

Wow. You need to go back to school. In fact ask whatever liberal arts college you went to for your money back. 

[JimmySpeaks]

3 hours ago, red viking said:

OMG you are an idiot. As @fishbanesaid, the Senate and electoral college have less than 0% to do with freedom. Those 110% need to be abolished. A person in WY has several times the voting power at the federal level that somebody in CA or NY has. It's 110% B.S. and wrong, and THAT is what takes somebody's freedom away. 

It's a convenient way to ensure that the wealthy land owners in more rural states have more power than the poorer people that are packed into more densely populated states. It's that simple. BURN the senate and electoral college to the ground (but let those people live and get new jobs)!!!!!!!

...and for the 15th time, nobody is trying to take your guns away. We don't need people owning military- or assault-style weapons. Heck, if you idiots are going to allow that, you may as well allow people to own tanks and anti-tank weapons, 50 cal machine guns, etc. How about nukes? Stupid. Gotta draw a line somewhere. 

I’m pretty sure the people in Iran and Ukraine would disagree with you.  

[red viking]

3 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

  It’s worked as intended to ensure that our constitutional rights aren’t decided by a simple majority.  

Thats why we have representation. The senate and EC dont do that. They simply give more power to people in the more rural states.  

[JimmySpeaks]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

Thats why we have representation. The senate and EC dont do that. They simply give more power to people in the more rural states.  

We have representation in the house.  Good grief.  Checks and balances to prevent five cites from deciding whom the president is. Face it. You and Dems want total gov control. Founding fathers were smart enough to know it would come to that. 

[red viking]

28 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

We have representation in the house.  Good grief.  Checks and balances to prevent five cites from deciding whom the president is. Face it. You and Dems want total gov control. Founding fathers were smart enough to know it would come to that. 

Every person should be equal, not every dollar or every acre  

[JimmySpeaks]

13 minutes ago, red viking said:

Every person should be equal, not every dollar or every acre  

Every person is equal. The current system protects that. 

[JimmySpeaks]

14 minutes ago, red viking said:

Every person should be equal, not every dollar or every acre  

Every citizen. 

[fishbane]

10 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Our system was set up as a republic to have the checks and balances needed to prevent one party from permanently taking over.  House has representation based on population and the Senate has equal representation.  It’s worked as intended to ensure that our constitutional rights aren’t decided by a simple majority.  Dems are supposedly the party for minorities  you’d think they’d want the rights of the minority voter protected too.   

I don't think a purpose of the electoral college or the senate is to prevent one party from permanently taking over.  Many reasons for the electoral college are historic, but it does balance state power vs the straight majority which is still relevant today.  Changes to the constitution require a process that is far more rigorous than a simple majority.  It takes a 2/3 vote in both houses of congress followed by 75% of the states to adopt it.  It's a high bar.  A similarly high bar could exist with a unicameral national legislature and with a popular vote deciding the president. So long as the 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of states remain necessary the rights of the minority will be protected.

Nebraska is the only state with a unicameral state legislature.  They are called senators, but they are selected by single member districts of roughly equal population similar to the US house of representatives. So essentially it's a state house of representatives and no senate.  Nebraska voted to eliminate the other house in the 1930s. It wasn't done by dems that didn't like freedom or anything like that.  It was a Republican that pushed for the change, but back then Republicans were progressive.  The rationale was that is wasteful to have two bodies essentially doing the same job.  Plenty of other countries have came to a similar conclusion. Today the lack of a state senate does not prevent Republicans from having a say in Nebraska politics.

44 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Btw, those territories can petition to become a state if they want to right?  

And they have.  Both Puerto Rico and DC have passed statehood referendums multiple times.  That doesn't do anything.  Anything beyond that would require Congress to act.  It would have to pass both houses of Congress which in the senate requires 3/5 of the votes to even get a vote.  So a minority of senators can effectively block it.

Separate bills to move forward the process of Puerto Rico and DC statehood have each been introduced in each of the last 4 legislatures.  Both have passed the house before only to die in the Senate.  Neither have ever gone to a vote in the Senate.  Which party do you think is blocking that?  How do you square this with the concept of freedom?

[red viking]

11 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Every citizen. 

Sure, but there's no reason a citizen in WY should have a thousand times more federal voting power than a citizen in CA. 

[JimmySpeaks]

1 hour ago, fishbane said:

I don't think a purpose of the electoral college or the senate is to prevent one party from permanently taking over.  Many reasons for the electoral college are historic, but it does balance state power vs the straight majority which is still relevant today.  Changes to the constitution require a process that is far more rigorous than a simple majority.  It takes a 2/3 vote in both houses of congress followed by 75% of the states to adopt it.  It's a high bar.  A similarly high bar could exist with a unicameral national legislature and with a popular vote deciding the president. So long as the 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of states remain necessary the rights of the minority will be protected.

Nebraska is the only state with a unicameral state legislature.  They are called senators, but they are selected by single member districts of roughly equal population similar to the US house of representatives. So essentially it's a state house of representatives and no senate.  Nebraska voted to eliminate the other house in the 1930s. It wasn't done by dems that didn't like freedom or anything like that.  It was a Republican that pushed for the change, but back then Republicans were progressive.  The rationale was that is wasteful to have two bodies essentially doing the same job.  Plenty of other countries have came to a similar conclusion. Today the lack of a state senate does not prevent Republicans from having a say in Nebraska politics.

And they have.  Both Puerto Rico and DC have passed statehood referendums multiple times.  That doesn't do anything.  Anything beyond that would require Congress to act.  It would have to pass both houses of Congress which in the senate requires 3/5 of the votes to even get a vote.  So a minority of senators can effectively block it.

Separate bills to move forward the process of Puerto Rico and DC statehood have each been introduced in each of the last 4 legislatures.  Both have passed the house before only to die in the Senate.  Neither have ever gone to a vote in the Senate.  Which party do you think is blocking that?  How do you square this with the concept of freedom?

Designed to make things hard to change as it should be.  DC was never intended to be a state and never should be one.  Dems wouldn’t be pushing for it if it wasn’t predominantly blue.  PR isnt much over 50% for it.  If Nebraska is so great why aren’t more states going that direction ?? 

Edited 5 hours ago by JimmySpeaks

[JimmySpeaks]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

Sure, but there's no reason a citizen in WY should have a thousand times more federal voting power than a citizen in CA. 

1000x more. That’s cute. 

[red viking]

1 minute ago, JimmySpeaks said:

1000x more. That’s cute. 

You can do the math. Most people would be surprised at how much more voting power they have, particularly when  you look at the Senate vs the population. 

I'd BURN every single thing (except the people) having to do with the Senate to the ground, and THEN BURN IT TWO MORE TIMES FOR GOOD MEASURE. 

Edited 5 hours ago by red viking

[JimmySpeaks]

40 minutes ago, red viking said:

You can do the math. Most people would be surprised at how much more voting power they have, particularly when  you look at the Senate vs the population. 

I'd BURN every single thing (except the people) having to do with the Senate to the ground, and THEN BURN IT TWO MORE TIMES FOR GOOD MEASURE. 

We know. You’re a typical libtardo ticking time Btw it’s 4x.  

Edited 5 hours ago by JimmySpeaks

[Scouts Honor]

wrongthink is not allowed.

generally good people

[Offthemat]

Gotta hand it to the founders.  They were emphatically opposed to democracy.  They intended voters to be those with skin in the game and Senators to be chosen by experienced politicians and administrators.