Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

you "forgot" the part about Melania - what did that ho do to deserve the right to stay (let alone stay & vote) cept let Dirty Don grab her by the posse? she's an illegal & so is Baron since the little **** technically is an anchor baby. why aren't you calling for their eviction?

If she or her relatives are no longer eligible to stay in the country under whatever is signed into law, they should be escorted to their point of entry.

But do you really want to apply whatever law is passed retroactively? To everyone?

[Gatefan1976]

And who was it that used the nuclear option first, back in 2013?

The dems, and what real good came out of it?
The gang of 14 stopped it from being used in 2005, under Bush 2
The Dems used it in 2013 to get Non SCOTUS judges.
The Repubs used it in 2017 to get a SCOTUS judge.
Can you see the pattern of escalation here?
Can you deny that hyper partisanship is building -rapidly- in the US?
Once the nuclear becomes the "new normal", you are beyond the checks and balances of the system, a system designed to require the parties to work togeather vanishes, and the POTUS and SCOTUS become subservient to the legislative branch.
Do you -really- want it to work that way?

[Gatefan1976]

If she or her relatives are no longer eligible to stay in the country under whatever is signed into law, they should be escorted to their point of entry.

But do you really want to apply whatever law is passed retroactively? To everyone?

They were not eligible at the time, so grandfathering it doesn't matter.

[Coco Pops]

Wow over 100 weather forecasters fired..... MAGA

[Annoyed]

The dems, and what real good came out of it?
The gang of 14 stopped it from being used in 2005, under Bush 2
The Dems used it in 2013 to get Non SCOTUS judges.
The Repubs used it in 2017 to get a SCOTUS judge.
Can you see the pattern of escalation here?
Can you deny that hyper partisanship is building -rapidly- in the US?
Once the nuclear becomes the "new normal", you are beyond the checks and balances of the system, a system designed to require the parties to work togeather vanishes, and the POTUS and SCOTUS become subservient to the legislative branch.
Do you -really- want it to work that way?

Exactly how would that work?
Suppose the Dems do take Congress this fall. Both houses, as is their dream. That would paralyze the executive branch. The exact same thing that happened when the R's took Congress while Obama was in the white house. Obama couldn't do diddly squat, aside from executive orders, many of which exceeded his authority, but no one called him on it.
But in this case, what are the odds that the courts, congress and the media would allow Trump to carry out his will via E.O.?
Hell, Obama exceeded his authority with EO's frequently, but no one even took him to court on it; it wouldn't have mattered if they did, courts like the 9th circus would have rubber stamped just about anything he did.
Sounds like there are still checks in place, and they seem to favor the left.

[Gatefan1976]

Exactly how would that work?
Suppose the Dems do take Congress this fall. Both houses, as is their dream. That would paralyze the executive branch. The exact same thing that happened when the R's took Congress while Obama was in the white house. Obama couldn't do diddly squat, aside from executive orders, many of which exceeded his authority, but no one called him on it.
But in this case, what are the odds that the courts, congress and the media would allow Trump to carry out his will via E.O.?
Hell, Obama exceeded his authority with EO's frequently, but no one even took him to court on it; it wouldn't have mattered if they did, courts like the 9th circus would have rubber stamped just about anything he did.
Sounds like there are still checks in place, and they seem to favor the left.

**** me.

[thekillman]

Sorry, my dear. I said "must be pulling the cart, not riding on it".. Since I am working and supporting myself, not letting the state support me, I am pulling the cart, not riding it.

I didn't say landowner, I didn't say wealthy. I just say you must be self supporting, or have been until retirement.

I find it interesting that you're always so in favor of the slippery slope argument when it comes to government power, but now you want to selectively hand out votes based upon a vague criterion? That just sounds like oligarchy with extra steps. Remember that the upper 5% own as much as the lower 50%. The people with the most skin in the game would want the biggest part of the vote. It's only fair, isn't it?

[Falcon Horus]

you "forgot" the part about Melania - what did that ho do to deserve the right to stay (let alone stay & vote) cept let Dirty Don grab her by the posse? she's an illegal & so is Baron since the little **** technically is an anchor baby. why aren't you calling for their eviction?

Hey fellas... Donnie Demento is fair game, as is Melania but leave Barron out of it.

But do you really want to apply whatever law is passed retroactively? To everyone?

America back to the Natives.

[Annoyed]

I find it interesting that you're always so in favor of the slippery slope argument when it comes to government power, but now you want to selectively hand out votes based upon a vague criterion? That just sounds like oligarchy with extra steps. Remember that the upper 5% own as much as the lower 50%. The people with the most skin in the game would want the biggest part of the vote. It's only fair, isn't it?

No, it would still be one man, one vote. And it's not a vague requirement. It's pretty simple, really. In order to vote, you must be supporting yourself by your own efforts or have retired from a life of doing so. And I would include inability to work due to a legitimate disability in that.

The basis for this is the observation that MG I think it was brought up the other day, I think it was originally from Plato. This variation is attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

[Gatefan1976]

Hey fellas... Donnie Demento is fair game, as is Melania but leave Barron out of it.

I'll even leave Melania out of it, BUT the point is, if you want to take a hard nosed stance on some immigration policies, you can't be a example of what they look like.
The 3 main gripes seem to be Illegals, chain migration and anchor babies, and the (current) trump family has all three.

[Gatefan1976]

No, it would still be one man, one vote. And it's not a vague requirement. It's pretty simple, really. In order to vote, you must be supporting yourself by your own efforts or have retired from a life of doing so. And I would include inability to work due to a legitimate disability in that.

The basis for this is the observation that MG I think it was brought up the other day, I think it was originally from Plato. This variation is attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler:

I don't think this is the point killman was trying to make.
I think his point was, you have a tendency to base your response of some perceived "end point" of whatever it is you happen to not like, rather than the current state of events. Killman was merely putting it in the other direction, that if you start limiting voting in such ways, those with the most skin in the game will want more power, because they "deserve" it more.
"listen peon, you work to live, I pay 1000 of you to live"

And really, given political contribution laws as they stand right now, you are already at the Oligarchy stage, that's not even a "logical conclusion" argument.

As for your quote, you are staring at stage 9 right now.
When it is ok for your nations leader to declare the opposition treasonous for simply not clapping, and the legal penalty for treason is death, welcome to dictatorship.

[Annoyed]

Hey, Chuckie. We in NY know you are an idiot, why do you have to prove it to the rest of the country?

From: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/u...to-threat.html on the immigration debate.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, responded harshly to the president’s entreaty.

“The American people know what’s going on,” Mr. Schumer said on the Senate floor. “They know this president not only created the problem, but seems to be against every solution that might pass because it isn’t 100 percent of what he wants....

First off, Chuckie, Obama created the problem by creating the DACA program in the first place via executive order. The Constitution defines immigration as the responsibility of the congress, not the presiedent.

And the only thing Trump has done is kick it back to Congress where it should have been all along. The prior sorry excuse for a president never had the authority to create the program in the first place.

Oh, and these judges who are issuing orders to stop him ending it are going to be reversed by SCOTUS, for the same reason. This issue is and always has been CONGRESS's ballpark, not the executive branch.

[thekillman]

No, it would still be one man, one vote. And it's not a vague requirement. It's pretty simple, really. In order to vote, you must be supporting yourself by your own efforts or have retired from a life of doing so. And I would include inability to work due to a legitimate disability in that.

A guy living in the middle of nowhere with no job who tends his own little farm would thus qualify. But how would you check that? how would you keep track of who in 300 million citizens is able to sustain themselves?

Does getting a subsidy of some sort disqualify you?

10K in a flyover state is a lot more money than if you had to live in NY, or any big city for that matter. How do you account for cost of living, and who determines the cost of living?

In other words, how would you define self-maintaining, and how would you check whether people are thus eligible to vote? How would you ensure that this doesn't create a massive disparity of power, since it's repeatedly been shown that registration errors are frighteningly common and yet nobody does anything about it?

And how long before the Elite (tm) decide that since we're using "Skin in the game" as a metric, it's only fairly to proportionally get votes for how much skin in the game you have? After all, if it's not fair that someone on benefits has a say purely because of how much vested interest they have, then why would it be fair that someone who grows his own food has as much say as someone who owns half NY city?

[Annoyed]

A guy living in the middle of nowhere with no job who tends his own little farm would thus qualify. But how would you check that? how would you keep track of who in 300 million citizens is able to sustain themselves?

Does getting a subsidy of some sort disqualify you?

10K in a flyover state is a lot more money than if you had to live in NY, or any big city for that matter. How do you account for cost of living, and who determines the cost of living?

In other words, how would you define self-maintaining, and how would you check whether people are thus eligible to vote? How would you ensure that this doesn't create a massive disparity of power, since it's repeatedly been shown that registration errors are frighteningly common and yet nobody does anything about it?

And how long before the Elite (tm) decide that since we're using "Skin in the game" as a metric, it's only fairly to proportionally get votes for how much skin in the game you have? After all, if it's not fair that someone on benefits has a say purely because of how much vested interest they have, then why would it be fair that someone who grows his own food has as much say as someone who owns half NY city?

Details.. And I insist upon one man, one vote. But you get the point of what I'm suggesting.
How would you solve the problem presented by the quote I put in above?

[Gatefan1976]

Hey, Chuckie. We in NY know you are an idiot, why do you have to prove it to the rest of the country?

From: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/u...to-threat.html on the immigration debate.



First off, Chuckie, Obama created the problem by creating the DACA program in the first place via executive order. The Constitution defines immigration as the responsibility of the congress, not the presiedent.

And the only thing Trump has done is kick it back to Congress where it should have been all along. The prior sorry excuse for a president never had the authority to create the program in the first place.

Oh, and these judges who are issuing orders to stop him ending it are going to be reversed by SCOTUS, for the same reason. This issue is and always has been CONGRESS's ballpark, not the executive branch.

If I give you A because people think it is the right thing to do, and someone takes A away to get their B, it's their fault, not mine.

Oh, and again, get rid of your federal military, that's defined as a states issue as well.