U.S. Riots of May 2020 over George Floyd and others - ITT: a bunch of faggots butthurt about worthless internet stickers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich Evans Apologist said:
states can choose to let it happen, or states can bar it outright. The ruling allows states to bar participation in things like this, which largely means that states which would have gone in one direction in the first place... continue to go in that direction. All it functionally seems to change is that it thwarts a singular group making efforts to become the whole of their state's electors and voting for whatever they want... by allowing the legislature more means to rebuke them. If this ever becomes a thing, I would guess the next-up question is "can an elector refuse to cast their vote?" which has already been answered afaik but these retards will dredge the question up again and likely use some activist circles to waste the legal system's time
Click to expand...
The issue is that in order for a state to be part of the NPVIC to happen they need to make it part of their state law for the EC. Which is why I said there is still an ability for it to happen under the SCotUS ruling.
 
stupidpieceofshit said:
My optimism on this ruling may be misplaced, the ruling was on enforcing state law which still allows an entry for the bullshit National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to happen, which is just insane as members of the compact basically say "fuck our state's citizens and their wishes, and our own interest, we just follow CA and NY [well that is what the people who press for the NPVCI want, if the naitonal popular vote is GOP they be pissed off]"
Click to expand...
Majority of liberal ideology comes from those two states and spread out everywhere to red states, turning them purple. The toxic ideology is basically ironically federal or nationwide version of globohomo where every liberal must follow what those two states say. Plus they view federal power as the means to solve all their problems. So really turning the country into one culture only in a kind of way. Which is why they don't care what their citizens want.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Fek, ConfederateIrishman, spiritofamermaid and 8 others
Calandrino said:
Evidently. Their article about the myth that people swallow 8 spiders a year dates back to 2001, way before they dipped their toes in politics too much, and they apparently just made up all their references. There doesn't seem to be any sinister motivation behind it and I presume people don't swallow 8 spiders a year, but it's a gentle reminder that they are and always were "just a website" and they can write whatever the hell they want.

The article: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/swallow-spiders/
Random search result I found about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Unresolved...o_is_lisa_holst_a_tale_of_spiders_trolls_and/

Their modern, politically-motivated style is a little different: they seek out the weakest version of an argument, then "debunk" insubstantial parts of it. If Biden were caught taking bribes from little green men from Mars, their take would be: "Fact Check - false, the Martians are of average size and more of a teal hue."

One last thing, sharing my favorite Snopes article: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/i-have-a-what/
Click to expand...
The amount of damage the site does to political discourse now is insane.

This article on slavery for instance is particularly egregious.

Screenshot_32.png

They outright admit the numbers are correct but they say it's false because of their own narrative, that being that others benefited from the slave trade, meaning those metrics don't work.

Then when you get further in the article, they post this unsubstantiated and unfounded chart without evidence. Even using the Census data they provided for you, these numbers don't add up. It's complete falsehood, yet they know that most people using their site will simply link the article or quote it without reading the data within, and even if they did read it, how many of them would be able to spot their lies and inconsistencies? The way they word things is purposeful, to misdirect.

Screenshot_33.png

This is the main site a great many fedora tipping social justice knights use as a credible source, yet the data they provide in the second chart which they claim to have collated from their census data site doesn't line up for a very simple reason. Some of the states census data doesn't even show up in the archives;

Screenshot_34.png

South Carolina is completely absent, yet they know that 46% of families owned or benefited from slaves.

This is disgusting.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Lady Round Buns, Carnavoyeur, the fall of man and 17 others
glass_houses said:
I'm not murikun. Can you explain this for me? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Each state has a certain number of electors (between 3 and 55).

After the general election results have been counted in a state, the state's laws determine the formula by which this result translates into voting assignments for the state's electors.
In most states, this formula is very simple: Whichever candidate got the most votes in that state, is the candidate that all the state's electors are assigned to vote for.

Then the electors come together and vote the way they were assigned to vote.
This is the vote that actually determines who becomes president.

The electors usually vote for the candidate they were assigned to vote for by their state's laws.
In the past, a few have occasionally defied their duty and voted for a different candidate, but (I think) never enough to make a difference.
After the 2016 election, the leftist media ran a campaign trying to convince electors who were assigned to vote for Trump, to vote for Hillary instead. But very few of them did.

Return of the Freaker said:
So if this ruling had been made in 2015 or 16 would Hillary have won?
Click to expand...

No.

A majority of all electors were assigned to vote for Trump (as a result of the elections and elector-assigning laws in all the states).
Not enough electors defected from their assignment to make a difference.

If enough of them had defected to give Hillary the win, we would have had a constitutional crisis as there was no clarity on whether the electors could be prevented from doing that.
The new SCOTUS ruling is meant to address such a scenario, it seems.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, and 127 others, The giant penis of doom and 4 others
stupidpieceofshit said:
The issue is that in order for a state to be part of the NPVIC to happen they need to make it part of their state law for the EC. Which is why I said there is still an ability for it to happen under the SCotUS ruling.
Click to expand...

Right. The ruling allows the negation, but it doesn't rule the act itself unconstitutional - because it isn't. Electors have theoretically been able to do things like this, and the college was originally envisioned to do things like this if need be. It was not meant to be a democratic system (though, ironically, the effort to make a sect vote based on the national popular vote is the exact opposite intention of the college). Its ability to serve as a "buffer" was also essentially thrown out when Jackson was elected, and the college's theoretical ability to overrule democratic consensus has nevertheless persisted.

We're just in clownworld, and people don't understand why using the popular vote in a country as big as the US is a stupid proposition, so now we might see this theoretical role fulfilled. (Really, I don't know why these morons wouldn't just try to make the census a 5-year process instead of a 10-year one, as the # of EC electors as well as representatives is directly impacted by the census.)
 
  • Feels
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, snailslime and tampax pearl
polyester said:
A majority of all electors were assigned to vote for Trump (as a result of the elections and elector-assigning laws in all the states).
Not enough electors defected from their assignment to make a difference.

If enough of them had defected to give Hillary the win, we would have had a constitutional crisis as there was no clarity on whether the electors could be prevented from doing that.
The new SCOTUS ruling is meant to address such a scenario, it seems.
Click to expand...

Trump just has to hold the states he won last time to win as those he won by democratic majority anyway. Which seems pretty likely considering the bullshit that's happened mostly in blue states, or blue cities deep within mostly Red Ones.

The only one to change the rules is Virginia, mostly to head off any rebellion of electoral college votes in the majority republican hinterland. Though even there, Trump was behind by just 200,000 votes. The vote was far narrower in Minnesota, 40,000.

They've made this to screech about "Muh democratic majority" again.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Optimistic
Reactions: saralovesjuicyfruit, AnitaSarsleezian, spiritofamermaid and 5 others
Rich Evans Apologist said:
Right. The ruling allows the negation, but it doesn't rule the act itself unconstitutional - because it isn't. Electors have theoretically been able to do things like this, and the college was originally envisioned to do things like this if need be. It was not meant to be a democratic system (though, ironically, the effort to make a sect vote based on the national popular vote is the exact opposite intention of the college). Its ability to serve as a "buffer" was also essentially thrown out when Jackson was elected, and the college's theoretical ability to overrule democratic consensus has nevertheless persisted.

We're just in clownworld, and people don't understand why using the popular vote in a country as big as the US is a stupid proposition, so now we might see this theoretical role fulfilled. (Really, I don't know why these morons wouldn't just try to make the census a 5-year process instead of a 10-year one, as the # of EC electors as well as representatives is directly impacted by the census.)
Click to expand...
The fact that the founders put in a place that wasn't popular vote wins by default, I would argue the Interstate Compact would be unconstitutional, as it goes against the intent of the Constitution and the people who wrote it, law is suppose to be enforced in spirit and in letter (although letter is often more enforced then spirit) ,and well forcing that voted majority Red to vote Blue and vice versa is extremely questionable.

But the reason why they are going for this instead of a census every 5 years, is that Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution mandates 10 years, and to modify that would require a constitutional amendment to successfully pass which rarely happens* (even if there are two ways of passing an amendment) and requires a ton of work.
This is why leftists try to "Get around the 2A" by trying to tax to hell guns and/or ammo and/or try to restrict the ability for people to buy ammo.

*The last major Amdement that was attempted that I can recall is the Equal Rights Act and that was in 72 didn't pass and the left is still bitching about it, even though "Equality under the Law" is already protected.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • DRINK!
Reactions: ConfederateIrishman, spiritofamermaid, Marchesa of the Vast and 2 others
stupidpieceofshit said:
The fact that the founders put in a place that wasn't popular vote wins by default, I would argue the Interstate Compact would be unconstitutional, as it goes against the intent of the Constitution and the people who wrote it, law is suppose to be enforced in spirit and in letter (although letter is often more enforced then spirit) ,and well forcing that voted majority Red to vote Blue and vice versa is extremely questionable.

But the reason why they are going for this instead of a census every 5 years, is that Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution mandates 10 years, and to modify that would require a constitutional amendment to sucessfully pass which rarely happens (even if there are two ways of passing an amendment) and requires a ton of work.
This is why leftists try to "Get around the 2A" by trying to tax to hell guns and/or ammo and/or try to restrict the ability for people to buy ammo.
Click to expand...

The consitution isn't so much something that grants rights as something that prohibits the government from certain activities which impede upon things it views as rights As to how particular states determined their votes and their electors, the constitution largely leaves it up to them - so even if a pact to adhere to the popular vote goes against the "spirit" of the constitution, as long as it's not expressly forbidden, then people can do it. The attempt here was to force the courts to read that, somewhere in the constitution, states were somehow barred from determining for themselves how their electors acted in regards to their states' vote -- which just ain't in there. So this ruling puts to bed and creates precedent for the dumb argument of "you can all just rebel, and states can't stop you." That in itself is a significant win to allow states to insulate themselves from electoral capture

But this is also why I was saying the census makes more sense. Altering that article requires an amendment - I feel like an amendment is an easier sell than trying to use the SCOTUS to read something in the constitution that is expressly not there. Although I suppose the court has taken something of an activist bend since the 70s anyways, given the total abdication of the legislative branch, so maybe it isn't the worst strategy after all. I'd prefer more frequent censuses, since that data can be useful to all levels of society and provide a better model of population/demographic shifts and so-on, but I suppose that's not an argument that you can make to the fat, dumb retard that is the average american voter. they want to hear ORANGE MAN BAD or CORONA IS A HOAX and anything more complicated than that is fascism/communism
 
  • Feels
Reactions: spiritofamermaid and tampax pearl
Green-Machine said:
This lady sums it up simply n the beginning of this video when she went to chop to preach, this showed in my recommended videos after watching a chop livestream
Click to expand...

If I were the GOP I'd be rushing about finding some young firebrand like this lady and asking her if she'd like to lead and encourage a black caucasus further in the GOP nationally.
 
  • Like
  • Optimistic
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Sir Yarnsalot, Lady Round Buns, Every Crook and Nanny and 8 others
Green-Machine said:
This lady sums it up simply n the beginning of this video when she went to chop to preach, this showed in my recommended videos after watching a chop livestream
Click to expand...
Funny thing how blacks are some of the strongest opponents of BLM while white liberals are some of its strongest supporters.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: Carnavoyeur, Kane Lives, AnitaSarsleezian and 6 others
"The Democrats are the real racists"

Yeah, they're racist and want to control blacks as a voting block but let's not ignore how the Republicans shifted to directly appeal to racist white southerners who opposed de-segregation.

The Republicans were the party of anti-immigration and eugenics. Be careful with these legacy games.
 
  • Disagree
  • Autistic
  • Like
Reactions: Barnard, OforOwesome, ConfederateIrishman and 17 others
Rich Evans Apologist said:
The consitution isn't so much something that grants rights as something that prohibits the government from certain activities which impede upon things it views as rights As to how particular states determined their votes and their electors, the constitution largely leaves it up to them - so even if a pact to adhere to the popular vote goes against the "spirit" of the constitution, as long as it's not expressly forbidden, then people can do it. The attempt here was to force the courts to read that, somewhere in the constitution, states were somehow barred from determining for themselves how their electors acted in regards to their states' vote -- which just ain't in there. So this ruling puts to bed and creates precedent for the dumb argument of "you can all just rebel, and states can't stop you." That in itself is a significant win to allow states to insulate themselves from electoral capture

But this is also why I was saying the census makes more sense. Altering that article requires an amendment - I feel like an amendment is an easier sell than trying to use the SCOTUS to read something in the constitution that is expressly not there. Although I suppose the court has taken something of an activist bend since the 70s anyways, given the total abdication of the legislative branch, so maybe it isn't the worst strategy after all. I'd prefer more frequent censuses, since that data can be useful to all levels of society and provide a better model of population/demographic shifts and so-on, but I suppose that's not an argument that you can make to the fat, dumb retard that is the average american voter. they want to hear ORANGE MAN BAD or CORONA IS A HOAX and anything more complicated than that is fascism/communism
Click to expand...
The thing is the SCotUS doesn't just reference the US Constitution, they will and have cited supporting documentation before such as the Federalist Papers when making rulings.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: spiritofamermaid and Feline Supremacist
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back