Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
CS: You mean Flim Flam Florio.
Dinkins was a washroom attendant before he got his affirmative action promotions.
Straight ahead… Let’s be heard. Before another politician folds like a cheap camera. Don’t forget, your influence counts, use it!
Mario azende me tuzeprovenos sfachim. Now we have Andrew Figlio di Sfachim.
Get off my phone, you spotchime!
ENS: Using your logic Republicans can decide that only Republicans won elections for the Senate. This way they can perpetually ensure that Republicans control the Senate.
In any event, controlling the House doesn’t in any way permit Democrats to decide who is President. The Republicans control a majority of state delegations in the House.
3 USC 15 isn’t legally enforceable in court.
Rational: How is the unmomeyed Litvish girls suffering more than the unmoneyed Chasidish girls?
Excellent points, Meir G.
Meno and Yseribus: The separate answers you offered in response to my question are giving differing explanations.
Mods review and approve new threads less frequently compared to regular posts. So they usually take longer for approval.
ENS: This process is Constitutionally exclusively in the domain of the legislative branch (Congress) and not the judicial branch. As such, the Supreme Court would rightfully rule that the courts can play no part in the process. And that the courts cannot order Congress, a coequal branch, in how to act. No court has ever ordered Congress to take any specific action.
CharlieHall: You’re a terrific virologist but (wadr) a poor constitutional scholar. There is a powerful argument that the Succession Act’s placement of the speaker in the line of presidential succession (and after her, the president pro tempore of the Senate) is contrary to the Constitution’s Succession Clause. That clause states that only an “Officer” may succeed and act as president. Most of the pertinent commentary maintains that the term “Officer” here does not include members of Congress. As such, Pelosi could not constitutionally “act as President,” even though the statute says she can.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (the executive officer next in line under the statute) can declare himself acting president on the basis of a legal opinion from the Attorney General proclaiming legislative succession to the presidency unconstitutional.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, to preclude even getting to the above scenario (that I described in my previous comment) the Senate before January 20 could have a contingency election for Vice President and elect Michael Pence. Then Pence would remain vice president after Trump’ term ended at noon January 20 and Pence would precede all other persons in assuming the presidency.
Don’t forget that for EACH objection in the joint session of Congress on January 6 made by one congressman and one senator, Congress needs to debate (separately in the House and in the Senate) two hours over each objection. And then the two chambers need to reconvene the joint session.
And there are 51 slates of electors. And there are 538 actual electors. An objection can be made against each of the 51 slates. That’s 2 hours (plus additional administrative time to reconvene) times 51. Meaning well over a hundred hours of debating time and 51 times to regather.
Furthermore, (buckle your seatbelts) a congressman and senator can object INDIVIDUALLY against each of the 538 electors purported vote. That’s 538×2=1,076 hours of debate plus 538 times for the two houses of Congress to reconvene.
In short, one congressman and one senator can delay proceedings past January 20th.
Oh, and there’s a serious constitutional debate whether a non-member of the Executive Branch can become Acting President. The constitution says no even though the presidential succession act says yes. If the Attorney General rules the act is unconstitutional, then (is your seatbelts still buckled?) Secretary of State Mike Pompeo becomes Acting President in the absence of Congress confirming a winner of the presidential election (electoral college).
Alternatively, the Senate could have a contingency election for Vice President and elect Michael Pence. In which case he’ll become president in the absence of Congress declaring a winner of the electoral college. Because Republicans would also win a contingency election for president in the House, since Republicans control a majority of state delegations. So Pelosi would surely refuse to hold à contingency election in the House that Trump could win.
Meno, a person who lived in Antarctica from 2018 until now, with zero contact with any other human, gets vaccinated in Antarctica and returns to the US now for the first time since 2018. He isn’t safe from becoming a carrier and/or spreading the virus? Why on earth would be need to wear a mask?
Meno, come again? Someone who doesn’t have covid (not currently and perhaps not ever) can spread it??
The far lady won’t be singing until January 6.
But it’ll be kol isha to listen.
AAQ: If you’re already vaccinated I don’t see any reason you’d ever need a mask again, even if only one percent of the population has also vaccinated. Once vaccinated you’re safe from catching or spreading covid.
Can we stop wearing a mask in public immediately after taking (both doses of) the vaccine?
Ghadorah: It ain’t over till the fat lady sings. That’ll only happen on January 6.
President Trump, being the great friend of Israel he is, sent an expedited shipment of vaccines to Israel.
But many Israelis are refusing to take the vaccine until it is proven by seeing the results of millions of people who took it first.
To huju: The 50/90 year old reputations of the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, and of more recent vintage, CNN, PBS, NPR and their ilk is of lying and falsehoods, covering up for nazism, blaming Israel, cursing America, hating caucasians, acting as the public relations arm of the Democrat Party, opposing morality and families and pushing far-left politics.
The Democrat Party is today the modern version of the American Communist Party.
Benny, there is no bipartisan backlash to gerrymandering. The backlash is only coming from partisan Democrats. The Supreme Court of the United States has recently clearly upheld the legality of gerrymandering.
The system isn’t any more broken today than it was 60 years ago. The only difference is that 60 years ago the Democrat Party controlled most redistricting, especially in the South, and gerrymandered districts to their great benefit. That lasted many decades. Today, since about ten years ago, Republicans reversed that and gained the same control of redistricting that Democrats used to have. Democrats, of course, hate that. So they now decided it has become anti-democratic — since they are no longer in charge. It was good, though, while they ran the ship.
It may be true that today, due to micro level data on election districts by the block level and using sophisticated software algorithms gerrymandering can be done much “better” than could be done 20+ years ago. But it wasn’t due to Democrats lacking effort while they were in control to gerrymander to the most of their ability decades ago.
So it is the Democrats loss. They’ll have to live under this new regime. Not because I said so, but because the Supreme Court has so ruled.
Benny, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Democrats had no problem with gerrymandering for many many decades when it benefited them. They’ll now have to live with many years of gerrymandering advantageous to Republicans. Suddenly becoming johnny come lately’s against gerrymandering when it no longer suits their purposes won’t cut it. The Supreme Court has upheld gerrymandering and that settles the issue.
To huju: I don’t want to be accused of racism. As you well know, being a card carrying party member, that any criticism of a black person constitutes racism in the world of today’s Democrat Party and their media cronies.
Ghadorah: Considering that the Republicans won across all down ballots, against all odds, under Trump and the president himself gained millions of voters over the last election, the Republicans realized that Trump must have down many right things these last four years.
Common: Teddy came in third.
The way it works is that the non-perfect guys marry the non-perfect girls. The trick for non-perfect guys when dating is to look for less than perfect girls.
Who ruined the Democrat Party – Johnson, Carter or Clinton?
They each built upon the ruins of their predecessors.
Note that for years Democrats and their media cronies were yelling that “voting fraud is rare”. That lie has morphed today into “there wasn’t enough fraud to change the outcome”.
From a historical perspective we know it is a fact that there’s been multiple instances of electoral fraud that have likely changed the results of the election. Examples are the fraud Democrats LBJ/JFK committed in the 1960 election that Nixon rightfully won. The Chicago Daley Democrat machine was notorious for committing electoral fraud for decades. So was the Tammany Hall Democrat machine in New York notorious for their electoral fraud.
These are just some examples of known cases of fraud by Democrats. For every known cases there’s likely a dozen more unknown cases where they weren’t busted.
And there was electoral fraud by Democrats in New Jersey local elections just two years ago. As well as many more cases.
Benny, you woke up too late. From the 1950s until 2010 the districts were gerrymandered in strong favor of the Democrats. The House, electoral college and state legislative districts were skewered in the Democrats favor for 60 years so that even though Republicans often got an overall majority of the vote the Democrats still got a majority of the representatives.
Similarly with the Senate, the Democrats overall got less votes but more senators since they owned the South due to their civil war history of supporting the Confederacy.
It was good for them then with no complaints about it being bad for democracy. Well, we can keep the current Republican advantage for sixty years too.
In 2070 lets reassess whether to even the playing field.
Senile folks are often polite.
Benny, hopefully and likely with the upcoming redistricting the Democrats will be reduced to a smaller minority of public office holders on that local, state and federal levels.
The GOP is stronger in 2020 than it was in 2016.
Trump remade the GOP into a better and stronger party that doesn’t content itself in only doing what Democrats say they may do and no more.
The Pope changed the solar calendar 400 years ago. Why did we change our calculations for VTUM based on the Pope’s decision?
The climate changes every day. And has for thousands of years. There’s nothing wrong with that as it is completely normal and how Hashem created the world.
The far left first tried in the 70s and 80s to sell to the world that global cooling would destroy the world. When that petered out as demonstrably false they switched the narrative in the early 90s to that global warming would destroy the world. When that fell flat and hacked emails from these pseudo-scientists exposed it as a hoax they switched to selling their sky-is-falling story to climate change is destroying the world.
It’s mamish ah shanda that we use the goyishe calendar to decide when to change our davening.
akuperma: Don’t forget the Reagan Democrats and the Trump Democrats.
“Peace for our time” as Neville Chamberlain said.
Withheld: Polls were broken long before 2016 and 2020. 2016 got worse than before and 2020 got worse than even 2020. However true this was for the presidential races, and it was very bad and especially bad for state by state polls of the presidential contest, this was especially even more true for non-presidential races such as Senatorial, Congressional and gubernatorial elections, where the polls were very often a sad joke.
musser: The current members invite new members.
The newer members are Rav Hillel David, Rav Shlomo Miller, Rav Yitzchok Sorotzkin, Rav Aharon Dovid Goldberg, Rav Yosef Chaim Frankel and Rav Shimon Yehuda Svei (in no particular order.) Rav Elya Brudny also joined about a year or two ago.
Virtually all the so-called “fact checkers”, whether Snopes or others from the mainstream media outlets, are far left-wing falsifiers attempting to discredit conservative facts and give credibility to leftist falsehoods.
Cuomo lied. The restrictions in fact are still in place in some areas of Staten Island, Queens and upstate. They are now null and void thanks to SCOTUS. And Cuomo cannot now reimpose them elsewhere.
Cuomo doesn’t want to broaden the restrictions to include businesses since that’ll inhibit economic activity. So he targeted religious institutions. Now he cannot do so anymore.
There’s no doubt that this site lazily reposts unedited syndicated/wire stories from the AP, Reuters, NY Times and other mainstream media left-wing fake news outlets.
APY: 1) What conservative news stations are your referring to? 2) Which of those offer a syndicated subscription to other websites?