POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

[joecct]

All we need is a Supreme Court that rules gerrymandering for political partisanship is unconstitutional as a denial of "republican government."

Guess which faction on the Court is preventing that?

They don't want to intrude on a state political process. We have one man one vote and you can't draw a district to disenfranchise a particular class.

But disenfranchising a political party? I don't like the gerrymander, but the I prefer a state solution on this mattet rather than a federally mandated one.

 

[aparch]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Well I'm so glad that Trump "waited for all the facts to come in."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...m-that-counter-demonstrators-lacked-a-permit/

Walt Heinecke, a professor at the University of Virginia, told Moyer that he received a “special events certificate of approval” for events at McGuffey Park and Justice Park

Charlottesville spokeswoman Miriam I. Dickler told Moyer that only one permit was issued for Emancipation Park — the one received by white nationalists staging the “Unite the Right” rally. However, counter-protesters did not need permits to protest that rally, she said.

“Please bear in mind that people do not need a permit to enter a public park, even when another event is scheduled to take place there, nor are they required to have one to be on streets or sidewalks adjacent to or outside the park,” Dickler said in an email.

“I think what the president is trying to say is that counter-protesters did not have a permit to be in Emancipation Park,” Heinicke said. “That’s irrelevant.” He added: “Either way you cut it, the president got it wrong.”

The White House declined to comment.

President Trump twice claimed that counter-protesters lacked a permit to demonstrate in Charlottesville. But they did have permits for rallies — and they did not need one to go into or gather near Emancipation Park, where white nationalists planned their rally.

 

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

They don't want to intrude on a state political process. We have one man one vote and you can't draw a district to disenfranchise a particular class.

But disenfranchising a political party? I don't like the gerrymander, but the I prefer a state solution on this mattet rather than a federally mandated one.

I wish I could trust all the States to be fair and have a good motivation. Some I would, some I wouldn't. Some have a horrifying record before the feds stepped in. Some are actively trying to do things that were outlawed a century ago. Not everyone wants one man one vote. Some want only the people they want to vote.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I remember when birthers were claiming how divisive Obama was turning the country.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

He did...he voted for sanity. Everyone else should have issues sleeping at night. (especially people who fell for the "third party con" )

And now he's refusing to listen to others, and get involved. "Centrist crap" is one part he recently said. Even if he thinks it's crap, discuss, find a solution. Don't wash your hands of it.

 

[aparch]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Someone cut down one of Hillary's speeches, and they got this:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1664333856931431&id=908009612563863

She warned everyone...

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

A picture's worth a thousand words..

https://www.bing.com/images/search?...608025203084692229&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

So someone photoshopped Donald Trump over KKK members, a group which he has disavowed on multiple occasions, including earlier this week. I knew you had no actual evidence, so cut the lies.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Or just deny them the permit. They're a hate group. F-ck them.

Charlottesville did. The group sued under terms of the first amendment. A federal court said they must be allowed to speak, because it is protected the first amendment, under the exact same terms that you have been fear-mongering through your claims of what Republicans will do to your speech by your constant barrage of calling this administration fascist. I may not like what you say, and I may not want to listen to what you have to say, but so long as there is still an America, and so long as you are not causing a direct threat to the life, liberty, and/or property of the general area (where the yelling of "fire" in a crowded area comes into play), I am going to defend your right to say it.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Had scary exposure on FB this afternoon to people who make Flaggy look lefty My friend who is round the bend, living in the backwoods of Nevada, posted something about how after they pull all the statues down what will be next? (he pulled it from some twitter thing he follows). Mother of goodness. People ranting about the violent left coming to get them, arming up, and all sorts of blather.

Being exposed to some of the doodah usually on my feed from Trumpites who think we should feel bad for poor little him because he is beleagured now looks like nursery school level. Those people are just a sad level of dumb. These people are mostly ex-military and certifiably bat sh1t crazy and dam scary level of stupid. They must live on a diet of Infowars, Hannity and Breitbart with a little grain alcohol in their Koolaid to enhance the stupid.

Actually, President Trump mentioned it in his speech the other day, and he has a point. This is similar to the censorship that happened during the French Revolution when the history of the French monarchy was destroyed. If you want to keep something from happening again, the historical reminders are absolutely necessary so there is less of a chance to repeat it. Perhaps you'd rather this be in a museum, or maybe writings? However it is placed, those who do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Boy, it sounds like the Obama era arms grab was a good thing for these idiots.

If you want to worship a loser, I guess it is your choice.

Funny thing is, once the 2016 election was completed, it was leftists that started buying up.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

It is everyone's problem, and we all have work to do.

In some better news, I had two friends become citizens today. It should give us all hope that in these trying times there are still a lot of people who want to be part of our great people. Trust me when I say we are incredibly lucky to have both of them.

Many congratulations to them, a welcome to our American family, and I know for sure they will make both themselves and our American family successful.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

If the little app I tried was accurate I would not be eligible with a degree, an advanced degree and a ton of experience. I found that a bit disconcerting. The married thing doesn't always make a difference like it used to. That also is a bit screwed up. I know someone who was married and had a green card. They went thru hell to be able to get citizenship. South American origin. Went home once and had to wait a month plus to come back in. This was before the current admin.

What are you going to do with that degree? Just because you have a $200,000 piece of paper that says "M.A. in English Summa Cum Laude" doesn't mean you're going to actually do something to benefit yourself or this country.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Not to be outdone, the Democrat legislature in Maryland has managed to gerrymander 2 GOP congressfolks out of business since 2000. The 2010 gerrymander got an A+ for creativity.

BTW, the gerrymander stinks. I'm all for independent non partisan committee to draw district lines at the congressional and state legislature levels.

What if the "gerrymander" is used to ensure that two particular political areas which are like minded in how they wish to see the direction of any sort of government, yet weren't necessarily geographically in proximity, were given the opportunity to achieve that goal together? Let's put it another way: I know many people on here have me on ignore. Do either of us really even want the opportunity to determine who represents us as a whole? And what happens if I were to "get followers" and ensure our representation was something closer to my view, regardless of what you think is the actual possibility of that? We've both made arguments surrounding the opportunities around us and whether or stay or leave, so that's a wash.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I remember when birthers were claiming how divisive Obama was turning the country.

Take a look at how strong the divisions are between people based on political leanings today. I'd say they were right.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Well I'm so glad that Trump "waited for all the facts to come in."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...m-that-counter-demonstrators-lacked-a-permit/

Actually, it is based upon the beliefs of those who request the permit. The permit is not used to suppress free speech, but rather determine who has claimed the ability to exercise their right to free speech at a particular point, and is also a 9th amendment protection to ensure their rights are not disparaged by others seeking to claim the same right. All the permit holder has to say is, "I don't want this other speech at the time and place I have designated for my speech", and the "intruders" must be removed. Whether or not they did that, I don't know, and I'm fairly certain the Washington [com]Post doesn't know, nor even cares. Exactly the same reasons I previously denounced the disruptions made as part of the whole Shakespeare debacle from a month or so ago; there's better ways to handle that if you want to make that sort of a point.

 

[aparch]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Did you not see the dam* city official said: “Please bear in mind that people do not need a permit to enter a public park, even when another event is scheduled to take place there, nor are they required to have one to be on streets or sidewalks adjacent to or outside the park,”

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

They don't want to intrude on a state political process. We have one man one vote and you can't draw a district to disenfranchise a particular class.

But disenfranchising a political party? I don't like the gerrymander, but the I prefer a state solution on this mattet rather than a federally mandated one.

What if the "gerrymander" is used to ensure that two particular political areas which are like minded in how they wish to see the direction of any sort of government, yet weren't necessarily geographically in proximity, were given the opportunity to achieve that goal together? Let's put it another way: I know many people on here have me on ignore. Do either of us really even want the opportunity to determine who represents us as a whole? And what happens if I were to "get followers" and ensure our representation was something closer to my view, regardless of what you think is the actual possibility of that? We've both made arguments surrounding the opportunities around us and whether or stay or leave, so that's a wash.

The system isn't working.

The American people only voted for a GOP president once in this generation (W in 2004) yet have had one almost half the time (3 terms in 7 since 3 terms of GOP ending in '92). In 2016, 9.4% more Americans voted for a Democratic congress than Republican...yet we ended up with 22% more Republican representatives than Democrats.

The United States is a Democratic country yet is more often than not being run by Republicans. With your ideology, I can understand why you guys would rather tweak a system that is in your favor then change it to be representative to the will of the people.

 

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Some good has come from Charlottesville. People have come out in droves to condemn those on the alt right for being the deplorables they are, and many more of those who were supposed to be on his team are abandoning him.

Of course, it will probably increase the mockery we must endure from people from other countries for electing this incompetent. This idiocy was foreseeable enough.

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Of course, it will probably increase the mockery we must endure from people from other countries for electing this incompetent. This idiocy was foreseeable enough.

I think the nuke rattling with Kim and Charlottesville mark when the adults in the rest of the world stopped laughing and started worrying.

The longterm result seems to be that we have been trusted for 70 years by the western world -- we act in our self-interest and do terrible things to the brown help, yes, but we were still a good actor when dealing with white countries. Now we are no longer reliable. Even once this idiocy passes, we will not be fully trusted again.

 

[unofan]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Obama certainly didn't try to circumvent Congress and take guns away from a bunch of people on SSDI.

Bless your heart. You tried.