What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.29: Eggs and Tweet Storms for Breakfast

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.29: Eggs and Tweet Storms for Breakfast

Kepler said:
It's more that it's as red as we thought.

Nobody sane is saying anything is going to happen in Texas before 2024. Nobody sane thinks nothing will happen in Texas by 2032.



They are the cherry on top, anyway. Rust belt, GA, FL come before them.
Click to expand...

How much of that big gap that starts a 45yo can be attributed to shorter life expectancies associated with poorer economic conditions for minorities?
 
Re: POTUS 45.29: Eggs and Tweet Storms for Breakfast

The problem is, life expectancy is more or less assigned at birth, right? It kind of changes as time goes on but the effect you’re describing isn’t what’s shown here I don’t think.
 
Kepler said:
It's more that it's as red as we thought.

Nobody sane is saying anything is going to happen in Texas before 2024. Nobody sane thinks nothing will happen in Texas by 2032.

<img src="http://static.businessinsider.com/image/5140ad9d69bedd0f4a00002f-750.jpg" />

They are the cherry on top, anyway. Rust belt, GA, FL come before them.
Click to expand...

All those spics will become republicans as they grow older, you silly man!
 
Re: POTUS 45.29: Eggs and Tweet Storms for Breakfast

dxmnkd316 said:
The problem is, life expectancy is more or less assigned at birth, right? It kind of changes as time goes on but the effect you’re describing isn’t what’s shown here I don’t think.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I could come from a family of people who all live to 95yo, but if I spend my years from age 20-40 snorting coke off of hookers' arses and working in a coal mine, unlike the rest of my family, my time on Earth will not be to live out that same 95 years. While both of my examples are choices in life, one of them could be seen as historically "forced" upon a person and tied to socioeconomic conditions.
 
Re: POTUS 45.29: Eggs and Tweet Storms for Breakfast

St. Clown said:
How much of that big gap that starts a 45yo can be attributed to shorter life expectancies associated with poorer economic conditions for minorities?
Click to expand...

I would guess very little.
 
Re: POTUS 45.29: Eggs and Tweet Storms for Breakfast

St. Clown said:
Yes and no. I could come from a family of people who all live to 95yo, but if I spend my years from age 20-40 snorting coke off of hookers' arses and working in a coal mine, unlike the rest of my family, my time on Earth will not be to live out that same 95 years. While both of my examples are choices in life, one of them could be seen as historically "forced" upon a person and tied to socioeconomic conditions.
Click to expand...
It's not the years, it's the miles.
 
Re: POTUS 45.29: Eggs and Tweet Storms for Breakfast

SJHovey said:
Some actual numbers regarding life expectancy and race.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_04.pdf
Click to expand...

The effect on the OP demo table is that TX is being flooded by Hispanic children. Those kids are going to grow up and even if they die at 60 they're not going to die at 40. So they're going to be voting against the GOP thugs for 40 years, and eventually that will cause policy changes where they don't die at 60.

Politics in a democracy is self-correcting. At the end of the day, voting rights are the only rights that actually matter. Everything else, even inequality, will take care of itself with time as long as the people have the ability to purge the plutes.
 
Re: POTUS 45.29: Eggs and Tweet Storms for Breakfast

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Unfortunately, I suspect Republicans are correct in saying it won't survive a legal challenge. And that's assuming the Governor even signs it.
Click to expand...

How much precedent has there been regarding eligibility and being listed?
 
Re: POTUS 45.29: Eggs and Tweet Storms for Breakfast

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Unfortunately, I suspect Republicans are correct in saying it won't survive a legal challenge. And that's assuming the Governor even signs it.
Click to expand...

I thought each state had its own rules in regards to how candidates get onto their ballots. Why would this be any different? It seems every POTUS election cycle we hear of at least one candidate flubbing the process of being added to State X's ballot. Of course, I'm willing to admit that I could be completely wrong and forgetting a crucial piece of info on this subject.
 
St. Clown said:
I thought each state had its own rules in regards to how candidates get onto their ballots. Why would this be any different? It seems every POTUS election cycle we hear of at least one candidate flubbing the process of being added to State X's ballot. Of course, I'm willing to admit that I could be completely wrong and forgetting a crucial piece of info on this subject.
Click to expand...

Procedural rules are ok, but generally speaking, you can't add qualifications that aren't in the constitution. Font think it's ever been tested for president, but I think I recall some Congressional restriction that SCOTUS struck down.

The workaround, in my opinion, is that the Constitution affords state legislatures the right to distribute their electoral college votes as they deem appropriate. So you can't keep Trump off the ballot for not releasing his taxes, but you could deny him your electoral votesuntil he does.
 
Re: POTUS 45.29: Eggs and Tweet Storms for Breakfast

unofan said:
Procedural rules are ok, but generally speaking, you can't add qualifications that aren't in the constitution. Font think it's ever been tested for president, but I think I recall some Congressional restriction that SCOTUS struck down.

The workaround, in my opinion, is that the Constitution affords state legislatures the right to distribute their electoral college votes as they deem appropriate. So you can't keep Trump off the ballot for not releasing his taxes, but you could deny him your electoral votesuntil he does.
Click to expand...

That's actually kind of brilliant. I'm surprised that wasn't how they decided to write the bill.
 
Re: POTUS 45.29: Eggs and Tweet Storms for Breakfast

dxmnkd316 said:
That's actually kind of brilliant. I'm surprised that wasn't how they decided to write the bill.
Click to expand...

It's still a bad idea. Obviously Dump is a POS but can you imagine the kind of terrorism red states would get up to if this became SOP?

I can't see that tax returns have anything materially to do with the state's interest in how its votes are counted or awarded. It's hopefully unconstitutional, but even if it isn't it's a bad idea. You don't want to give the fascists that kind of gun.
 
Re: POTUS 45.29: Eggs and Tweet Storms for Breakfast

Kepler said:
It's still a bad idea. Obviously Dump is a POS but can you imagine the kind of terrorism red states would get up to if this became SOP?

I can't see that tax returns have anything materially to do with the state's interest in how its votes are counted or awarded. It's hopefully unconstitutional, but even if it isn't it's a bad idea. You don't want to give the fascists that kind of gun.
Click to expand...

The gun is already there. The instruction manual has already been written.
 
Re: POTUS 45.29: Eggs and Tweet Storms for Breakfast

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Ex-Trump ethics chief demands Trump fire Conway for law violations: "Enough is enough" <a href="https://t.co/qEmif5l3Jq">https://t.co/qEmif5l3Jq</a> <a href="https://t.co/0Gx28ki6Ib">pic.twitter.com/0Gx28ki6Ib</a></p>— The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/971121021813223424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 6, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: POTUS 45.29: Eggs and Tweet Storms for Breakfast

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">With all these headlines, I just assumed Steel Tariffs was Stormy Daniel's co-star.</p>— Stephen Colbert (@StephenAtHome) <a href="https://twitter.com/StephenAtHome/status/971571145689493510?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top