This should be interesting

You CAN, FCD. The information is not admissible in a court of law.

But, since we see they actually make up the rules on the fly I expect they will use it like a hammer to the coffin nails! The corrupt Judge will not see it that way. Then, the death of America as we had it and welcome "Brasile" or "1984" full bore.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Lumenari

Help me out here...

If cellphones, then this would mean there is a mass tracking system for cell phones (inside the US) in general. Otherwise, how would these demographics be known?

edit - I know 'how' it's done, but it's totally illegal. To do this, you need to know 'who' and 'what' cellphone "device" they have, AND you have to have the proper order (warrant, whatever) to perform such a search. You can't just surveil the general public.

BTW,

Kamala is not only putting up literally walls in Chicago, she is also requiring the mostly black residents to have ID to get into their homes.

Ironic (in my best Emperor from Star Wars impersonation)
a reply to: Daughter2v2

originally posted by: yeahright
a reply to: chr0naut

So the faithless electors had no impact on the result. None of the Republican faithless electors voted for Clinton, none of the Dems voted for Trump. Faith Spotted Eagle got a vote that should've gone to Clinton though.

Thanks.

The entire race was between two potential Presidents, although there were others voted for.

Those others voted for had no chance of winning majority, so, votes for them were essentially thrown-away.

Three of the ten faithless electors were either replaced, or re-voted faithfully, so there's no foul there.

That leaves 7 faithless electors whose votes were upheld.

Now, the faithless votes didn't go to either main candidate, but they went to people who had no chance of majority, i.e, they were thrown-away votes.

Clinton lost 5 votes. Trump lost two.

This is equivalent to a three vote disadvantage to Clinton.

But aside from that, if the EC is supposed to balance out states fairly so that smaller states still have a strong vote, why have another election level at all? Why not give the state vote winner automatically to the number of representative 'seats' in the EC and remove the possibility of EC corruption and faithless voting altogether?

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

We aren't a democracy.

No one is buying your Marxist bunk Chro.

Since the scandemic your mask has slipped.

What scamdemic?

Who made the supposed vast sums of money, and reset economies, and gained permanent power?

You are talking out of conspiracy theories, from years ago, that just didn't play out.

Which is great for the folks here and looking on.

I am just being realist.

It's like all the 2012/Nibiru stuff, only the kookiest of the Qtarded still believes it.

a reply to: chr0naut

I'd explain it to you, but you're capable of doing the research if you really want to. But you obviously don't. Which is ok, it's not your circus. Which renders your opinion moot to me, because you're not really a truth seeker. Carry on.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

Now I'm wondering where the bottom is in your hate for my nation.

You brought it up about Don and Corey at the firearm-fest. I would have thought that if you arm people, you shouldn't be so surprised if nutcases start shooting?

But it appears that you are a nationalist-fantasist in a nation where someone goes around making meaningless national-virtue signals like Trump humping a flag, and no-one dares say 'that's a particularly weirdo thing to do; is it the simple shapes, or the bright colours, or is he just into fabrics, like, really? Or perhaps he just has jock-itch?'

And I'm a pragmatist (at least, I think I am).

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

Engaging with your truth involves omitting facts.

Pardon me if I don't take your advice on anything of significance.

Please educate me about the facts that I am missing, and be concise and complete.

That's extra.

My free package only includes highlighting your complete lack on integrity and honesty.

No, that's just allegation. You so far have failed to provide any substance.

a reply to: chr0naut

And I'm a pragmatist (at least, I think I am).

You're an authoritarian.

You despise free speech, assembly, self defense and of course defer to the govt.


Sorry if that bothers you but those are what you've chosen to share here.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

The EC has never netted an election that didn't directly honor actual votes. 🤤

Wrong.

In 1876, Rutherford B Hayes was elected President but the winner of the General election was Samuel J. Tilden.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison was elected President but the winner of the General election was Grover Cleveland.
In 1960, John F. Kennedy was elected President but the winner of the General election was NIXON
In 2000, George W. Bush was elected President but the winner of the General election was Al Gore.
In 2000, TRUMP was elected President but the winner of the General election was CLINTON.

It could also be argued that in 1824 where John Quincy Adams was elected in preference to Andrew Jackson, the EC acceptance of candidates from six states that were appointed rather than elected, was an instance where the democratic choice was not upheld.

lol lol lol lol you are way off course. Post the details. You aren't fooling anybody. The Constitution worked in all those cases. You obviously are not understanding the System as it is and has been. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Plus, you were referring to faithless Electors, not the entire National results. The Electors are ALL at State level, not National. lol lol lol lol

a reply to: chr0naut

1960 United States presidential election

1960 election: Kennedy won the EC and the Popular vote.

Nixon won the 1968 and 1972 Elections, and resigned during his 2nd term.

You were confusing and garbling 3 separate events. lol lol lol lol 😀

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: chr0naut

Hmm. If that's true, why are cities like Chicago screaming for help because they've been over run by illegals ? Why are hotels being paid by the govt to house them ? Why are homeless people getting kicked out of shelters to make room for illegals ?

In 2016, New York had 1,100,000 estimated undocumented persons. Chicago had an estimated 400,000 undocumented persons. San Francisco had an estimated 240,000 undocumented persons.

What we know about unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S.

Breaking Down the Immigration Figures

Perhaps crime in Chicago and homelessness San Francisco have issues for reasons that are nothing to do with undocumented persons because overall, homelessness across the US has lowered over the last decade Estimated number of homeless people in the United States from 2007 to 2022

I assure you that the problems didn't start under the Biden Presidency.

If the border is secure, why are fentanyl overdoses/deaths off the charts ?

Please look at the following chart and tell me the year when Fentanyl overdose deaths began to really trend upwards. Number of overdose deaths from fentanyl in the U.S. from 1999 to 2022. Perhaps look at government policies and border closures at about that time?

Can you see where the narrative doesn't make sense?

I think you know this actually is a problem, but you hate the US or Conservatives so much you're willing to lie to yourself.....or maybe you know it's lie and trying to gaslight the rest of us.

We live here. It's not gonna work.

Nah. What's happening is that you believe the political rhetoric of someone who failed to do what they said, and who is trying to place blame elsewhere.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

The U.S. Border is much more than just The Mexican Border. 🤣🤣🤣

98% is unsecured.

I would still say that there are enough customs agents and border agents and federal agents, not to mention state and county police who keep an eye out for illegal stuff happening at the borders.

Wrong Clyde. The smuggling routes are wide open and so is 98% of the entire Border. 😀

Have a look at when those things started happening in a big way, and who was in power at the time, and how things correlate with border closures.

United States drug overdose death rates and totals over time

Number of overdose deaths from fentanyl in the U.S. from 1999 to 2022

a reply to: chr0naut

None of that has anything to do with The Border being 98% unsecured. 😃

originally posted by: bluesman023
You are Correct.
Dems Don't have a Policy on Anything.
Just ask Kamala.
OH Wait she doesn't take Questions.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

The Mayor of Chicago is excited to have them and gave Kamala a glowing recommendation, but.....

a reply to: DAVID64

His recommendation is toxic but the democrats are too blind to see it right now.

The Chicago City Council approved the $51 million for migrant care during the Wednesday meeting.Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson reportedly promised that his administration would do whatever it takes to care for migrants arriving in the city.

In Jan. 2023, plans to transform an elementary school into a shelter for migrants arriving in the city were reportedly been put on hold after residents gathered to protest.Protestors reportedly argued at that gathering that their community, one that's already struggling, can't afford the influx of migrants.

Open border policy

Right-wing pundits and even Trump keep suggesting that the Democratic Party has an open border policy, but they just don't.

THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM

a reply to: chr0naut

Oh, look.

A page Biden hasn't been scrubbed from yet.....

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

And I'm a pragmatist (at least, I think I am).

You're an authoritarian.

What am I making you do?

You despise free speech,

No I don't. I am quite happy to speak, post, listen to others, read posts and comment on/to them. Nor am I in any way limiting what you or others are saying and posting. Even if they are flat earthers or Trumpettes.

You see, my opinion is just as much free speech as yours is. By posting on here, I am participating in free speech. Just as you are.

assembly

Nope, I have been to lots of political meetings and rallies, and a good few protests, myself.

I do however admit that holding a political rally, or mass protest, or even a large publicly attended sporting or arts event, during an outbreak of a highly infectious disease in the area, is a tad ill-timed and ill-advised.

But I'm not stopping anyone.

It's as Voltaire is alleged to have remarked, “I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”

self defense

Nonsense. Everyone has a right to self-defence. That may, or may not, in various circumstances of threat, extend to the carrying of weapons for that purpose.

I'd just advise against drawing a gun in a situation where your attacker already has their gun up and aimed. It will only provoke a response where you are unlikely to get the first round off.

and of course defer to the govt.

Render unto Caesar. I must do as my Lord Jesus commanded.

Sorry if that bothers you but those are what you've chosen to share here.

That's untrue. Most of what you think of me isn't what I have shared here. It is what you 'think' I have shared here.

This is because you have assumed that any view contrary to your view, must be by someone who must necessarily be totally and diametrically opposite to all of your opinions.

You don't seem to show any cognisance of any subtlety or shades-of-grey in opinions.

Like for instance, you and others have frequently called me a leftist, but I have consistently voted for centre-right-wing parties for decades, and I would consider myself centrist and have an affinity for some ideas from both the left, and from the right, ideologically.

I do not follow a party line just because it is from 'my' party. That is plain stupid mob mentality.

I am fairly Asperger's and don't feel comfortable with crowds, and if I do choose to participate in things, it isn't out of some need to be socially validated by peer group/s. This gives me an individuality that the entrained don't have.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

None of that has anything to do with The Border being 98% unsecured. 😃

Precisely my contention.

When the borders were the most closed that they have been, the drug deaths continued to accelerate.

The Opioid epidemic, that led to the fentanyl crisis, was caused by an American drug company that manufactured and sold oxycodone under the product names Oxycontin and Percocet, in country, and lied to health providers about its addictiveness, and sold large amounts through those misled GP's who overprescribed and created addicted Americans. Those addicted Americans no longer able to get oxycodone, looked for other similar drugs to abate their addiction, of which fentanyl is one.

You figure it out.

originally posted by: putnam6
posted this in another thread... the one thing we DO NOT NEED is violence, looting, and burning. If it gets out of control TPTB response might be a severe overreaction with long-term consequences.

Men. It's Chicago. The place is already trashed. I don't know that a few thousand more violent nutcases will make much of a difference.