ChiGoose

You don’t have to prove what he wanted to do with it, you just need to prove that he intended to take or keep it.

It’s almost as if there’s an intent component of the law…

The current system silences tens of millions of voters because of an agreement to appease slaveholders over 200 years ago. It’s probably time to update it. I also agree that the biggest impediment to reform is the people who were elected under the current system. That being said, public pressure and referendums can win if we convince enough people. Maine and Alaska have enacted versions of ranked choice and organizations are popping up to push for it in other states.

Al Franken was pushed out by the party for alleged bad behavior. Jim Jordan is still in Congress and even chairs a committee despite allegedly covering up sex abuse.

The Manhattan case is fairly strong but prosecutors have him dead to rights on the Georgia election interference case and the Mar A Lago documents case. At this point, the only reason he wouldn’t be indicted would be political considerations. The Democratic Party is a disaster and a mess, but I’ll point out that Al Franken is no longer in Congress while Jim Jordan is. While not perfect, the Dems are a bit better at holding their own accountable.

So you think their votes shouldn’t count?

The state with the most people who voted for Trump in 2020 was California. 6 million people whose votes did not count in the election. I would rather that their votes do count. Also the idea that the system isn’t broken because we’ve had presidents from two different parties is laughable.

This is a good example of the Spoiler Effect

You do realize that the reason the Founders created the electoral college was to appease the slave states, right? Also, our current system means that most states don’t matter. We talk about 6-8 states every election season. If everyone’s votes counted, then candidates would have to care about all of the states. As it stands today, they don’t.

Electing representatives based on what the people actually want is pure democracy and also bad?

Ranked Choice and Approval voting are simply ways to return the power to the people instead of the party elites. It also would not end up with California and NY deciding every election. That doesn’t make any sense.

Enacting either one would be the single best way to tamp down on polarization and the current negative political environment. It wouldn’t solve it (and there are other reforms I’d like to see too), but it would have the biggest impact of any singular change you could make. It would destroy the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Which is why we should do it.

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60 Oh look, it's Elon Musk's lawyers filing a motion stating that Twitter in no way was acting as an arm of the FBI nor acting on the behalf of the FBI. Under the penalty of sanctions should they be lying, Musk's lawyers state that Twitter was not coerced by the government to censor posts or users, nor was it paid by the FBI to do so. They do state (as has been pointed out numerous times) that while the FBI might notify Twitter of accounts or posts that may violate their terms, Twitter had full independence to make the determination if policies were violated. It's almost as if people who do not understand how things work have been leaping to conclusions based on falsehoods.

Probably. You can definitely run for President from prison since that’s already happened before. Given that the Constitution sets the criteria for running for president, any law prohibiting a president from serving while in jail would likely be unconstitutional.

Mike Pence enters the race for the nomination of the Hang Mike Pence Party. Like Tom Brady entering a popularity contest in Buffalo.

The most prominent alternatives are Ranked Choice* and Approval Voting**. Either one would ensure that a candidate had greater than 50% of the vote in order to win, as opposed to our current system where a plurality is often sufficient. By reducing or eliminating the spoiler effect, we could have a variety of candidates to chose from without having to worry about strategic voting. Cornell West is clearly on the left. So let’s imagine he makes the ballot on every state. There are few to no voters who would traditionally vote Republican that would also want to vote for West. So West’s votes will come from lefties who might otherwise vote for the Democratic candidate. Without their votes, the Dem candidate may lose and a Republican, who is diametrically opposed to the West voters would win. So by voting for the candidate that most meets their desires, voters inadvertently elected the candidate that most opposes them. The same could happen if a traditional conservative runs third party and draws votes away from Trump / DeSantis. We should have a system where voters shouldn’t be punished for their votes through the spoiler effect. If we had that, third parties could survive. Bernie Sanders and AOC shouldn’t be in the same party as Biden or Manchin. Same with Romney and Trump. But they have to be members of the same parties because of our inferior electoral system. *Ranked Choice: rank the candidates on the ballot and when the votes are tallied, the last place candidate’s votes are redistributed to the voters’ second choices until one candidate has more than 50% of the cote **Approval voting: everyone votes for as many candidates in a race that they want. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins.

Wow, it’s amazing that someone can hold off on expressing an opinion until more facts are known and then express an opinion once more facts are known. Crazy!

It’s important to note that the first paragraph here is completely bogus and false while the second paragraph underscores how the law did not anticipate a presidential campaign and foreign nation working together for the same goal without an overt agreement.

Can we not with these third party candidates? If you want to end the two party system, you need to end First Past the Post voting first. Otherwise you’re just helping the candidate most ideologically opposed to you via the Spoiler Effect.

Yup. And it looks like the officer was told they didn’t have permission when they did. An unfortunate mixup.

Or he could have done his job and checked if the group performing in the Capitol had permission to do so.

Here's why Capitol police stopped a youth choir from singing the 'Star-Spangled Banner' Looks like it was probably a communication issue about having permission for a performance. Which is a much more likely case reason than believing that the police thought someone would be offended by the national anthem. Especially since nobody making the claim can seem to point to who told them that.

Holy *****. Just saw this obsessive thread. Dear lord, you need a life. I hope you get some help. Anyway, here’s what I agreed to: ”But if they do not release Patel's testimony, I will change my icon to a picture to one of Tom Brady for a full year. I do not require any action on your part.” I specifically did not commit to September because I know Congress and figured there was a chance it’d get delayed but it would all be released at the end of term. If I was committing to September, I would have said so. The committee then released Kash Patel’s testimony before the end of term. Sorry if you don’t understand how words and agreements work.

So you don’t think it’s relevant that most of the guns used in crimes in Chicago come from red states? Also, you’re basically saying that crime happens where people are.

You made a claim, provided no evidence, and now say it doesn’t matter if it’s true, the fact that you thought it might be true means that it might as well be true? You expect anyone to find that convincing? You then brought out black on black crime out of nowhere, making the ludicrous claim that it’s something that people ignore. Then you pretended I was the one who brought up race when I had never mentioned it before you raised it? Do you not read the things you write? Tough on crime policies alone do not work. When a kid picks up a gun to commit a crime, he isn’t thinking about whether he’s going to get 20 years or 25. I think we should be trying to stop the next kid from picking up the gun but apparently you believe that is being soft on crime somehow. And if you’re going to ask how many people have died from bail reform maybe you can look that up yourself. I’m not google. Or are you doing the “just asking questions” BS to make a claim without having to defend it or support it in anyway?