- This topic has 108 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 5 months ago by
FlyerInHi.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 10, 2016 at 2:00 PM #803433November 10, 2016 at 2:10 PM #803434
CoronitaParticipantHere’s food for thought. What if, instead of the supreme Court deciding women rights, gay rights, seperation of church and state for the entire country, the supreme Court just ruled permanently that those rights would be decided strictly by the states individually…
That way if the majority of a state wanted to ban abortion, they can ban abortion. And those states that are pro choice, can have pro choice… And then if the states laws don’t fit your belief system…well, move to a state that does.?
The federal government would then only be responsible for defense of the country, some infrastructure, and some research and development.
November 10, 2016 at 2:10 PM #803435FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=Hobie][quote]I would argue that a typical silicon valley engineer would be smarter than an oil drill worker in North Dakota.[/quote]
Seriously? The dripping arrogance and elitism of this post makes me ill.
By the way, there is no such thing as an ‘oil drill’.
[/quote]Objectively the guy with the higher academic credentials is smarter. Nothing to feel ill about. That’s just the way we define things. Maybe unfair or not that humane but we like objective measures.
November 10, 2016 at 2:20 PM #803436Guest[quote=flu]Here’s food for thought. What if, instead of the supreme Court deciding women rights, gay rights, seperation of church and state for the entire country, the supreme Court just ruled permanently that those rights would be decided strictly by the states individually…
That way if the majority of a state wanted to ban abortion, they can ban abortion. And those states that are pro choice, can have pro choice… And then if the states laws don’t fit your belief system…well, move to a state that does.?
The federal government would then only be responsible for defense of the country, some infrastructure, and some research and development.[/quote]
That’s how a lot of people want it. They don’t even want r&d or defense. We could simply call up the national guards controlled at the state level.
Loving in a movie about just that.
November 10, 2016 at 2:39 PM #803440Anonymous
Guest[quote=flu]Here’s food for thought. What if, instead of the supreme Court deciding women rights, gay rights, seperation of church and state for the entire country, the supreme Court just ruled permanently that those rights would be decided strictly by the states individually…
That way if the majority of a state wanted to ban abortion, they can ban abortion. And those states that are pro choice, can have pro choice… And then if the states laws don’t fit your belief system…well, move to a state that does.?
The federal government would then only be responsible for defense of the country, some infrastructure, and some research and development.[/quote]
Wow.
You just missed the entire meaning of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.
November 10, 2016 at 2:43 PM #803439bearishgurl
ParticipantUm, last I checked, HRC only won the popular vote by 200,000 votes! It’s been argued that there are 11M “unauthorized immigrants” currently living in the US (I personally believe that number is closer to 16K and that there are 8-9K of them residing in CA alone). Assuming that 2/3 of that ~11M are NOT minors or prisoners, that leaves approx 7,340,000 “unauthorized immigrants” throughout the nation, who, by hook or crook, could have (surreptitiously or out in the open, depending on locale) registered to vote this year or in a prior election cycle and didn’t move. A (Hispanic) friend brought these two enlightening (2015) articles to my attention just this morning:
see: http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/
Assuming arguendo that only 13% of the ~7,340,000 voted in the general election this year (as the article above suggests ADMITTED to doing so) we can surmise that at least 954,200 or nearly 1M “unauthorized immigrants” illegally residing in the US voted in the general election this year.
I personally believe that number is closer to 3-4M.
NONE of this group would have voted for Trump. And NONE of them would waste their vote on a third-party candidate. ALL of their votes would have gone to HRC, for obvious reasons. The presence of HRC on the ballot was the only catalyst for members of this group to register at all.
It is VERY possible that Trump very likely won the LEGAL popular vote. Unfortunately, CA DOES NOT WANT to clean up their voter rolls of ineligible voters, as evidenced by its passage of AB-60 (eff: 1/1/15) combined with the (very deliberate) passage of its new “Motor Voter Law” (eff: 1/1/16). Our esteemed Dem-controlled Legislature likes it just the way it is.
Oh . . . and as of last night, there were still 620,000 mail-in ballots to be counted at the SD County Registrar of Voters (likely all of them). I wonder how many of those were mailed to legitimate addresses of SD County-based friends and relatives and picked up by MX residents to/from their way to work to be later returned by mail. Bill Clinton’s speech on behalf of HRC at BVHS on May 21 of this year registered dozens in this “‘binational’ worker-bee-group” (living in MX/working in US). I observed with my own eyes their “tabling event” set up in front of the student theatre and completely conducted in Spanish. The adjacent teacher parking lot was filled with dusty vehicles bearing MX license plates, as was the HUGE football-field shaped student parking lot in front of the school and well as the spillover parking lot at the SW corner of Otay Lakes and H Streets (now a SWC construction site). I drove thru ALL the parking lots while the rally was in progress and parked on a side street and got out of my car to observe the tabling event more closely (the corrupt Clinton machine at work, doing what they do best).
I have no doubt that some of those new voter registrations were those of (non-resident) parents who had kids enrolled in that school.
CA voters weren’t “disenfranchised” in this election We had our say (as we ALWAYS do) and we furnished nearly 50% of the electoral votes attributed to HRC on 11/8. We’re not responsible if voters in other states felt differently. The CA Piggs who feel disaffected can cut the nonsense and stop whining now . . . or move :-0.
November 10, 2016 at 2:48 PM #803441GuestBG, voter registration in Spanish is suspicious to you?
That’s the only thing I got from your long post full of assumptions.
November 10, 2016 at 3:00 PM #803444Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, voter registration in Spanish is suspicious to you?
That’s the only thing I got from your long post full of assumptions.[/quote]No. ~70% of the vehicles parked next to the “tabling event” held in the back of the campus bearing MX license plates, YES! Voter Registration applicants leaving the tables after turning in their apps to the Clinton campaign workers and getting into their MX-plated vehicles, YES!
November 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM #803446CoronitaParticipant[quote=harvey][quote=flu]Here’s food for thought. What if, instead of the supreme Court deciding women rights, gay rights, seperation of church and state for the entire country, the supreme Court just ruled permanently that those rights would be decided strictly by the states individually…
That way if the majority of a state wanted to ban abortion, they can ban abortion. And those states that are pro choice, can have pro choice… And then if the states laws don’t fit your belief system…well, move to a state that does.?
The federal government would then only be responsible for defense of the country, some infrastructure, and some research and development.[/quote]
Wow.
You just missed the entire meaning of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.[/quote]
Maybe, but wouldn’t it solve the problem? i mean that way red states that want their ultra conservative “values” can have it in their respective states. And folks here in CA can have want we want. And then people will tend to gravity to where they feel comfortable living?
The problem with U.S. is since it’s a medley of different people with different views, cultures, norms,etc. Perhaps, a “one size fit all” doesn’t exactly work.
November 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM #803445ParticipantWhy don’t you read those two articles on academic studies on this issue I just provided here, FIH. You might learn something.
Based on my experience last Saturday on the street in two large neighborhoods just south of East Tropicana Ave in the “Paradise” and “Whitney” areas of your fine city, I believe LV also has quite a few illegal immigrants. Yes, hospitality workers have to furnish original documents for a Form I-9 to be hired. I get that. But they have parents up to 85 years old “hiding” in back bdrms. I don’t know how many of them are actually registered to vote, however. I believe they were brought to the US to take care of children and the home because these workers are subject to work any of three shifts (day, swing, or graveyard) and even back-to-back shifts (8 hrs apart) at the whim of their employer. We all know that LV is a 24-hour city.
I know this because I have a relative who retired from Sam’s Town and now has a union pension.
November 10, 2016 at 3:22 PM #803447Participant[quote=flu][quote=harvey][quote=flu]Here’s food for thought. What if, instead of the supreme Court deciding women rights, gay rights, seperation of church and state for the entire country, the supreme Court just ruled permanently that those rights would be decided strictly by the states individually…
That way if the majority of a state wanted to ban abortion, they can ban abortion. And those states that are pro choice, can have pro choice… And then if the states laws don’t fit your belief system…well, move to a state that does.?
The federal government would then only be responsible for defense of the country, some infrastructure, and some research and development.[/quote]
Wow.
You just missed the entire meaning of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.[/quote]
Maybe, but wouldn’t it solve the problem? i mean that way red states that want their ultra conservative “values” can have it in their respective states. And folks here in CA can have want we want. And then people will tend to gravity to where they feel comfortable living?
The problem with U.S. is since it’s a medley of different people with different views, cultures, norms,etc. Perhaps, a “one size fit all” doesn’t exactly work.[/quote]flu, seriously, 90% of US residents would “feel comfortable” living in coastal CA. But cost of housing is an issue for them. In most cases, that is the ONLY reason why they’re not already here. Many of those “deplorables” in flyover America DO have the skills to compete for CA-based high-tech jobs. Do you really want them all here applying for jobs when we already crank out dozens of new CA Native engineering graduates out of at least 32 CA public universities and numerous CA-based private universities every single May, June and December?
November 10, 2016 at 3:30 PM #803448Guest[quote=flu]Perhaps, a “one size fit all” doesn’t exactly work.[/quote]
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It’s one size. It fits all.
November 10, 2016 at 3:31 PM #803449utcsox
Participant[quote=flu][quote=harvey][quote=flu]Here’s food for thought. What if, instead of the supreme Court deciding women rights, gay rights, seperation of church and state for the entire country, the supreme Court just ruled permanently that those rights would be decided strictly by the states individually…
That way if the majority of a state wanted to ban abortion, they can ban abortion. And those states that are pro choice, can have pro choice… And then if the states laws don’t fit your belief system…well, move to a state that does.?
The federal government would then only be responsible for defense of the country, some infrastructure, and some research and development.[/quote]
Wow.
You just missed the entire meaning of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.[/quote]
Maybe, but wouldn’t it solve the problem? i mean that way red states that want their ultra conservative “values” can have it in their respective states. And folks here in CA can have want we want. And then people will tend to gravity to where they feel comfortable living?
The problem with U.S. is since it’s a medley of different people with different views, cultures, norms,etc. Perhaps, a “one size fit all” doesn’t exactly work.[/quote]
The divide is not between the red states and the blue states; it is between the metropolitan areas and the countryside.
November 10, 2016 at 3:37 PM #803451Participant[quote=outtamojo][quote=flyer]Here’s what some are proposing:
http://fusion.net/story/368445/shervin-california-secession/
Might sound like a great idea until tech and other bubble industries burst again, and they are all out on the street, leaving the rest of us holding their bag. No thanks.[/quote]
Like the bags we already hold for the red moocher states?[/quote]Which red states are you referring to, outtamojo? TX, which has a HUGE illegal immigrant population (although not as high as CA’s) sucking up the freebies and sneaking over the border every day to attend school? How about OK (where EVERY.single.county voted Trump, lol) where a large portion of residents have gas and oil lease income, many people grow and can and even butcher their own food and 537,000 of its residents are eligible for Indian Health Services (IHS)? I have over 150 relatives in these states and although I believe two of them are on SSD, I don’t know of even ONE who is even getting food stamps, much less any form of “welfare.”
And are you aware that in most “red states,” the cash “welfare benefit” is actually one-half (or less) than it is in CA? Do you honestly think people can live on that without working under the table?
November 10, 2016 at 3:42 PM #803452Participantflyer, you well know that that little plan by SV “power brokers” will never see the light of day, much less make it on any CA ballot. I don’t care WHO introduces it or HOW MUCH venture capital is thrown at it.
It’s dead in the water (as all looney-tune proposals coming from whacked-out nutcases should be) :=0
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.