Random Political Issues Mega Thread

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
8,803
Reaction score
1,203
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
My favorite portion of the Parade magazine insert that comes with my Sunday paper is the "Ask Marilyn" column. While many of you may have read what was written yesterday or read something similar elsewhere, I am still going to post her answer to a question because I found it to give a good perspective into why the electoral college is needed.

The question was:

Some people don't like electoral votes (versus popular votes) deciding our presidential elections. Can you make an argument in favor of electoral votes?

Her reply was:

We are the United States of America, and our states . . . starting with the original 13 colonies . . . are separate entities. It is understandably unacceptable to states with smaller populations to have their affairs decided by other states simply because more people live there. Suppose there were a United Countries of Earth. Would we like the idea of China (population 1.439 billion) and India (1.380 billion) running the show? (The U.S. has 331 million people.) Or would we want a leveling factor?


Wow. What a great answer. Thanks so much for sharing that SC.
 

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
25,185
Reaction score
3,248
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
Funny how "equal opportunity for minorities" doesn't apply to some people's thinking when it comes to the electoral college, isn't it?
 

foobahl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
2,786
Reaction score
291
Points
83
Location
the only Henniker on earth
Just got a political mailing from the NH Democratic Party. They have a picture of Corky Messner in a Broncos Jersey. Guess I can't vote straight Republican ballot after all. (I wasn't going to anyway)
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
40,679
Reaction score
4,246
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
Unreal.


'Unmasking' investigation closes without report or charges: report​

The previous head of the investigation resigned at the beginning of October.​

Sam Dorman58 mins ago
Fox News Flash top headlines for October 13 Video
The Justice Department reportedly concluded its investigation into unmasking requests made by Obama-era officials without charging anyone involved or releasing a public report on the issue.

Sources told The Washington Postthat the investigation, previously led by former U.S. Attorney John Bash, concluded without finding any wrongdoing. While "unmasking" names on classified documents is a common practice, DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec, who revealed the investigation in May, said that month that the frequency of or motive behind Obama-era officials' requests might have been "problematic."

"Unmasking inherently isn't wrong, but certainly, the frequency, the motivation and the reasoning behind unmasking can be problematic, and when you're looking at unmasking as part of a broader investigation -- like [U.S. Attorney] John Durham's investigation -- looking specifically at who was unmasking whom, can add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big-picture events," she said.

The roster featured top-ranking figures including then-Vice President Joe Biden, then-FBI Director James Comey, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Obama’s then-chief of staff, Denis McDonough.

REPLACEMENT FOR US ATTORNEY REVIEWING 'UNMASKING' TO ASSUME INVESTIGATIONS: SOURCES

Tuesday's news came after Bash resigned at the beginning of October, leading to Acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas Gregg Sofer taking his place.

Unmasking occurs after U.S. citizens' conversations are incidentally picked up in conversations with foreign officials who are being monitored by the intelligence community. The U.S. citizens' identities are supposed to be protected if their participation is incidental and no wrongdoing is suspected.

Officials, however, can determine the U.S. citizens' names through a process that is supposed to safeguard their rights. In the typical process, when officials are requesting the unmasking of an American, they do not necessarily know the identity of the person in advance.

The unmasking probe was just one aspect of the Trump administration's attempts, in conjunction with congressional Republicans, to investigate his predecessor's actions. That issue gained traction in recent weeks as Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe disclosed that the Obama administration reviewed Russian intelligence on former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton allegedly attempting to manufacture a controversy surrounding Trump and Russia.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Last week, Trump tweeted that he "fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!"

While it's unclear how the investigation will proceed, DOJ attorneys reportedly argued in court Tuesday that Trump's tweets didn't constitute official orders to declassify the documents.

Fox News' Brooke Singman and Jake Gibson contributed to this report.
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
40,679
Reaction score
4,246
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
Charlie can go screw.



Massachusetts' Charlie Baker brings back retired judges to fire up what critics call 'eviction machine'​

'The wheels of the eviction machine are spinning,' activist said​

Audrey Conklin32 mins ago
President Trump takes action to halt evictions for renters who received stimulus check    Video
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker is rehiring 15 retired judges to fire up what critics call the "eviction machine," according to reports.

The retired judges are being brought back to court as the state faces a backlog of cases regarding its sweeping eviction ban that passed in April as part of the governor's coronavirus emergency declaration. The ban, set to end on Saturday, halted all eviction and foreclosure court proceedings amid the pandemic.

"The wheels of the eviction machine are spinning and the programs and processes that were supposed to make it fairer for tenants are not in place," Lewis Finfer, co-director of the Massachusetts Communities Action Network, told the Boston Herald.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Boston.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Boston. (Mass.gov)
The governor's eviction ban stopped 40,000 active eviction cases from proceeding in court, according to the Herald.

MAN ARRESTED FOR ENTERING MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR'S HOME, LEAVING NOTE

Baker, a Republican, on Tuesday announced a $171 million initiative to "promote household stability, and provide more support for tenants and small landlords" in a statement.

WARREN VOWS BIDEN WILL 'HOLD TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE' FOR PANDEMIC

The initiative will put $100 million toward a relief program for renters and landlords; $48.7 million toward rehousing programs; $12.3 million toward legal representation for landlords and renters in need; $6.5 million for those facing housing emergencies; and $3.8 million toward case management support.

In this Monday, Sept. 16, 2019 file photo Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker speaks with reporters at the Statehouse, in Boston. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)

In this Monday, Sept. 16, 2019 file photo Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker speaks with reporters at the Statehouse, in Boston. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)
The initiative also includes funding for the judges, but an exact figure is unknown; District Court judges make upward of $185,000 per year, the Herald reported.

A spokeswoman for the Office of the Trial Court told the outlet that the judges are being rehired for a maximum of 24 weeks "primarily to address the critical backlog of eviction cases throughout the commonwealth ... until the Trial Court is up to date on eviction cases."

Baker pushed the initial end date for the eviction moratorium back to Aug. 18, but is unlikely to do so again.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
 

Coltsfan2theend

Semi Pro Sharp Shooter in Training
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
9,034
Reaction score
1,527
Points
113
Have a friend a Facebook who likes to make political opinions then when her friends try to post things that say her opinions are potentially not truthfully founded, she deletes them. Example, yesterday she posted a list of why she is offended by President trump. Now a few on her list were true, a few potentially not (she said he sexually assaulted/raped woman then made them sign NDA’s, I would’ve countered with it wasn’t that but a potentially an affair or one night stand that was consensual but not illegal). Instead I basically said “I would post something but you would delete it anyway......” with some other stuff. She then admitted she doesn’t want any opposition posts. I wanted to say that she shouldn’t post then but I want nice. She deleted my comment within an hour.

another friend posted that she agreed with something I said but wasn’t voting for trump because he called soldiers and veterans suckers and losers. I did link to a story about John Bolton saying he was there when it supposedly happened and he didn’t hear it, then said I don’t know if it did or not but if he says it didn’t, I’m more apt to believe that over an anonymous source.
She then said she doesn’t like opposing posts because it makes her look like an idiot. Guess what, deleting posts make you look like an idiot.

Bottom line, unless you choose your audience (by either picking and choosing friends or limiting who sees your posts), chances are not everyone will agree with you. Opposing views will happen. I have extreme left and right friends, some are idiots but most will at least allow discussion.
 

Joolz

__________________
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
14,412
Reaction score
14,145
Points
113
Location
Here
Facebook is the devil.

That is all.
 

tehmackdaddy

post tenebras lux
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
19,135
Reaction score
1,886
Points
113
Location
IN the world, but not OF the world
Have a friend a Facebook who likes to make political opinions then when her friends try to post things that say her opinions are potentially not truthfully founded, she deletes them. Example, yesterday she posted a list of why she is offended by President trump. Now a few on her list were true, a few potentially not (she said he sexually assaulted/raped woman then made them sign NDA’s, I would’ve countered with it wasn’t that but a potentially an affair or one night stand that was consensual but not illegal). Instead I basically said “I would post something but you would delete it anyway......” with some other stuff. She then admitted she doesn’t want any opposition posts. I wanted to say that she shouldn’t post then but I want nice. She deleted my comment within an hour.

another friend posted that she agreed with something I said but wasn’t voting for trump because he called soldiers and veterans suckers and losers. I did link to a story about John Bolton saying he was there when it supposedly happened and he didn’t hear it, then said I don’t know if it did or not but if he says it didn’t, I’m more apt to believe that over an anonymous source.
She then said she doesn’t like opposing posts because it makes her look like an idiot. Guess what, deleting posts make you look like an idiot.

Bottom line, unless you choose your audience (by either picking and choosing friends or limiting who sees your posts), chances are not everyone will agree with you. Opposing views will happen. I have extreme left and right friends, some are idiots but most will at least allow discussion.
It is their religion. Only blind faith matters, not objective truth.
 

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
25,185
Reaction score
3,248
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
I am not an R, but i have NEVER personally experienced someone who was shutting down opposing ideas like that who was right of center. I knew before I even saw it that the people coltsfan was speaking of were radical(i.e. bot-like) left wingers. it's one reason i don't go to facebook/twitter. i experienced that a bunch, and saw it happen to people i care about. hell the platforms themselves are radically left and they censor a lot that isn't themselves.

in fairness, there are many kind, goodhearted people on the regular, normal left. they are actually never preachy and never do things like shut others down that way. they practice their beliefs. you can discuss ideas with them
they live and let live. i respect that.

But EVERY truly intolerant person i have dealt with was a radical leftist. period. Radicalism is the problem.

I was actually thinking about why people eould be so slavishly devoted to government rule, and that the origin of beliefs is more important than if they are true or not. i feel like some of it is intellectal laziness, and some is fear. i don't think it's an accident that the radical left despises religion. it's the same paradigm, when it is extreme. not sure why it is just christianity they loathe but ...
The other thing i roll my eyes at that has solely been experienced by me via leftists is the "sure they think this NOW but it's not for the 'right' reasons" situation. in other words, a right winger opposes gay marriage. their child comes out as gay. they change their mind. i have heard several leftists decry this as bs done only because it affects them, they change their mind. it's not real. to which i say, so the fvck what??? learning from our personal experience isn't valid??? that's utterly nonsensical!
so what IS the right reason? because you were born thinking that and never changed your mind? it suggests that using any form of thought, experience, example, personal compassion, etc. are not good reasons to change your mind. does it matter WHY someone thinks something as long as the manifestation of it is good?
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
8,803
Reaction score
1,203
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
Wait, the ONLY intolerant people are on the left?
There are R’s here that are just as intolerant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The Rs here don't issue death threats or wish brutal deaths on children and grandchildren of people they disagree. With.
 

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
25,185
Reaction score
3,248
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
Wait, the ONLY intolerant people are on the left?
There are R’s here that are just as intolerant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I said the only ones i have dealt with...not the only ones period.
yes there are right wingers here who sling insults, but usually they are responses to nasty comments.
trump i don't consider a right winger. but he does this , both provoked and not directly provoked.
 

AkPatsFan

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
706
Points
113
Location
Eagle River, Ak
I said the only ones i have dealt with...not the only ones period.
yes there are right wingers here who sling insults, but usually they are responses to nasty comments.
trump i don't consider a right winger. but he does this , both provoked and not directly provoked.

Exactly right but some people don’t pay any attention to that sort of thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

patsload

Unregistered User
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
13,224
Reaction score
942
Points
113
Location
NH
The Rs here don't issue death threats or wish brutal deaths on children and grandchildren of people they disagree. With.

Cool can you link me to the "These f king repugnants" thread in this forum? Thanks in advance.
 
Top