Because Democrat Voter Fraud

[Josh]

On 3/9/2024 at 6:36 PM, lucklucky said:

Democracy Fraud is now legal per Democratic Party

 

 

 

Is not the census and the appropriation by all people in it not how representation in the House is defined in the constitution? I don’t see how such a law would be constitutional.

[lucklucky]

Good question. I don't know, maybe one of our American members can answer.

[Tim Sielbeck]

My understanding is that it is supposed to be an enumeration of the citizens in each district.  That, however, is not how it is seen by those in charge.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

My understanding is that it is supposed to be an enumeration of the citizens in each district.  That, however, is not how it is seen by those in charge.

My understanding is that it is not in fact limited to citizens and that representation is still appropriated by population total, not the population of citizens. During the Trump era there was an attempt to to make "am I a citizen" part of the census return explicitly to make non citizens ignore the process since it might out their location and status. This was an attempt to circumvent the fact that the constitution explicitly states the census and representation is an exercise in total population, not voting population. I suspect this was written this way with some expectation that perhaps freed slaves or other related populations would allow for some states to be undercounted, in the same way the the 3/5 clause was a compromise. Or if we widen the compromise definition, the fact that small population states have as much say in the senate as large population states.

Edited April 3, 2024 by Josh

[rmgill]

15 hours ago, Josh said:

Is not the census and the appropriation by all people in it not how representation in the House is defined in the constitution? I don’t see how such a law would be constitutional.

Article I Section II - US Constitution. 

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. 

[Josh]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Article I Section II - US Constitution. 

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. 

So everyone who is a “free person”, not an Indian or a slave, is counted. It is kind of hard to invoke citizenship to that argument, unless you stretch the meaning of “free person “ to mean something other than not a black slave.

[rmgill]

Indians not taxed weren't citizens. They were members of another nation. Which is why we had treaties with them and had wars with them. 

In the case of illegals, they are beholden to another state and are also not citizens. 

 

[Josh]

34 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Indians not taxed weren't citizens. They were members of another nation. Which is why we had treaties with them and had wars with them. 

In the case of illegals, they are beholden to another state and are also not citizens. 

 

The constitution article regarding the census never mentions the word "citizen". And it is quite explicit in other paragraphs about that issue (specifically the presidency for one, though I suspect there are other mentions), and more over it goes out of its way to make the point that "free people" and "indians" (and slaves, though it does not use that word) should be counted differently while not making any distinction over what "free" means. I think given the fact that slavery was a thing explicitly written into the constitution, it is hard to argue that "free" excluded anyone but slaves and indians, since there were explicit definitions of both of those.

We could get into an argument over the intentions of the founders - the concept of an flood of immigrants displacing them and taking benefits that didn't exist at the time probably is a vexing historical question. But if we are going to reinterpret that language, then that pretty much explodes the literal/foundational interpretations that are the underpinning of a lot of other GOP political positions. I doubt anyone wants the second amendment reinterpreted for modern context. The constitution as written does not differentiate between "citizens" and any other residents who are "free" or not "indians". If you want to interpret that differently, fine, but in that case I think a lot of modern interpretations could be made as well.

You have to take the good with the bad, not select the parts you like.

Edited April 4, 2024 by Josh

[rmgill]

7 hours ago, Josh said:

The constitution article regarding the census never mentions the word "citizen". And it is quite explicit in other paragraphs about that issue (specifically the presidency for one, though I suspect there are other mentions), and more over it goes out of its way to make the point that "free people" and "indians" (and slaves, though it does not use that word) should be counted differently while not making any distinction over what "free" means.

This is why you have to understand the language of the time and not do any of that living document bullshit. 

7 hours ago, Josh said:

I think given the fact that slavery was a thing explicitly written into the constitution, it is hard to argue that "free" excluded anyone but slaves and indians, since there were explicit definitions of both of those.

Which is where you have the three fifths statement. Read it again and you may understand. 

7 hours ago, Josh said:

We could get into an argument over the intentions of the founders - the concept of an flood of immigrants displacing them and taking benefits that didn't exist at the time probably is a vexing historical question.

It's a question of how to pay for it. If you're going to have a social safety net for citizens then you have to delineate between them and folks who aren't and who don't pay the requisite taxes. 
 

7 hours ago, Josh said:

But if we are going to reinterpret that language, then that pretty much explodes the literal/foundational interpretations that are the underpinning of a lot of other GOP political positions.

No, you don't get to redefine it. That's why we have rule of law and not rule of man. This whole idea that you can redefine text is absurd. You can't redefine a 35mph speed limit as a 55mph speed limit for special people and 25mph for anyone else. That's just absurd, but that's what you and others that argue for re-interpretation are really arguing for. 

Stop it. You want to change the text, your remedy is article V. Not fiat and rule of man which, again is why our founding fathers revolted from the Crown of George III. They did that shit all the time and it was wrong. 

7 hours ago, Josh said:

I doubt anyone wants the second amendment reinterpreted for modern context.

How would you reinterpret it for a modern context? The Constitution guarantees the right of the state to arm  its agents? Thats an odd way to reinterpret something written as a right of the people. Are only agents of the state people everyone else is second class? When ever you and other lefties make that reinterpretation of militia to mean federalized regular army/national guard, that's what you're doing. 
 

7 hours ago, Josh said:

The constitution as written does not differentiate between "citizens" and any other residents who are "free" or not "indians". If you want to interpret that differently, fine, but in that case I think a lot of modern interpretations could be made as well.

No you go with the meaning of the words at the time. And you look at parallel documents. 

There are other sections that DO address citizenship. 

7 hours ago, Josh said:

You have to take the good with the bad, not select the parts you like.

Funny, the left has been trying to ignore Bruin and it's implications for more than 100 years. 

[Murph]

They need them for the census, and to allow them to vote so that Democrats win.

[Skywalkre]

On 3/26/2024 at 6:58 PM, Harold Jones said:

They got to Kari Lake. Washington Post

After months of doubling down and defending their lies across Arizona, in the media, and on social media, when push came to shove, the Defendants decided to completely back down and concede that their lies were just that: lies,”

This appears to highlight that Lake has more political smarts than Trump (or is at least listening to advisors, unlike Trump).  A few weeks ago there were some local stories how Lake was suddenly dodging/ignoring questions on her views around the elections of '20 and '22.  Her views haven't changed, because she occasionally does still comment (and even mentioned she stands by what she said in this defamation suit) but she seems set on getting these stories out of the news cycle as fast as possible.

That's a smart political move... but will it be enough?  To outsiders AZ looks like a purple state shifting blue... but in reality the problem has been we've had nothing but brain-dead, inbred R candidates since McCain passed away.  Lake has made a lot of stupid comments openly mocking the McCain/non-MAGA elements of the local R party... so I'll be curious to see how many of them forget and forgive.  (My hunch... not many.)  D candidates in recent years have simply appeared more moderate and level-headed and that's why they've been winning (our last gubernatorial race was a lot like this year's POTUS race in that a lot of folks were voting against Lake instead of actually voting for Hobbs).

[Skywalkre]

On 4/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Murph said:

This:

 

 

That... was nothing.

For context that is an excerpt from a disciplinary hearing that could lead to disbarment (amongst many things) for former DOJ attorney Jeff Clark.  These hearings went on for days... and here we're seeing just a small excerpt that honestly says nothing.  The chain of custody proof existed, it just didn't get to them initially.  His bit about zero signature verification was likely him misunderstanding whoever was talking to him and said person mentioning a new system they were hoping to use that year simply not working and that it wouldn't be used.  If you look into that elsewhere they simply verified the signatures the way they always did - by hand.

The initial results of that hearing came out a few days ago... and Clark was found at fault.  I remember seeing something to the effect of there was zero reason for him to believe what he did about the election.  Likely there was cross-examination or other witnesses that was left out so this bullshit, inbred narrative of a stolen election could still be pushed all these years later.

Seriously, Murph... you need to stop.  You're just embarrassing yourself even more by continually posting this nonsense.

[Murph]

Deny all you want, it bothers me not.

[Murph]

And it starts coming out even more.  Sorry Skywalkre it looks like you lose.

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/huge-georgia-state-election-board-now-admits-violations/

 

 

[Josh]

The gateway pundit is basically Pravda for the Trump faithful. I’ll admit mainstream media is biased an inaccurate, but far right wing media would make Putin proud (and frequently does).

[Murph]

Just because you do not like that they tell the truth, does not mean it is not valid.   Go back to watching CNN/PMSDNC/ABC.CBS.NBC.PBS for your daily dose of propaganda.

This should be treason.

 

 

[Ivanhoe]

1 hour ago, Murph said:

Just because you do not like that they tell the truth, does not mean it is not valid.   Go back to watching CNN/PMSDNC/ABC.CBS.NBC.PBS for your daily dose of propaganda.

This should be treason.

 

 

I've been looking for the original scan, thanks!

[Murph]

Well, well, well, I guess nothing here as well?

 

 

[Murph]

Charges dropped since it would have helped Trump, you can't make this stuff up:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/prosecutor-says-charges-dropped-against-election-software-company-for-political-reasons-5633022?utm_source=copyreflink&utm_campaign=t911&src_src=copyreflink&src_cmp=t911

 

 

[Murph]

Oh my, more proof, not that it will convince our resident deniers.

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/georgias-gabe-sterling-goes-silent-is-hiding-since/

[Murph]

The truth eventually comes out, often too late to do any good.

 

 

[Murph]

https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/08/democrats-media-allies-pressure-georgia-election-officials-to-blindly-certify-elections/

[Murph]

Fired and caught:  But she will never be punished since she gave Biden the election. 

 

 

[Skywalkre]

On 4/13/2024 at 9:56 AM, Murph said:

Sorry Skywalkre it looks like you lose.

If the contest is posting the most inane, ridiculous BS... then you are clearing winning and I'll gladly take the L.

[Skywalkre]

On 4/19/2024 at 2:27 PM, Murph said:

Well, well, well, I guess nothing here as well?

 

 

The only thing here is a strawman you and others have been pushing for a while.  From the very beginning, before the '20 election, no one was saying fraud didn't happen.  What the experts were saying was that it was historically at such low levels that it had never influenced a major election.  2020 was no different.  Keep posting all the small scale examples you want... we already knew they were going on and none of them support the notion that '20 was stolen.