BREAKING NEWS - Trump sending troops to the Southern border

[Laxdad24]

Hey, here's something worth noting...

According to a DHS report...a bunch of city/state governments ignored a federal “detainer” request and released 142 suspected members of MS-13 and other criminal gangs from late 2016 all the way through mid-2017. Lovely.

Santa Clara County, CA released 22 of 127 suspect gang members after the DHS asked they be held. Los Angeles released 16 suspected gangsters, Orange County released 12 and Travis County, TX released 11. Montgomery County, MD led the MS-13 score by releasing five of 15 suspected MS-13 members who were released nationwide from October 2016 to June 2017.

California jurisdictions released 90 of the 142 suspects. Next in line was Washington State, which aided 11 migrants, including 3 MS-13 members.


Joy Reid: “...he makes it sound like the biggest issue in the United States, the biggest threat is MS-13, a gang nobody that doesn't watch Fox News has ever heard of. So he makes it sound like they're the biggest threat. Trump simply mentioned the deadly gang to accommodate the audience he wants applause from.”

Kamala Harris: "California represents the future, and if Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions don’t like it, they are in for a fight."

Wow. For Reid to say MS-13 is “no big deal” shows her ignorance. They are one of the most dangerous Gangs in North America. They make the Bloods and Crips look like Boy Scouts. I know a few Hells Angles and they don’t wanna mess with MS-13. The left coast needs to secede from the country now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ravenmaniac4life]

Wow. For Reid to say MS-13 is “no big deal” shows her ignorance. They are one of the most dangerous Gangs in North America. They make the Bloods and Crips look like Boy Scouts. I know a few Hells Angles and they don’t wanna mess with MS-13. The left coast needs to secede from the country now.

according to the Left, by you saying this, you are doing Putin's bidding by pushing state-run propaganda

[Laxdad24]

according to the Left, by you saying this, you are doing Putin's bidding by pushing state-run propaganda

Yeah well that just shows how out of touch they ( left) really is. Not to sound like Filth but I’d recommend any Libtard politician leave their armed security home and stroll down the street where these parasites run the show. I doubt it ends well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BPF2]

Three states -- Oregon, Washington and Colorado -- conduct all elections by mail. A ballot is automatically mailed to every registered voter in advance of Election Day, and traditional in-person voting precincts are not available.

Can't any registered voter get an absentee ballot?

[ravenmaniac4life]

Can't any registered voter get an absentee ballot?

Yep.

Early Voting: In 37 states (including 3 that mail ballots to all voters) and the District of Columbia, any qualified voter may cast a ballot in person during a designated period prior to Election Day.

Absentee Voting: All states will mail an absentee ballot to certain voters who request one.


The argument is over where people go to vote on election day. The Left argues that "voter suppression" is caused by wanting Voter ID laws in all 50 states...or...poor people can't get to polling stations to vote on election day Personal accountability has to factor into this at some point, right?

IMO, if you live 3 hours from the nearest polling center and you are too poor...then send in your absentee ballot. If you forget to do that or don't do it out of sheer laziness, too bad.

[Laxdad24]

Yep.

Early Voting: In 37 states (including 3 that mail ballots to all voters) and the District of Columbia, any qualified voter may cast a ballot in person during a designated period prior to Election Day.

Absentee Voting: All states will mail an absentee ballot to certain voters who request one.


The argument is over where people go to vote on election day. The Left argues that "voter suppression" is caused by wanting Voter ID laws in all 50 states...or...poor people can't get to polling stations to vote on election day Personal accountability has to factor into this at some point, right?

IMO, if you live 3 hours from the nearest polling center and you are too poor...then send in your absentee ballot. If you forget to do that or don't do it out of sheer laziness, too bad.

Ultimately it’s a moot point anyway. As long as we allow the Electoral College to choose the Pres it doesn’t make a difference who or how many actual people vote.

Mail in voting with /or to proper ID’d citizens would be the easiest way. I doubt if anyone presented with this option would cry foul or say they were excluded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BPF2]

Ultimately it’s a moot point anyway. As long as we allow the Electoral College to choose the Pres it doesn’t make a difference who or how many actual people vote.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is precisely the wrong way of looking at the electoral college. Hillary's popular vote victory was roughly 2.9 Million votes. Her win in CA alone was 4.2 million. NY was 1.7 million. Illinois was 0.9. Those margins are entirely made up of the large metropolitan areas. Winning NYC, Chicago, LA, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Silicon Valley gave her all the electoral votes of those states. Those states already carry large sway in the electoral system with 55, 29, and 20 electoral votes. They always vote for the Democrat, so that party is already staked to a 104 vote lead, nearly 40% of what is needed to win!

So you are comfortable with NY, Chicago, and CA choosing each election for us? How does that give a voice to anyone else? Look at the situation CA and IL are in with this kind of single party lock on control. Look at MD where the Baltimore-DC corridor chooses how things will be.

Check out the election map below. You can click on the states and see how each candidate did by county. Look at the states Hillary won and how concentrated her win was on the urban areas. It's shocking.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

[Laxdad24]

That is precisely the wrong way of looking at the electoral college. Hillary's popular vote victory was roughly 2.9 Million votes. Her win in CA alone was 4.2 million. NY was 1.7 million. Illinois was 0.9. Those margins are entirely made up of the large metropolitan areas. Winning NYC, Chicago, LA, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Silicon Valley gave her all the electoral votes of those states. Those states already carry large sway in the electoral system with 55, 29, and 20 electoral votes. They always vote for the Democrat, so that party is already staked to a 104 vote lead, nearly 40% of what is needed to win!

So you are comfortable with NY, Chicago, and CA choosing each election for us? How does that give a voice to anyone else? Look at the situation CA and IL are in with this kind of single party lock on control. Look at MD where the Baltimore-DC corridor chooses how things will be.

Check out the election map below. You can click on the states and see how each candidate did by county. Look at the states Hillary won and how concentrated her win was on the urban areas. It's shocking.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

While I know the vote would be swayed by large populations/major cities ...that still doesn’t justify the Electoral College. How do we know those Electors vote for said candidate? The 40% or 104 votes only applies to the College. Popular vote is 50.5% or higher. Simple math. The people speak. Don’t confuse my dislike of the EC as a shot at Trump. .....The EC also elected GW. The question I still ask is ..why do the “people “ vote for every other position ? California did vote for Reagan and HW Bush. As well as Arnold for Gov. They did start Voting Dem with WJC but so did a lot of states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blah3]

While I know the vote would be swayed by large populations/major cities ...that still doesn’t justify the Electoral College. How do we know those Electors vote for said candidate? The 40% or 104 votes only applies to the College. Popular vote is 50.5% or higher. Simple math. The people speak. Don’t confuse my dislike of the EC as a shot at Trump. .....The EC also elected GW. The question I still ask is ..why do the “people “ vote for every other position ? California did vote for Reagan and HW Bush. As well as Arnold for Gov. They did start Voting Dem with WJC but so did a lot of states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure you know the answer to why the electoral college format was chosen (hint it's related to states having 2 Senators each regardless of population). You just seem not to like the answer.

[ravenmaniac4life]

I'm sure you know the answer to why the electoral college format was chosen (hint it's related to states having 2 Senators each regardless of population). You just seem not to like the answer.

As our framers called, allowing a true democracy in the US (i.e. popular vote) would be the "tyranny of the majority". One side, winner take all, and the little guy gets screwed in the end.

The EC doesn't protect the rights of a minority political party in any one state. It protects the populace, to a degree, from the tyranny of the population centers on a national level. It gives states like Montana, Alaska, Vermont, etc a voice at the table based on their population.

If we went to a straight majority wins popular vote, every election going forward would be decided by the top five cities in the country. It would take what we see on the state level and magnify it nationally. Now we have not had a real EC issue in quite sometime (pre-GWB) so that tells me the process, even with its flaws, works. The popular vote does tend to match the EC vote in the past. 2000 and 2016 were flukes when you consider the history of our country. but had we gone with a straight popular vote, Gore wold have been President and HRC would be President. At least with the EC, it force candidates to earn their numbers by going to each state and appealing to voters of each state, preventing this one size fits all candidate (in theory anyway).

There have been over 60 presidential elections in the 240+ years of our republic and only 2 times did the popular vote not align with the EC winner. To suddenly change the entire electoral system because of those 2 fluke occurances would be the equivalent to Dan Duquette building the entire Orioles franchise's future around Chris Davis because he got 2 hits after his first 60 at-bats of the season.

This is a hard read but explains more, in detail, the danger of democracy and why our founders fought so hard against it:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/detoc/1_ch15.htm

[Laxdad24]

I'm sure you know the answer to why the electoral college format was chosen (hint it's related to states having 2 Senators each regardless of population). You just seem not to like the answer.

Oh I know why we have and will continue to have the Electoral....doesn’t mean I like it or agree. Remember..the Constitution was written along time ago. Back then and even into recent history there really were some ..”small” states. I do see a pure population vote as a problem. We’d have 20+ goodballs running for President. Someone would “win” with a 20% majority. So I get it...just don’t like it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk