Bruddah IZ
DA
Blacks are figuring you people out.
Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
Nope, nothing creepy about a, shall we say, very single and very right-wing congressman (that already tells you something about closets, doesn’t it?), who lives with a 19-year-old man, who has a dad, and refers to the man as his “stepson.”
“Our relationship as a family is defined by our love for each other, not by any paperwork...”
Nope, not creepy at all.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Nah. Not at all. Creepiness will get you the Democrat nomination for POTUS.
QUOTE="messy, post: 338621, member: 3299"
Nope, nothing creepy about a, shall we say, very single and very right-wing
congressman (that already tells you something about closets, doesn’t it?),
who lives with a 19-year-old man, who has a dad, and refers to the man as his “stepson.”
“Our relationship as a family is defined by our love for each other, not by any paperwork...”
Nope, not creepy at all.
View attachment 7971
[/QUOTE]
Whoooaaaa.....Wait a minute there Mr " Messy " Financial who supports the LGBTQ Community and
has posted numerous times in support of their inclusiveness...!
You are now going to imply that " IF " he is gay he cannot adopt a young male and mentor him to be
a successful individual.....!
YOU SIR ARE VERY CREEPY AND A FULL BLOWN FUCKING HYPOCRITE !!
Nope, nothing creepy about a, shall we say, very single and very right-wing
congressman (that already tells you something about closets, doesn’t it?),
who lives with a 19-year-old man, who has a dad, and refers to the man as his “stepson.”
“Our relationship as a family is defined by our love for each other, not by any paperwork...”
Nope, not creepy at all.
View attachment 7971
[/QUOTE]
Whoooaaaa.....Wait a minute there Mr " Messy " Financial who supports the LGBTQ Community and
has posted numerous times in support of their inclusiveness...!
You are now going to imply that " IF " he is gay he cannot adopt a young male and mentor him to be
a successful individual.....!
YOU SIR ARE VERY CREEPY AND A FULL BLOWN FUCKING HYPOCRITE !!
Whoooaaaa.....Wait a minute there Mr " Messy " Financial who supports the LGBTQ Community and
has posted numerous times in support of their inclusiveness...!
You are now going to imply that " IF " he is gay he cannot adopt a young male and mentor him to be
a successful individual.....!
YOU SIR ARE VERY CREEPY AND A FULL BLOWN FUCKING HYPOCRITE !!
[/QUOTE]
Who said anything about adopt? What are you talking about, fool?
Justices rule states can bind presidential electors' votes
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a decision flavored with references to “Hamilton” and “Veep,” the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
entire article:
apnews.com
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a decision flavored with references to “Hamilton” and “Veep,” the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
entire article:
Justices rule states can bind presidential electors' votes
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a decision flavored with references to “Hamilton” and “Veep,” the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
apnews.com
Fascinating stuff, isn’t it?Justices rule states can bind presidential electors' votes
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a decision flavored with references to “Hamilton” and “Veep,” the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
entire article:
Justices rule states can bind presidential electors' votes
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a decision flavored with references to “Hamilton” and “Veep,” the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
Looks like time for a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing some sort of proportional spread of electoral votes.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Is that what it looks like?
Proportional...it be.
"The number of electors each state gets is equal to its total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress.
A total of 538 electors form the Electoral College. ... The candidate who gets 270 votes or more wins."
Nowhere in the Constitution or its amendments is there a requirement that all of a state's electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. The SCOTUS decision allowed any state to make "faithful" voting a requirement, but did not mandate it.
Who said anything about adopt? What are you talking about, fool?
[/QUOTE]
Who said anything about the contrary....Ya " Messy " Fool...!
So?
The Constitution doesn't mention abortion.
So?
When it comes to the Constitution, be careful what you wish for...give to much power to California New York, Texas & Florida and places like Vermont, New Hampshire, Wyoming & Connecticut could very well be disenfranchised...
from CNN:
Most states (except for Maine and Nebraska, which split some of their electoral votes) give all their electoral votes to the person who wins the popular vote in that state. There are very Democratic parts of Texas and very Republican parts of California, for instance. But unless those states move to apportion their electoral votes differently, it is only the state popular vote that really matters.
...A popular vote system certainly would be simpler to understand.
However, as proponents of the Electoral College point out, if you thought that recount in Florida in 2000 was nasty, imagine a nationwide recount of more than 130 million votes. THAT would be messy. And it could happen. Some states have automatic recounts for elections that are separated by less than .1% In 2016, with 136 million voters, that would have been a margin of around 136,000 votes. You can imagine a recount in the razor-thin election of 1960, which featured a less-than .2% difference in vote totals, but a solid Electoral College victory for John F. Kennedy.
I don't know why you went off on a tangent about abortions, but abortions were legal and available almost everywhere in America at the time of the writing of the Constitution - it was not an issue.
I am opposed to eliminating the electoral vote system because it limits the damage that corruption in one state can have on the overall election. A state can invent a million imaginary votes for its favored candidate, but they will not get any added electoral votes because of it. However, I would like to see some proportionality of a state's electoral votes based on the proportion of popular votes in that state.
You just did. I know espy wont explain himself. Messy or one of our historians or teachers on here please educate me on this statement from espy. TY
DEMOCRATS = CRIMINALS
ABORTION IS A WOMAN'S CHOICE.
ABORTION IS KILLING....JUST A PLAIN TRUTH.
Sucker.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/20073698/506A3677.jpg)
Ford employees ask the company to stop making police cars
It’s by far the leading automaker for police vehicles in the US
www.theverge.com
Wtf...smh
It wasn't a tangent Magoo, it was 5 words.
Five words in response to "Nowhere in the Constitution or its amendments is there a requirement that all of a state's electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state."
If you'd simply wrote what you did above regarding opposition to eliminating the electoral college in the first place, you wouldn't be reading this.