2020 Presidential Race

#92,427
#92,427
Question for those supporting the Texas SCOTUS lawsuit:

Do you believe the long-held Republican belief that states, not the federal government, should have broad jurisdiction over how they conduct their own affairs?

If yes and if you also support the Texas lawsuit, you are what's called a "hypocrite".

Per John Cornyn (the senior Republican Senator from Texas):

"I read just the summary of it, and I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it. Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say so on how other states administer their elections? We have a diffused and dispersed system and even though we might not like it, they may think it's unfair ... those are decided at the state and local level and not at the national level. So it's an interesting theory, but I'm not convinced."
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarcoVol and titansvolsfaninga
#92,429
#92,429
MontyPython said:
Question for those supporting the Texas lawsuit:

Do you believe the long-held Republican belief that states, not the federal government, should have broad jurisdiction over how they conduct their own affairs?

If yes and if you also support the Texas lawsuit, you are what's called a "hypocrite".
Click to expand...

Yes I support the TX lawsuit and yes I support the states having broad jurisdiction over how they conduct their own affairs. States have to follow their own rules that they set, a judge, governor or unelected bureaucrat cannot change the laws set by a states legislature on a whim and that's what appears to have happened in several states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rocytop2624, NorthDallas40, allvol123 and 2 others
#92,430
#92,430
MontyPython said:
Question for those supporting the Texas SCOTUS lawsuit:

Do you believe the long-held Republican belief that states, not the federal government, should have broad jurisdiction over how they conduct their own affairs?

If yes and if you also support the Texas lawsuit, you are what's called a "hypocrite".

Per John Cornyn (the senior Republican Senator from Texas):

"I read just the summary of it, and I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it. Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say so on how other states administer their elections? We have a diffused and dispersed system and even though we might not like it, they may think it's unfair ... those are decided at the state and local level and not at the national level. So it's an interesting theory, but I'm not convinced."
Click to expand...

Federal Election
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#92,431
#92,431
hog88 said:
Yes I support the TX lawsuit and yes I support the states having broad jurisdiction over how they conduct their own affairs. States have to follow their own rules that they set, a judge, governor or unelected bureaucrat cannot change the laws set by a states legislature on a whim and that's what appears to have happened in several states.
Click to expand...

Curious. Questions:

(1) Were the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia the only ones that "changed the laws set by states legislature on a whim", or did other states also change? (no);
(2) How did the state courts of each of these respective states already rule on objections to such changes? (ruled against Trump); and
(3) If there were actual, legitimate legal rationale that such procedures were "illegal", why did each of these 4 states already certify their election results? (because the election process and results were fair)
 
Last edited:
#92,433
#92,433
MontyPython said:
Curious. Question: Were the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia the only ones that "changed the laws set by states legislature on a whim", or did other states also change?
Click to expand...

I don't know if any of them did but if they did I have zero problem with TX filing suit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#92,434
#92,434
MontyPython said:
Who said I advocated this? It's simply fact. It is what it is.

Per Quora:

In the 1990’s Nike paid their workers 20 cents an hour according to Snopes.com. The wage has gone up since. I have researched and found one article stating 50 cents and hour with a mandatory 1 dollar an hour if they work over time. Most of the workers are women and usually work no less than 48 hours weekly and generally work more than that.

The fringe benefits of the workers include beatings, human trafficking, and humiliation according to one page. How much of this is true I couldn’t say. What I can say that the average cost for a pair of Nike sneakers in Indonesia is 3 dollars a pair before exporting them. The bottom line on price per pair from factory to the store is a tad over $28.00 for a retail price of $100 and thousands upon thousand of Nike sneakers are made weekly. As you can see that is quite a bit of profit for the shareholders and owners. And at what cost to the people who make them filthy rich? Nike has been sited for this. What the outcome was I don’t know
Click to expand...

My point is that liberals here support so many questionable things - and fortunately have been checked on many. However, when you start talking guaranteed income, minimum wage, environmental protections, unreasonable corporate taxes and so on that cripple and threaten to further cripple our own economy, but turn a blind eye to what happens in Asian sweatshops, how do you expect anyone to take your politics seriously? You can't do free trade in a world where you dictate stringent rules of "ethics" and export manufacturing to countries that don't live by the same restrictive codes. When are you and your buddies in politics ever going to understand that you are actually the enemy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom
#92,437
#92,437
AM64 said:
My point is that liberals here support so many questionable things - and fortunately have been checked on many. However, when you start talking guaranteed income, minimum wage, environmental protections, unreasonable corporate taxes and so on that cripple and threaten to further cripple our own economy, but turn a blind eye to what happens in Asian sweatshops, how do you expect anyone to take your politics seriously? You can't do free trade in a world where you dictate stringent rules of "ethics" and export manufacturing to countries that don't live by the same restrictive codes. When are you and your buddies in politics ever going to understand that you are actually the enemy?
Click to expand...

Heh. Don't lecture me on trade. I'm a big believer in free trade, but I also believe in environmental protections, a decent minimum wage ($7.50/hr is sh*t), and reasonable corporate taxes.

We Americans are leaders, not followers. So, yeah, we can dictate to the world - through our purchases - what we believe is "fair and right".
 
#92,439
#92,439
MontyPython said:
Heh. Don't lecture me on trade. I'm a big believer in free trade, but I also believe in environmental protections, a decent minimum wage ($7.50/hr is sh*t), and reasonable corporate taxes.

We Americans are leaders, not followers. So, yeah, we can dictate to the world - through our purchases - what we believe is "fair and right".
Click to expand...

You sound like Trump
 
  • Like
Reactions: rocytop2624 and AM64
#92,440
#92,440
MontyPython said:
Heh. Don't lecture me on trade. I'm a big believer in free trade, but I also believe in environmental protections, a decent minimum wage ($7.50/hr is sh*t), and reasonable corporate taxes.

We Americans are leaders, not followers. So, yeah, we can dictate to the world - through our purchases - what we believe is "fair and right".
Click to expand...

Can't last long when you don't keep your employees employed.
 
#92,441
#92,441
MontyPython said:
Heh. Don't lecture me on trade. I'm a big believer in free trade, but I also believe in environmental protections, a decent minimum wage ($7.50/hr is sh*t), and reasonable corporate taxes.

We Americans are leaders, not followers. So, yeah, we can dictate to the world - through our purchases - what we believe is "fair and right".
Click to expand...

There should not be a federal minimum wage, there is no reason for it with the extreme differences in COL around the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and AM64
#92,448
#92,448
MontyPython said:
Who said I advocated this? It's simply fact. It is what it is.

Per Quora:

In the 1990’s Nike paid their workers 20 cents an hour according to Snopes.com. The wage has gone up since. I have researched and found one article stating 50 cents and hour with a mandatory 1 dollar an hour if they work over time. Most of the workers are women and usually work no less than 48 hours weekly and generally work more than that.

The fringe benefits of the workers include beatings, human trafficking, and humiliation according to one page. How much of this is true I couldn’t say. What I can say that the average cost for a pair of Nike sneakers in Indonesia is 3 dollars a pair before exporting them. The bottom line on price per pair from factory to the store is a tad over $28.00 for a retail price of $100 and thousands upon thousand of Nike sneakers are made weekly. As you can see that is quite a bit of profit for the shareholders and owners. And at what cost to the people who make them filthy rich? Nike has been sited for this. What the outcome was I don’t know
Click to expand...
Maybe Nike moved to a new "site." It would be quite a sight if they did.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#92,449
#92,449
Y9 Vol said:
Federal Election
Click to expand...
administered by the states....the states dictate how they administer the elections. not the federal government. This is spelled out in the constitution. So are we now retroactively going to change this. Should we now go to a national election and use popular vote to determine the winner? If so, we can do away with the electoral college. You can not have it both ways.

1607634471453.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#92,450
#92,450
BowlBrother85 said:
Damn, you guys are delusional.
Click to expand...

We learned how from the best. It's beginning to look like just maybe the GOP learned something about fighting back from your side, too. It's pretty much like mutually assured destruction ... or be careful what you start - you know like the nuclear option in passing legislation when you aren't assured of always being in control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FallBranchChick and NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top