Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Amita

Impeachment Amendment

117 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Gromdor
48 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

That's not such a bad idea.  By allowing everyone to vote we now have a situation where people who don't own land can vote themselves benefits to be paid for by people who do.  So many local programs, from schools to infrastructure are financed by property taxes, voted into place by apartment dwellers and paid for by land owners.  They tend to elect presidents and congressmen who will continue to cater to them with other peoples' money.

Problem is, even most homeowners these days have a mortgage and don't even hold the title to their own house- the banks are the true land owners.  Only about 35% of "home owners" own their homes free and clear out of the 65% of Americans that are homeowners.  So basically you are looking at only 20-25% of America eligible to vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
8 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Illegals don't vote at all.  Various states and Trump himself have investigated those claims and have come up with nothing.  It's just a myth to sway the gullible.  There have been a hand full of instances where legal aliens have voted because they were allowed to (which they are not) but the number of illegals voting could probably be counted with your fingers.  It's almost like they avoid registering their name and address on government forms for some reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Advisory_Commission_on_Election_Integrity

"In an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law looked at 42 jurisdictions, focusing on ones with large population of noncitizens. Of 23.5 million votes surveyed, election officials referred an estimated 30 incidents of suspected noncitizen voting for further investigation, or about 0.0001% of votes cast. Douglas Keith, the counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program and co-author of the analysis, said, "President Trump has said repeatedly that millions of people voted illegally in 2016, but our interviews with local election administrators made clear that rampant noncitizen voting simply did not occur. Any claims to the contrary make their job harder and distract from progress toward needed improvements like automatic voter registration."

Oh REALLY ? 

So what do you think of THIS article ? 

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/440136-if-you-dont-think-illegal-immigrants-are-voting-for-president-think-again

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

LOL, did you read it?  Illegals aren't voting in it.  If anything it is saying that the electoral college system is flawed.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
7 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

LOL, did you read it?  Illegals aren't voting in it.  If anything it is saying that the electoral college system is flawed.

It is saying that the census WILL count the illegal immigrants, and grant that state more electoral votes as a consequence of their mass presence.

. THAT is why the Democrats want to prevent the government from putting a "citizenship question" on the census forms. 

They are sacrificing the demographic future of their states for narrow political gain. I think that should be regarded as a form of political corruption, if not actually Treason. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
7 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

It is saying that the census WILL count the illegal immigrants, and grant that state more electoral votes as a consequence of their mass presence.

. THAT is why the Democrats want to prevent the government from putting a "citizenship question" on the census forms. 

They are sacrificing the demographic future of their states for narrow political gain. I think that should be regarded as a form of political corruption, if not actually Treason. 

It is not "more electoral votes" it is more representation.  The electoral votes are a product of the determination of poplation to evenly distribute representation.  You don't even live in the U.S. so why are you acting like you know anything?  I know very little about your politics and I find it strange that all the other UK colony countries pay more attention to our politics than their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 1/23/2020 at 1:26 PM, Big Jim said:

A travesty is not defined by what you or anyone expects to happen.  But it would be fair to say that bias is defined by assuming what isn't known.

Or PROVEN with evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
13 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

It is saying that the census WILL count the illegal immigrants, and grant that state more electoral votes as a consequence of their mass presence.

. THAT is why the Democrats want to prevent the government from putting a "citizenship question" on the census forms. 

They are sacrificing the demographic future of their states for narrow political gain. I think that should be regarded as a form of political corruption, if not actually Treason. 

Which is a completely different matter than your original (and debunked) claim that they vote in elections........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
39 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Actually, my understanding is that Mueller found LOTS of evidence that Trump got help from the Russians. What Mueller did NOT find was any evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians, or requesting the help.

That's a bit of a quibble, I'll admit. 

He got proof that Russians attempted to interfere in the election.  They ALWAYS do that and so do we.  What has been perpetrated against this duly elected president is outrageous and if they keep it up it's going to lead to widespread civil conflict after he gets re-elected.  People are sick to death of these scum and their tactics.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
32 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

We need to go to a biometric ID and when people vote more than once, even if a citizen they need to lose their voting rights forever.  If they are found to be illegals they should be ejected from the country and if caught here again, executed.  Enough is enough.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
13 minutes ago, and then said:

We need to go to a biometric ID and when people vote more than once, even if a citizen they need to lose their voting rights forever.  If they are found to be illegals they should be ejected from the country and if caught here again, executed.  Enough is enough.  

And what will you do with the people who load these people on the bus and pay them 10.00 to go vote how they are told?  That has happened in some very poor areas sometimes with illegals and sometimes without.

Why do you think an illegal alien would want to vote anyway?  That makes no sense unless they are doing for money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

we already have voter fraud protection, it is called electoral college,  it's proven to work just fine. let  them bus grandmas to vote 5 times, let illegals vote, their votes don't count anyway.

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amita
23 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Considering the partisanship makeup of Congress, your rule should be modified to say that no person shall be impeached unless two thirds of both parties are in agreement.  That will be a check on partisanship and should focus on the guilt or innocence and avoid frivolous accusations.

That is what my OP said.  ⅔ of Dems + ⅔ of Rep = ⅔ of the entire House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

Problem is, even most homeowners these days have a mortgage and don't even hold the title to their own house- the banks are the true land owners.  Only about 35% of "home owners" own their homes free and clear out of the 65% of Americans that are homeowners.  So basically you are looking at only 20-25% of America eligible to vote. 

You're confusing ownership and financing.  Most people take out a loan to buy a car, but if something happens to the car they still owe on the loan.  This is why they have insurance to protect themselves.  But in every legal way, they own the car.  If the police find drugs in it they arrest you, not the bank manager.   It's the same with buying a house.  I am a home owner.  I maintain it.  I cut the grass and hire the plumber.  I pay the taxes.  Sure, I have a mortgage.  But the bank doesn't own it, they have a lien on it to protect their interests, but they can't move in with me.  If you rent then the owner (landlord) maintains it, pays the taxes and carries the insurance.  There were banks and mortgages even at the time the Constitution was written, so the distinction between ownership and financing has existed since the beginning.  If the founders meant for voting rights to only go to people who owned their property free and clear I'm sure they would have put it that way.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
19 minutes ago, Amita said:

That is what my OP said.  ⅔ of Dems + ⅔ of Rep = ⅔ of the entire House.

That's not the same.  If the House is already made up of 2/3 of one party or the other, it'll pass by that party alone.  There would be no bipartisanship consensus. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Actually, what they are doing is Voter Fraud suppression, and NOT "voter suppression".  ! 

The Dems are up in arms about it because in areas of high illegal immigration, the illegals tend to vote Democrat (because the Democratic Party tends to favour them over legal citizens). Hence fraud suppression might reduce their voter base. 

We have almost no voter fraud in this country.  There's no point in being against something that barely exists.  I'm opposing voter suppression.  EVERY citizen should be able to vote.

This is supposed to be about security and keeping a lid on terrorism and all that and it may be true.  Voters are collateral damage.  We'd probably have the same mess with a Democratic legislature.  That's just Oklahoma being Oklahoma.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amita
49 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

That's not the same.  If the House is already made up of 2/3 of one party or the other, it'll pass by that party alone.  There would be no bipartisanship consensus. 

Math is the same, which is what I meant.  The idea is to reduce the likelihood of impeachment of any President.  If ⅓ of the House voters, never mind party, do not vote to impeach, then it fails.  Those are better odds than now.  

You are also assuming that partisan voting pattern in the House are fixed for all time.  That there will never be any members who do not follow the party leaders orders - that is not true now and will continue, I believe.

Edited by Amita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

I note that whenever the Electoral College result differs from the election result, it is always the party that lost that wants to change it.  Is that a genuine concern, or just sour grapes?  At any rate, the issue keeps jumping back and forth from one party to the other.

Now that Trump is being seriously challenged, Rubs want to make impeachment tougher.  Are you guys worried?

Even though impeachment was easier back under the Obama administration, Rubs couldn't get it done.  And under the Clinton administration they couldn't get it done.  Seems to me it's challenging enough.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amita
10 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

I note that whenever the Electoral College result differs from the election result, it is always the party that lost that wants to change it.  Is that a genuine concern, or just sour grapes?  At any rate, the issue keeps jumping back and forth from one party to the other.

Now that Trump is being seriously challenged, Rubs want to make impeachment tougher.  Are you guys worried?

Even though impeachment was easier back under the Obama administration, Rubs couldn't get it done.  And under the Clinton administration they couldn't get it done.  Seems to me it's challenging enough.

Doug

Identity politics is a morass and hopefully we will never become purely dominated by one identification.  However, the percentage of those who are now so dominated is slowly or rapidly increasing.  (No, have not stats)  Thus, unless one wants to color elections with successful impeachments of Presidents every four years and possible replacement of elections with convictions of Presidents - then fair minded folks with the nation's interest put first, will support making this amendment come to pass.

The simpler solution of this society becoming less politically charged does exist, logically anyway, but practically speaking...??

Edited by Amita
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
8 hours ago, Big Jim said:

You're confusing ownership and financing.  Most people take out a loan to buy a car, but if something happens to the car they still owe on the loan.  This is why they have insurance to protect themselves.  But in every legal way, they own the car.  If the police find drugs in it they arrest you, not the bank manager.   It's the same with buying a house.  I am a home owner.  I maintain it.  I cut the grass and hire the plumber.  I pay the taxes.  Sure, I have a mortgage.  But the bank doesn't own it, they have a lien on it to protect their interests, but they can't move in with me.  If you rent then the owner (landlord) maintains it, pays the taxes and carries the insurance.  There were banks and mortgages even at the time the Constitution was written, so the distinction between ownership and financing has existed since the beginning.  If the founders meant for voting rights to only go to people who owned their property free and clear I'm sure they would have put it that way.

It's a moot point anyways.  Our current system isn't like that.  There are no guarantees that changing back it back to property owners would make it as you say either.  It could just as easily end up being people who hold the deeds clear and free only voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
9 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Why do you think an illegal alien would want to vote anyway? 

Have you seen the voter results from 2018 along the Texas -Mexico border?  Austin and Dallas, sure but who really believes that the actual border where the ranches are would be Blue?  Of COURSE they're voting.  No party cultivates such a group unless that's their ultimate goal.  If it isn't stopped, this nation is done.  It doesn't take a genius to prognosticate the outcome when a burgeoning welfare state has open borders.  I cite the million or so who flowed in this past year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 minutes ago, and then said:

Austin and Dallas, sure but who really believes that the actual border where the ranches are would be Blue?  Of COURSE they're voting. 

Man so we've slid so far now that election results you dont like are just accepted as proof of cheating?

How about an alternative explanation that fits within what we know as established fact? Ranches along the border are generally quite well off financially. That generally means educated. That generally means more independent and democrat voters come from that demographic. So we're talking about long entrenched old money with multiple generations of educated families. Not just voting but acting as the driving political forces in their areas.

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
8 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

We have almost no voter fraud in this country.

Some Blue states are issuing Driver licenses when the only ID needed to vote is a DRIVER'S LICENSE.  If that action tipped races consistently toward Rs you blow a gasket.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
3 minutes ago, and then said:

Have you seen the voter results from 2018 along the Texas -Mexico border?  Austin and Dallas, sure but who really believes that the actual border where the ranches are would be Blue?  Of COURSE they're voting.  No party cultivates such a group unless that's their ultimate goal.  If it isn't stopped, this nation is done.  It doesn't take a genius to prognosticate the outcome when a burgeoning welfare state has open borders.  I cite the million or so who flowed in this past year.  

Usually people tend not to vote for the guy that's going to use Eminent Domain to seize parts of their land and build an ugly wall across it- no matter what party they are. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Man so we've slid so far now that election results you dont like are just accepted as proof of cheating?

The Ds in Congress think so.  They're already calling 2020 into question.  Even someone like you should be able to understand what happens after Americans lose faith in elections.  Do you REALLY want to go there?  If you do then go for it.  

Edited by and then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, and then said:

The Ds in Congress think so.  They're already calling 2020 into question.  Even someone like you should be able to understand what happens after Americans lose faith in elections.  Do you REALLY want to go there?

So i offered up a perfectly plausible explanation and all you can do is delve into the two party bull**** huh? Its pretty sad.

As for going  there? Of course I understand what happens when Americans lose faith in elections thats why I support impeaching a POTUS who has invited foreign interference into our election and proven himself to have no regard for American history , institutions or rule of law.

My plea at this point is if youre going to lose faith in elections make damn sure its based on fact and not assumptions made based on the inundation of unnecessary fear mongering you have experienced over the last five years.

Assumptions like "oh those people live next to the brown people they could never vote democrat"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.