Guest Scott

The election

Recommended Posts

Guest Scott

Looking at the results from the key states in the election is interesting.

What it shows overall is only a slight bump towards the blue in comparison to the last election.  Most of the states that flipped did so only marginally.   What is also shows is that in most of the key states, they became more red than they were in 2008 and 2016.

Let's look at the results individually, as compared with the previous elections in the last 12 years.

In Florida, the votes show a pretty large shift to red over the last four elections:

Florida.JPG.86fc4760433fa9625500feda8fde4d8a.JPG

Iowa shows a huge shift to red:

Iowa.JPG.71fe477bd409982d5bc60c09c1c10c48.JPG

Michigan shows a bump back to blue, but it was only very marginally red in 2016.  It was solidly blue in 2008 and 2012:

Michigan.JPG.3101d5b855cdc84b577b3369c0a572ed.JPG

Minnesota is showing a shift back to the norm of what it has been for the other three elections.  There was a bump toward red in 2016, but it still stayed blue.

Minnesota.JPG.ed707e6c7f71f0b82cc360f3fa300e48.JPG

Ohio is showing a huge shift to red:

Iowa.JPG.616655458bd653464ab1cb6c8a965d9a.JPG

(To be continued so post isn't too large)

 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott

Continued...

Nevada is showing a shift to red since 2008, but it might be stable:

Nevada.JPG.cf4c6766eaeb14c29f4250cd274242a4.JPG

Pennsyvania is showing a slight bump back to blue, but it is far redder than it was in previous elections:

Pennsylvania.JPG.70119fdb6664d1b9a87bf3e848f7aab3.JPG

Texas is still red, but it is definitely shifting to more blue as time passes.  The larger cities are getting bluer.  It may eventually go blue as a state over the next several years.

Texas.JPG.8224978cac8b09889cc9e1cb545703f0.JPG

Wisconsin has a slight bump to blue, but in comparison to 2008 and 2012 is much more red than it was.

Wisconsin.JPG.d3a47ae9ab79233ed60d0522b2c05b17.JPG

Arizona is shifting blue.  This is surprising since they are on the same path as Colorado, only a few years behind.  Even the Republicans are saying that the state is becoming blue (and complaining about it).Arizona.JPG.262e1ed6a26579132c56e5f554e6758d.JPG

To be continued...



 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott

continued...

Georgia had a shift to blue.  Exit polls show that a lot more African Americans voted in this election, which appears to be the main reason behind the shift.   Whether or not this is temporary remains to be seen.

Georgia.JPG.b6e468887f435936724a4d70d95d0914.JPG

Maine 2nd Congressional District is showing a huge shift to red over the years:

1515956411_Maine2ndCongressionalDistrict.JPG.2224ce8816baa3074fa7bceb1b290f5d.JPG

Nebraska 2nd Congressional District can't seem to make up it's mind which way it's going.  This is a good one to watch.

133684961_Nebraska2ndCongressionalDistrict.JPG.bee1f8ab74da31124613fb3157a38136.JPG

New Hampshire is showing a shift towards blue, but only back to where it used to be:

638815974_NewHampshire.JPG.47d08088bbf92d662c3e30be3650ac32.JPG

North Carolina is still a swing state and only a a bit red (it bumped slightly to blue in 2008).  It isn't showing any large shifts one way or the other:

396385374_NorthCarolina.JPG.b5eeb6197ad1c3ff5cdc887db8d2fa3b.JPG

Anyway, in conclusion, yes there was a slight bump to blue in these elections, but for the majority of the swing and key states, they are showing that they have moved to be much redder since the 2008 election.  

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Godless said:

People are risking their careers and reputations for a polarizing "leader"

This is the grand canyon disconnect between with how the Left views the Right.
The Left actually thinks the Right is fighting for Trump the 'man'.
This isn't about Trump himself, this is about America, it's freedom and it's future.

Patriotic Americans are willing to, even at their own threatened peril, swim in the deep end for the future of America.
The Left wants you to believe that you are risking your careers and reputations... so you better sit down, shut up and submit already.

Here is the full quote from Sidney Powell. The end of her quote is what the Left fails to comprehend.

Quote

Sidney Powell: (50:41)
This is stunning, heartbreaking, infuriating, and the most unpatriotic acts I can even imagine for people in this country to have participated in, in any way, shape or form. I want the American public to know right now that we will not be intimidated. American patriots are fed up with the corruption from the local level, to the highest level of our government. We are going to take this country back. We are not going to be intimidated. We are not going to back down. We are going to clean this mess up now. President Trump won by a landslide. We are going to prove it, and we are going to reclaim the United States of America for the people who vote for freedom.

 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Godless said:

Four years ago, I hypothesized that a Trump victory in the 2016 election would be far more damaging to the GOP than a Trump loss. You can read my prediction here, in two posts towards the bottom of the page. I didn't get it exactly right. I expected four years of GOP infighting between "establishment" Republicans and the ideological firebrands of the party. Instead, the GOP has been remarkably unified. This post-election controversy will test that unity. The expected panderers (Romney and Flake) have already wagged their fingers and furrowed their brows. Now we wait to see who will sink with the Trump ship and who will run for the lifeboats. So far, a lot of them seem very confident in their ability to swim. 

This is the statement from yesterday's press conference that the GOP decided to highlight on their official Twitter account. 

Screenshot_20201119-160848_Twitter.thumb.jpg.1c894e9b7e4e7d9329c1e98c25f8e5ed.jpg

 

A few hours later, this was tweetedby the chairwoman of the Minnesota GOP. Biden won Minnesota by over 200,000 votes. 

Screenshot_20201120-082000_Twitter.thumb.jpg.f94f18be64c464e6b732912868ba2272.jpg

I'm not saying that legal challenges shouldn't be pursued, but these people are talking like Trump definitely won the election and they won't accept any other result. People are risking their careers and reputations for a polarizing "leader" who doesn't give a rat's posterior about anyone but himself.

As it stands now, 31 of Trump's court challenges have been withdrawn or dismissed. 2 have been won (both in PA, and neither of them will change the result). What's going to happen in the very likely event that Joe Biden is sworn in as our 46th President in two months? Is the GOP going to expect voters to suddenly forget how hard they worked to undermine public trust in our electoral process? I may have been wrong about the GOP fracturing under Trump, but I think that division is still coming. Trump, for better or worse, has held the GOP together like glue. I don't think that unity will last after he's gone. If it somehow does last, then the nation will judge them collectively for the chaos they actively fueled during the transition of power. The Dems weren't exactly graceful four years ago, but Hillary conceded within 24 hours of the election, and Obama did his due diligence during the transition. I don't think Democrats are the only ones who miss that type of decorum in the aftermath of an election. 

I don’t think it was really Trump that has held the GOP largely together over the last 4 years; it was the hard left’s increasing vocalness (not to say violence), and the unmasking both of the more radical parts of their agenda and the nominally-“impartial” institutions that are willing to make that happen.

If the Democrats can set firm boundaries between their mainstream leadership and the party fringe and make a convincing case that Biden is simply a return to “normalcy”, I think most of Trump’s base will drop their paranoia and go back to (what I like to think is) the GOP’s natural position of elevating ideas over people, and being patient enough to believe that the strength of their policies will win out in the end.  But if Biden appears poised to enact additional dramatic and irreversible changes to the leftwards that are seen as threatening conservatives’ liberty or their prospects for education or employment—single-payer health care, or court-packing, or fiddling with RFRA, for example—there will be a lot of scared Republicans whose knee-jerk reaction will be to stick with the “fighter” they know.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t think it was really Trump that has held the GOP largely together over the last 4 years; it was the hard left’s increasing vocalness (not to say violence), and the unmasking both of the more radical parts of their agenda and the nominally-“impartial” institutions that are willing to make that happen.

If the Democrats can set firm boundaries between their mainstream leadership and the party fringe and make a convincing case that Biden is simply a return to “normalcy”, I think most of Trump’s base will drop their paranoia and go back to (what I like to think is) the GOP’s natural position of elevating ideas over people, and being patient enough to believe that the strength of their policies will win out in the end.  But if Biden appears poised to enact additional dramatic and irreversible changes to the leftwards that are seen as threatening conservatives’ liberty or their prospects for education or employment—single-payer health care, or court-packing, or fiddling with RFRA, for example—there will be a lot of scared Republicans whose knee-jerk reaction will be to stick with the “fighter” they know.  

We were typing at the same time apparently but this ^^^^ is basically it.

The leftist loonies caused this otherwise politically oblivious church-going family man to finally wake up and fight.
If the left thinks the right is just going to curl up in a ball while they take our country down the crapper... I didn't get 5 cans of dehydrated carrots, an AR-15 and one metal clothes hanger for roasting hot dogs for nothing. ✌️

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scott said:

OK fair enough.  And what do you say about this specific fact check concerning Sidney Powell?

I don't know enough to say anything about it. I do know that so-called PolitiFact is deeply biased and not reliable, so their claim that it's a Pants-On-Fire lie holds only minor sway on my opinion.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Scott said:

So far there has been zero evidence of widespread voter fraud

Do you remember way back to last week, when the claim was that there was zero evidence of widespread voter fraud? Funny how the goalposts keep moving. Evidence of any voter fraud should make an American's blood run cold, no matter his/her political affiliation. Voter fraud is the death knell of liberty. How easy or difficult would it be to determine how rampant it is? Have you been watching any videos from Project Veritas? If voter fraud is not caught almost at the time it happens, it becomes nearly impossible to trace it.

I am stunned and very dismayed that so many otherwise intelligent Americans seem to want to dismiss extraordinarily serious allegations of voter fraud due completely to TDS.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
10 minutes ago, Vort said:

Evidence of any voter fraud should make an American's blood run cold, no matter his/her political affiliation.

I agree and so far the people who have been caught doing it in this last election were Republicans (I posted a link earlier in this thread).  I don't doubt that some Democrats committed fraud as well.   

I also would believe that there was voter fraud in every election since the first one in this country.

That said though, what Trump is doing is rediculous.  He is posting and making up every consiracy theory out there, all without any proof.

I also know that harrassing and threatening ballot counters is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

This is the grand canyon disconnect between with how the Left views the Right.
The Left actually thinks the Right is fighting for Trump the 'man'.
This isn't about Trump himself, this is about America, it's freedom and it's future.

I believe you, and I'll tell you why. Trump, for all his shortcomings, is a brilliant propagandist. He's spent four years convincing people that to oppose him is to oppose America, that he is the embodiment of America, that he is God's chosen warrior to save America. And he convinced people of this by using the strongest weapon in the propaganda arsenal: fear. Fear of socialism, fear of immigrants, fear of radical anarchists burning down the suburbs. And it worked spectacularly. Trump has tied his rhetoric so completely into an image of patriotism and nationalism that anti-Trump = anti-America in the eyes of many of his followers. And it seems that many of them are willing to spit in the face of our democratic institutions to keep him in power. That doesn't seem very patriotic to me. 

I've got news for you. Your side doesn't have a monopoly on patriotism. Democrats love America too. They may not be so flagrant about it, especially in the age of Trump, but that doesn't mean they don't love this country. You and I have very different ideas of what's wrong with this country and how to fix it, but that doesn't mean that we don't both love America. 

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If the Democrats can set firm boundaries between their mainstream leadership and the party fringe and make a convincing case that Biden is simply a return to “normalcy”, I think most of Trump’s base will drop their paranoia and go back to (what I like to think is) the GOP’s natural position of elevating ideas over people, and being patient enough to believe that the strength of their policies will win out in the end.  But if Biden appears poised to enact additional dramatic and irreversible changes to the leftwards that are seen as threatening conservatives’ liberty or their prospects for education or employment—single-payer health care, or court-packing, or fiddling with RFRA, for example—there will be a lot of scared Republicans whose knee-jerk reaction will be to stick with the “fighter” they know.  

If there's one hope for the GOP to save itself, it lies in the fact that the Democratic Party is fracturing between the "Old Guard" moderate white elites (Biden, Clinton, Pelosi) and the further left factions (Bernie, AOC, Omar). Their shared hatred of Trump united them behind Biden, but future elections may turn out differently if the two sides can't work together. Let's not forget that the main reason Trump won in 2016 is that the Bernie faction couldn't get behind Hillary (and many of them probably never imagined that Trump would actually win). 

Edited by Godless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Godless said:

Democrats love America too.

Many of the Democrats I'm personally familiar with do not love America. They consider America to be the greatest threat in the world today. They find the very idea of American border integrity to be antithetical to their woke morality. The literally believe that anyone who thinks it should be illegal to murder a fetus for the sake of convenience should be forcibly silenced and not allowed to voice such an opinion, on pain of depriving them of their liberty. So I rate your claim as Mostly False.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
4 hours ago, Vort said:

The literally believe that anyone who thinks it should be illegal to murder a fetus for the sake of convenience should be forcibly silenced and not allowed to voice such an opinion, on pain of depriving them of their liberty. 

I don't know any who believe that (though some might), but I do know a lot of Republicans who think the same of the the Republicans' supporting the murder of millions of Americans (over time) by repealing pollution laws.  All for the sake of money and convenience.

Your post reminds me of why I left the Republican party; I guess I should be thankful.

It is usually the Republicans who go against the Constitution.  They think the only part of the Constitution that matters is part of the Second Amendment (the part about "shall not be infringed", while forgetting the rest and never quoting it).  I can give examples.

It is the Republicans who are giving death threats to ballot counters (even fellow Republican ones) and harassing them, even though they are just trying to do their jobs.

Some of the Democrats acted extremely poorly after the last election (and those ones should be punished), but at least they didn't try and destroy democracy and everything this country stands for.

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random sidenote. 

I just listened to Pres. Nelson's video on Gratitude.  Near the 3:45 mark he says he's found it's better to count our blessings than recount our problems.  The way he was talking as he said "recount" with just a slight pause afterward, I thought he was going to talk about the presidential votes :D  Maybe I've been a little too focused on politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Godless said:

You and I have very different ideas of what's wrong with this country and how to fix it, but that doesn't mean that we don't both love America.

If you personally love America, then a huge thumbs up to you, but my experience with Democrats mirrors that of Vort's. Democrats in my own ward, town and extended family "tolerate" America at most. Even worse, many of them are open to it becoming some godless armpit of socialism. If you are a true lover of America and a defender of the Constitution, which I'm happy to hear you are, then from my experience you are by far the exception not the rule. If there is some kind Democrat under current of America lovers, they must be on extended vacation or deep hibernation.

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

So I rate your claim as Mostly False.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this business of “loving America”, I’ll engage with one possible controversial broad over-generalization, by offering another even more-controversial broad over-generalization:

Republicans love America the way a newlywed man loves his wife:  for what she is, and which he hopes she will eternally remain.

Democrats love America the way a newlywed woman loves her husband:  for what he may become, if properly managed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Scott said:

most Republicans are either terrorists (by murdering millions of Americans) or just ignorant.  

That a boy! Way to win 'em to your side with some of that Trump extremism you claim to hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
2 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

That a boy! Way to win 'em to your side with some of that Trump extremism you claim to hate.

I have no desire to win anyone like you over to my own side.   At least I have done nothing to try and kill your family like you did to mine (like support those who want fewer pollution standards).

 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
35 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

 If you are a true lover of America and a defender of the Constitution, 

How many republicans love the Constitution, other than the second amendment?

Rather than make a baseless claim, let's look at the Constitution.

First Amendment guarentees the Freedom of the Press.  Trump has said several times that the press should be shut down if it says anything negative about him, even when it's true.  He has the right to disagree with the media or critisize the media.  He has made several claims that it should be shut down.  

Forth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate.  Jeff Sessions, a Republican (of course) reinstated asset forfeiture which seizes property without evidence or indictments.

Fifth Amendment sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy.  Trump wanted to change emininent domain laws to make it easier to for the government sieze property for the border walls.   Eminent domain sometimes is necessary, but a fair process must be followed.

The Forteenth Amenment defines citizenship and clearly says that anyone born in the US is a citizen.   The Republicans want to change this.

Should we go on?

 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott

I think we need to be careful. I've been following this thread for a bit, and I've been thinking about things brought up by both sides. But I think we've (speaking generally) strayed from earnest political discussion into vicious attacks that serve no one and foster the spirit of contention. I don't say this from a holier than thou viewpoint, I've made this same mistake before myself, nor am I a mod so take or leave my opinion as you please. But we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and many of us are active members of his church. We should do better than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:

How many republicans love the Constitution, other than the second amendment?

A lot more than the Democrats.  Multiple planks in the Democrat platform spit straight into the face of the Constitution.  And most average Democrats like you are all for them.  I'm personally hoping that you are not one of them.  But many moderate Democrats fall right in line with these planks that dismantle the Constitution.  #1 on the list is the criticism of "original intent" philosophy.

Quote

Rather than make a baseless claim, let's look at the Constitution.

OK , let's.

Quote

First Amendment guarentees the Freedom of the Press.  Trump has said several times that the press should be shut down if it says anything negative about him, even when it's true.  He has the right to disagree with the media or critisize the media.  He has made several claims that it should be shut down.  

Did he actually do anything to shut them down?  Having a desire to do something and actually doing it are two different things.  The comments he made were basically about keeping the pres honest (which they are not).  There have been and still are some laws against FALSE statements by the press.  And if they continually make false statements, then they can be prosecuted and have various licenses taken away.  But even though Trump could have had them on those grounds, he didn't push it. Why?  Because he really does believe in freedom of the press even when they lie about him.

Quote

Forth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate.  Jeff Sessions, a Republican (of course) reinstated asset forfeiture which seizes property without evidence or indictments.

That was indeed a travesty.  And IF Trump gave him such a directive to do so, then that was a BIG mistake on Trump's part.  Otherwise, it's a good thing Trump FIRED Sessions.

Quote

Fifth Amendment sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy.  Trump wanted to change emininent domain laws to make it easier to for the government sieze property for the border walls.   Eminent domain sometimes is necessary, but a fair process must be followed.

I (and many original intent interpreters) disagree that eminent domain is itemized as a power granted to the government.  I believe that the 5A prohibits eminent domain. BUT it DOES allow the government to engage in commerce with private citizens.  That phrase has only been interpreted that way because of people with big government ideas.

I'd like to see your references for what Trump, himself, actually did to "make it easier to SEIZE" land, so I can assess what this was about.

Land had to be purchased to achieve an appropriate function of government.  As long as the process was not anything nefarious (which happens all over the place) then it should have been part of the process.  If "making it easier" was simply a matter of bringing common sense negotiation conditions to the table, then there's nothing wrong with it.

I remember the Air Force had a very interesting way of dealing with eminent domain.  They actually kept tabs on various real estate statistics (both rural and urban) to determine just how much some piece of land should cost.  When a piece of Air Force property happen to drop on private land, they would come up with the appropriate land value and rental value.  They would then go to the land owner and offer them 125% of what they determined the use of the land would be based on the estimated time of encroachment to retrieve the property.  If the land owner refused, then they would tell them that they would get a court order to pay them only $100 percent and force the process on them.

Consider that.  "Threatening" that they would only receive 100% of the fair market value.  Is this nefarious?  Who's getting the better deal here?

This is why I want to know the details of such an accusation.

Quote

The Forteenth Amenment defines citizenship and clearly says that anyone born in the US is a citizen.   The Republicans want to change this.

No, it doesn't.  Again, you're reading this based on present eyes and conditions.  The original intent was specifically to counter the DEMOCRAT position that freed slaves should not be considered citizens.  It was only by LEGISLATION that anchor babies were allowed.  It is not "counter to the Constitution" that such babies should not be granted citizenship.  

If you don't believe my statement about the intent and original interpretation, what was the purpose of the legislation to make it that way?

Quote

Should we go on?

Sure.

What I'd really like to see is some list of statements (I'm sure someone has put one together) that showcases how much the Democrats LOVE the Constitution as the Founders intended.

I note that several of these complaints are more about Trump than "Republican Ideals."  But "Democrat Ideals" (not just Biden or Harris) are about a lot worse.

What I have heard from the Left a LOT of lately is:

  • The Constitution is inherently racist.
  • The Constitution IS The PROBLEM, not the solution.
  • Get rid of private property.
  • Allow the Federal Government to keep people at home indefinitely and not allow them to leave their homes.
  • The Federal Government under Democrat leadership should have power to arrest anyone for not wearing a mask.  But Republicans should stay out of local/state riots even when they vandalize Federal Property.
  • We should get rid of the Electoral College.
  • Defund the police.  The "actual police" are not a part of the Constitution.  But this movement also affects Sheriffs offices, which ARE a part of the Constitution.
  • Religion should be pushed to the far bottom of all freedoms (if honored at all) rather than honored as the FIRST freedom itemized in the Bill of Rights.
  • Freedom of speech is only allowed if we agree with it.  Otherwise we'll demonetize and/or cancel you.  At the very least we'll call you a racist or homophobe, or whatever.
  • Freedom of assembly is exempt from COVID restrictions if you're a casino or a strip club, but not ok if you're a house of worship.
  • Judges should be able to (effectively) legislate from the bench.  In California the State Supreme Court "interpreted" that an AMENDMENT to the STATE CONSTITUTION was "unconstitutional" (because they didn't agree with it politically) when it was passed by a 65% majority in the state.  All liberal SCOTUS justices agree with this mentality.
  • Get rid of any national boundaries.
  • The UN, Globalism, international culture/opinion/customs/ should have power over the US Government
  • The Constitution is up to interpretation by anyone at any time.  In other words, it can mean anything we want it to mean.  And when it means what we WANT it to mean, THEN it is the correct interpretation.
  • Then you have the BLM list of goals that they have since scrubbed from their website because of the backlash.
  • If you're of a superior race (i.e. not white) then government owes you more rights and goodies than "others" (i.e. whites).
  • The FISA court is a tool for the Democrat Party to spy on Republicans who won't play ball.  But if a Republican wants to genuinely look into a severe abuse of power by a Democrat, that should be impeachable.
1 hour ago, Scott said:

Why are you OK with the killing of so many people?

Again, this is all based on that same ONE report that said so.  And I've already explained why it is a flawed report.  Do you have any other ORIGINAL source?  Or do they all go back and cite that one report?

The thing is that I'm not concerned about who agrees or disagrees.  I'm concerned that someone publishes a report and no one is taking a critical look at that report. No one is even asking the right questions.  The data are almost all conjecture, but no one even pointed that out. They just take it as gospel without question.  This is not scientific inquiry.  It is group think by central leadership.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Did he actually do anything to shut them down?  Having a desire to do something and actually doing it are two different things. 

He tried. 

Do you think this is Constitutional?:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-trump/trump-to-sign-executive-order-on-social-media-on-thursday-white-house-idUSKBN2331NK
 

Quote

That was indeed a travesty.  And IF Trump gave him such a directive to do so, then that was a BIG mistake on Trump's part. 

I said Republicans, not just Trump.  

Trump did not fire Sessions because Sessions approved of asset forfeiture.  In fact Trump used asset forfeiture to fund 8% of the border wall:

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-02-15/trump-taps-civil-asset-forfeiture-to-fund-border-wall
 

Quote

I (and many original intent interpreters) disagree that eminent domain is itemized as a power granted to the government.  I believe that the 5A prohibits eminent domain. BUT it DOES allow the government to engage in commerce with private citizens.  That phrase has only been interpreted that way because of people with big government ideas.

I'd like to see your references for what Trump, himself, actually did to "make it easier to SEIZE" land, so I can assess what this was about.

I don't know why I can't link the direct video, but here are some of Trump's exact words:

We can call a national emergency. I may do it. We can call a national emergency and build it very quickly," Trump stated during a briefing in the Rose Garden following a lengthy sit-down with with Democrats over border security. "Under the military version of eminent domain and under homeland security, we can do it."

"You have to use eminent domain," he added. "If we had one person that wouldn't sell us then we wouldn't be able to build proper border security because we'd have that big opening."

The military law Trump is referring to is 10 U.S. Code § 2663 - Land acquisition authorities

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2663

Invoking that type of military aquisition for the border wall for property owner is unwilling to selll is an abuse of power and (at least in my eyes) againt the 5th Amendment.  I don't know if it actually happened (I hope it didn't), but that's what Trump said he would do.

What are your thoughts on using military version of eminent domain against the landowers that won't sell?
 

Quote

Again, this is all based on that same ONE report that said so.  And I've already explained why it is a flawed report.  Do you have any other ORIGINAL source?  Or do they all go back and cite that one report?

It's not one report, but many, many of them.  All of them say that pollution is shortening lives and killing people in America.   There are many, many studies.   They only differ on the amount of people killed, but not that it is killing people.

Here are 89,500,000 results.  

If you can find one study that says pollution isn't killing at least tens of thousands of people, link it and I will read it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=deaths+from+pollution+in+the+us&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS744US744&oq=deaths+from+pollution+in+the+us&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30i457j69i60.8910j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Here are 2,720,000 results on how pollution causes miscarriages (or in other words forced abortions):

https://www.google.com/search?q=pollution+causes+miscarriage&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS744US744&oq=pollution+cau&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0i20i263i457j0i20i263j0l3j69i60.2054j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It can be rightly pointed out that deaths and miscarriages are hard to get an exact number.   At a minimum though it is tens of thousands of American deaths every single year.  Even Fox News points to such studies as sources.  It doesn't matter who is doing them (the scientific community, private companies, American Lung Association, the medical field/journals of medicine, the EPA, the top universities, as well as studies in many other countries) all studies say that pollution is killing tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people in the US every single year. 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.