KillingtonZone.com

Yeah, the whole thing is a mess. I think the two-party system is to blame. It's polarizing by nature. I think Trump is a sysmptom of the underlying problem - he's riding the tiger, but he didn't create it.

I'm not even sure some terrible event will unite us. Covid caused us to fracture even further. It would have to be a really devastating event, like a foreign invasion or a civil war, that causes us to re-evaluate the entire system. I really don't want to have to go through that - my life is pretty good right now.

Killington_Lover wrote: ↑Jan 19th, '24, 11:37Seeing liberals start to complain about the border, yet the house republicans not willing to do anything to avoid handing Biden a win says it all- partisanship for the sake of scoring points. Disgusting.

I saw an interview of House Speaker Johnson and he said they're against the border bill because it 'doesn't fix everything'. That's a really high bar to meet in a single bill ... GOP had the White House, Senate and House and couldn't do it.

I read an article in Rolling Stone today that claims sources are saying Trump is telling his advisors that he does not want the GOP to pass a border control bill because he doesn't want to hand Biden a win.

Here it is:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 234949036/

Democrats have been willing to make a deal on this since Trump was President. Pelosi offered various concessions, but Trump and the GOP have never been reasonable about it. They keep making sky-high demands and then refuse to make any concessions. It's a tactic, and voters are stupid to fall for it.

As far as a stolen election goes, I think the crux of the issue is that even with the courts saying that the election could proceed with unorthodox voting, these deniers believe the court was wrong, hence it must have been stolen.

I believe the courts SHOULD have told the secretaries of state that the law did not allow the vast mail in voting, but should have also given the powers that be the verbiage to pass a temporary law with emergency preambles that did allow for the mail in voting. Just saying OK, the COVID emergency, we will allow it is a hallmark of an activist court, and it is that I see as a problem. Yes, making the lawmakers take the extra step is a bit kludgy, but I feel that is what our constitution demands. FWIW.

But the law did allow mail-in voting. That's what the courts said. There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits mail-in voting. It's not even unorthodox. Mail in voting has been a thing for over a hundred years. The only thing new in 2020 was that more people were using it because of Covid.

You might think the laws are dumb, or that mail-in voting is subject to fraud, or whatever. But it's not really a Constitutional issue. It's a state/local government issue. States and local governments get to decide how to conduct elections. I don't think the courts had any business telling the secretaries of state how to conduct elections unless they were violating the laws passed by state legislatures.

I think the crux of the issue is that most people who voted for Trump didn't use absentee ballots. I've had this conversation with my parents - they asked why did all those absentee ballots go for Biden? I said that's a pretty easy answer. Trump told his people not to vote that way because it was fraudulent. (Then he went ahead and voted that way himself).

The really dumb thing is, I think mail-in voting might actually be more secure than in-person voting. It leaves an easily traceable paper trail, requires signatures that can be automatically validated by computer, and allows staff to actually contact people to verify that they voted by absentee ballot. By contrast, with in person voting, I just walk in, tell them my name, and cast a ballot with zero opportunity for verification of my identity.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Jan 19th, '24, 14:18
voters are stupid

FIFY

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Jan 19th, '24, 15:23 But the law did allow mail-in voting. That's what the courts said. There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits mail-in voting. It's not even unorthodox. Mail in voting has been a thing for over a hundred years. The only thing new in 2020 was that more people were using it because of Covid.

You might think the laws are dumb, or that mail-in voting is subject to fraud, or whatever. But it's not really a Constitutional issue. It's a state/local government issue. States and local governments get to decide how to conduct elections. I don't think the courts had any business telling the secretaries of state how to conduct elections unless they were violating the laws passed by state legislatures.

I think the crux of the issue is that most people who voted for Trump didn't use absentee ballots. I've had this conversation with my parents - they asked why did all those absentee ballots go for Biden? I said that's a pretty easy answer. Trump told his people not to vote that way because it was fraudulent. (Then he went ahead and voted that way himself).

The really dumb thing is, I think mail-in voting might actually be more secure than in-person voting. It leaves an easily traceable paper trail, requires signatures that can be automatically validated by computer, and allows staff to actually contact people to verify that they voted by absentee ballot. By contrast, with in person voting, I just walk in, tell them my name, and cast a ballot with zero opportunity for verification of my identity.

I guess my constitution statement was not very clear. I do not want judges doing the legislature or governors jobs. If the law allowed for mail in voting, then the judges simply affirmed it was OK, which IS the judges job. If the law did not allow for mail in voting as implemented, they should have said so, and advised on how to change the law. I do believe there was one or more states that did not follow their own laws, but the judges let it slide.

Another example of judicial activism, at least in my mind, was the Goodrich decision in Mass that legalized gay marriage. The basis for the decision is right, but the court erred in its implementation. They gave the state 6 months to fix the law, and in the case where the state did not, went and made the changes. They, instead they should have banned marriage after 6 months if the legislature and the governor did not do their jobs.

‘Our System Needs to Be Broken, and He Is the Man to Do It’
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... r-00136850

I don’t know about you, but the quotes read a lot like the book Man's Search for Meaning.

Dickc wrote: ↑Jan 19th, '24, 16:56 Another example of judicial activism, at least in my mind, was the Goodrich decision in Mass that legalized gay marriage. The basis for the decision is right, but the court erred in its implementation. They gave the state 6 months to fix the law, and in the case where the state did not, went and made the changes. They, instead they should have banned marriage after 6 months if the legislature and the governor did not do their jobs.

My take on this is that the SJC in Goodrich said that the current laws were unconstitutional per the Mass state Constitution, and that the legislature had six months to fix it. It's not much different to me than Brown v. Board of Education - when people's rights are being violated, the Court has broad powers to order corrections. That's not judicial activism, it's enforcing the highest law of the land - the Constitution.

If the Court were creating a law - suddenly saying, for instance, that Assault Rifles should all be banned because they are too dangerous - that would be overreach. Similarly, in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, if there were no equal protection clause, the Court would have had no power to do what it did. But since there was, the Court was merely enforcing the highest law of the land. It felt like judicial activism because it was a really strong exercise of power - but that's exactly what we want to happen when people's Constitutional rights are being violated.

In Trump's case, I think it's well within the court's purview to enforce section 3, as it's already the law, ratified through the proper legislative process. Banning Trump under a clause of the Constitution that disqualifies him is not judicial activism, it's merely enforcing the law.

This might be something to watch ...

Yikes, that some pretty tortured reading of Article I, s 10, clause 3. Here's what it actually says:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The section is meant to restrict the power of the states, not to recognize any sovereign rights. In addition, I don't think a refugee crisis can fairly be said to be the type of invasion contemplated by that section. I think Abbott's actions are a little over the top, and I think it's despicable the way he's weaponizing human beings by busing or flying them to other cities and dumping them there. However, I do think he has a point - the number of refugees crossing the border is a problem, and more federal resources need to be directed at handling the problem.

I've stated my opinion on this before, but I think the most rational approach would be to get together with a number of countries in the area and hammer out a program to distribute refugees to safe areas across the Americas. We'd have to take a bunch, but so would other countries. If we did it in an organized fashion, it would be a boon to U.S. economic productivity. Most of these folks want to work and don't mind working hard, and right now we have the jobs.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Jan 25th, '24, 11:25I've stated my opinion on this before, but I think the most rational approach would be to get together with a number of countries in the area and hammer out a program to distribute refugees to safe areas across the Americas. We'd have to take a bunch, but so would other countries. If we did it in an organized fashion, it would be a boon to U.S. economic productivity. Most of these folks want to work and don't mind working hard, and right now we have the jobs.

Agree. Even if GOP got their way and deployed the wall across the border, this issue doesn't go away. Even where the wall is deployed it's easily circumvented.

If you want to ensure folks don't cross our borders illegally, it would require the use of force. This doesn't seem the be something the GOP has advanced.

I think this issue will remain like abortion was prior to the latest SCOTUS ruling. GOP knows it can't be fixed so will just use it to their advantage.

Not a single one of these people should be here. If you voted for Biden you should open up your house and ease the burden of the rest of us tax payers who are completely against illegal immigration. My wife immigrated here legally as did my dad. We don’t want these people and we don’t need them. If you hire one of my competitors that employs these people then you are just as guilty of aiding and abetting this invasion. Many of us are happy that Texas is bussing these people to liberal areas that claim to be sanctuaries, and their leaders are even throwing their hands up that they cannot handle the influx. I have liberal friends down in NYC who are even starting to say the left has this assbackwards. We need ICE to go around and deport every last person over staying a visa as well.

Right. And I'd like it if money grew on the trees in my backyard. Deport every last person over staying their visa? Do you even know how insurmountable a task that would be? how much it would cost? I assume not. You can put up walls and fences, you can deport whomever you find. Enterprising people are still going to take the risk to come here because their choice is between living in poverty or having the opportunity to succeed. For many of them, that's a life and death choice. Why else would so many risk their lives to cross the border?

Trying to stop everyone from immigrating here is a losing battle. The overwhelming majority of these folks are industrious people willing to work, and we have record low unemployment. We absolutely need them, especially considering our birth rate isn't remotely at replacement level. If we instead put our energy into finding ways to screen out the few bad apples and integrate the rest into our economy, we'd all be in a much better place.

And if you don't think taking a bunch of desperate human beings and dropping them on a street corner hundreds of miles away with no warning to local authorities, no food, and no place to stay in a cold climate is okay, I think you need to re-examine your moral compass.

Killington_Lover wrote: ↑Jan 25th, '24, 13:00Not a single one of these people should be here.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

This remains relevant to me as a US citizen. I think it should be our 'mission statement'. I'm sure at least one, likely many more, should be here because it's the only way they will survive.

Killington_Lover wrote: ↑Jan 25th, '24, 13:00If you voted for Biden you should open up your house and ease the burden of the rest of us tax payers who are completely against illegal immigration.

I think Biden, like most of us, is against illegal immigration too.

Killington_Lover wrote: ↑Jan 25th, '24, 13:00My wife immigrated here legally as did my dad. We don’t want these people and we don’t need them.

My great grandfather immigrated here, via Ellis Island, legally as well. In only a few hours he arrived in Ellis Island, went thru their inspection process, and then was sent on his way. No passports or visa was required.

Today, most immigrants, need a work visa and then a green card. Only after the green card can they have any chance for US citizens. This process can take a decade or more.

Not sharing the above because I think it makes illegal immigration acceptable, but rather that we've made it hard to immigrate to America than it was for our forefathers.

Killington_Lover wrote: ↑Jan 25th, '24, 13:00If you hire one of my competitors that employs these people then you are just as guilty of aiding and abetting this invasion. Many of us are happy that Texas is bussing these people to liberal areas that claim to be sanctuaries, and their leaders are even throwing their hands up that they cannot handle the influx. I have liberal friends down in NYC who are even starting to say the left has this assbackwards. We need ICE to go around and deport every last person over staying a visa as well.

Two crimes don't make a right.

1 - Hiring illegal immigrants is wrong.
2 - Bussing illegal immigrants to nowhere and dropping them off is wrong.
3 - Deportation is the only acceptable method of dealing with illegal immigration in America.

It's illogical and a waste of money to execute on #3. This is why a path to citizenship is necessary for illegal immigrants already here. However, this must be combined with strong border policies.

KillingtonZone.com

Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Re: Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Re: Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Re: Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Re: Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Re: Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Re: Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Re: Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Re: Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Re: Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Re: Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Re: Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Re: Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Re: Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Re: Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Re: Can the Republican Party Be Saved?