TRHLIM

zitothebrave said:
https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aus...-perry-after-travis-county-murder-conviction/

Texas pardons convicted murderer and reinstates right to license firearm.

A great person who called BLM protestors monkeys, But I mean it's OK he had the number 1 thing republicans like. He was chatting with 16 year olds about sex

https://www.salon.com/2023/04/21/co...o-pardon-sought-chats-to-meet-young-girls/amp

FuQSIg-XgAs2otj
Click to expand...

Lol of course you're mad about this
 
Perry seems to be a creep but that doesn't change the fact that a BLM clown pointed a rifle at him. Clear self-defense.
 
zitothebrave said:
Lol of course you want a sexual predator out on the street with a gun.
Click to expand...

As a George Floyd worshiper, you kay not have much room to preach here.

But Perry's "crime" was bull****. If you wanna prosecute him for being like pedo Joe, please do so

But the crime of taking down a lunatic on the subway was another example of the insane left protecting criminals over law abiding citizens
 
https://www.phillyburbs.com/story/n...teen-drinking-party-bucks-county/73700414007/

Apparently she hates woke being taught so much, she beats the **** out of teenagers.

"Witnesses reported that Schillinger punched an underage partygoer several times in the face during a series of outbursts by drinking adults including her then-boyfriend and mother."

ALso

"At a preliminary hearing earlier this year, an underage witness testified he took 15 shots and at one point partnered with Schillinger for a game of beer pong. Another teen witness testified that it was “common knowledge” that alcohol would be available and that "people were drinking there before.""

She is so concerned about what goes on at schools, she gets blasted with teenagers so she really knows what's going on in school. Need to stop the woke mind virus.
 
It’s the same issue Colorado has dealt with.

The city people are voting on things that don’t affect them in the counties.
 
cajunrevenge said:
https://www.newsweek.com/texas-gop-amendment-would-stop-democrats-winning-any-state-election-1904988



Texas Republicans want to rig their statewide elections by requiring a candidate to win a majority of counties to win a statewide election. Just a clear attempt to dilute the votes of the other side because they know they are losing their stranglehold on the state.
Click to expand...

This is a really stupid proposal. Loving county is less than a 100 people while Harris county is 5million. In no world should they hold same influence on state politics.
 
Isn't politics supposed to be about resolving these policy issues. There has never been a guarantee everyone would get everything they want.
 
Tapate50 said:
It’s the same issue Colorado has dealt with.

The city people are voting on things that don’t affect them in the counties.
Click to expand...

Yes, so the solution is clearly for substantially fewer country people to vote on city things that don’t affect them.
 
In case anybody else is willing to pretend this makes any sense, the 127 lowest populated counties add up to 913,214 people. This ostensibly means in a state of 22,000,000 people that just 457,000 people could block someone from winning statewide office. So a candidate could theoretically carry 97% of the vote in the state and not win election. That’s a bad ****ing law.

It’s actually so dumb that I’m honestly more inclined to believe the story has the proposal wrong than that this was a serious suggestion.
 
Last edited:
mqt said:
In case anybody else is willing to pretend this makes any sense, the 127 lowest populated counties add up to 913,214 people. This ostensibly means in a state of 22,000,000 people that just 457,000 people could block someone from winning statewide office. So a candidate could theoretically carry 97% of the vote in the state and not win election. That’s a bad ****ing law.

It’s actually so dumb that I’m honestly more inclined to believe the story has the proposal wrong than that this was a serious suggestion.
Click to expand...

I agree. Bad law.

On the other side. Democrats took it all the way to Supreme Court to get their political opponent thrown off ballots. So I'm not really bothered that the GOP may be finally getting in the mud
 
sturg33 said:
I agree. Bad law.

On the other side. Democrats took it all the way to Supreme Court to get their political opponent thrown off ballots. So I'm not really bothered that the GOP may be finally getting in the mud
Click to expand...

Small detail: the people who brought that lawsuit were Republican voters.
 
sturg33 said:
I agree. Bad law.

On the other side. Democrats took it all the way to Supreme Court to get their political opponent thrown off ballots. So I'm not really bothered that the GOP may be finally getting in the mud
Click to expand...

Finally getting in the mud?!

But yes, the stuff in Colorado was bad. I’d argue somewhat less bad than a proposal that effectively disenfranchises 21,000,000 people, but bad.
 
Last edited:
mqt said:
Finally getting the mud?!

But yes, the stuff in Colorado was bad. I’d argue somewhat less bad than a proposal that effectively disenfranchises 21,000,000 people, but bad.
Click to expand...

doesn't removing the opponent effectively disenfranchise the entire state?
 
sturg33 said:
doesn't removing the opponent effectively disenfranchise the entire state?
Click to expand...

The constitution bars a number of people from running from the presidency. In that sense it is already disenfranchising voters. Obama, Clinton, Bush cant run as former 2-term presidents. Anyone under 35 can't run. Anyone who is a naturalized citizen can't run. There was a new question about the disqualification clause and the Supreme Court addressed it, as it should have.

For an actual for real attempt to disenfranchise voters see the January 6 votes to throw out the electoral votes of Arizona and Pennsylvania.
 
sturg33 said:
doesn't removing the opponent effectively disenfranchise the entire state?
Click to expand...

1) It was removing a single candidate for a single reason. Still bad, still was rightly turned down in court. Not as bad as a blanket rule like this.

2) If we really want to get into this silly of a debate, those voters could still write in Trump, whereas you cannot have your candidate win without the permission of a bunch of counties filled mostly with tumbleweeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top