White House could declare climate emergency as soon as Wednesday: sources

[roamer_1]

Sounds like more whining. That's all you ever have.

Again throwing poo. Nothing of substance. No argument. No proofs. Just throwing sh*t.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

NONSENSE.

If my choices are between a sh*t sandwich and a turd burger, you intend that I MUST choose one. That's purely nonsense. I don't want EITHER ONE. And I shouldn't pick either one, lest either one is given a mandate, and approval is given for the exact opposite of what I want.

The part you are missing about voting is that the founders intended it to be an act of conscience. They were offended and forewarned about this partisan bullcrap...

I cannot cast my endorsement without a good conscience. THAT is the essence of voting.
It is an endorsement - It can only be an endorsement - An approval. And that can only be granted in good conscience.

That is not HAVING TO choose between a sh*t sandwich and a turd burger. In that case, I will wander down the street and find a nice deli.

The nonsensical part of your pious declaration is that while you refrain from making any selection, one will be selected to represent you regardless and you have made the deliberate decision to permit it to happen.

You continue to pound that the only decisions are "between a sh*t sandwich and a turd burger" but in reality there are other alternatives available, yet instead you just visit the deli.

[roamer_1]

The nonsensical part of your pious declaration is that while you refrain from making any selection, one will be selected to represent you regardless and you have made the deliberate decision to permit it to happen.

I am not being pious. I am being straightforward.

It's going to happen ANYWAY. One way or the other. Doesn't matter. And in the meantime, I can add my voice to 'None of the above' and hopefully deny whichever victor a mandate.

And more importantly I am not going to be put in a position to HAVE TO vote for something I cannot support.

'BECAUSE DEMOCRATS I MUST vote for big government from the right.'
Not a chance in hell.

You get more of what you vote *FOR*
I will not be party to approving big government on the right. It is anathema. Period. For if the right will not defend small government, then who the hell will?
So SCREW the big spending right. I will NOT vote for that.

You continue to pound that the only decisions are "between a sh*t sandwich and a turd burger" but in reality there are other alternatives available, yet instead you just visit the deli.

No I am not. YOU are. I say I can abstain.
And I also take advantage of any options I might have available... I will vote CP if I can. I will vote for ANY Conservative. But if there isn't one then there is no profit in voting and I will abstain.

Funny though, that I catch just as much hell for voting CP.

[Bigun]

I have no idea how people can choose their representatives if one does not vote on them.

Suppose they meant maybe some other way?

And the 15th of course has this

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

@IsailedawayfromFR I'm fine with voting and think it is probably the best way but the fact is that voting is not mandated by the constitution and thus there is no constitutional "right to vote".

Each state is free to decide how the people shall select their representatives.

We should be careful about putting things in the constitution that aren't there as we've seen what results from that.

[Bigun]

The greatest Republican failure has been, in my estimation, the consistent failure to roll back egregious Democrat advances when they have the opportunity. Instead, those windows of opportunity are whizzed away. The second egregious failure is the never-failing defection of 'just enough' Republicans to continue seriously contended policies and to pass new ones that are equally unwelcome in a Constitutional Republic.

I haven't donated to the GOP in decades as a result of outbreaks of beltway fever in the ranks, and the leadership, such as it is is more often busy giving ground before any negotiations begin. They are lousy horsetraders, and couldn't negotiate their way into a senior discount.

In my estimation the Republicans biggest failure is in not insisting on strict adherence to the Constitution, the charter of our federal government for Christ's sake! Just doing that would rectify many of our current problems including electing those unqualified to hold high office. @Smokin Joe Otherwise, I'm in complete agreement with all that you said.


I'm a former member of the RNC and have told them that they can again ask me for money once I see some of the things they have been promising me for forty years enacted but not until then.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@IsailedawayfromFR I'm fine with voting and think it is probably the best way but the fact is that voting is not mandated by the constitution and thus there is no constitutional "right to vote".

Each state is free to decide how the people shall select their representatives.

We should be careful about putting things in the constitution that aren't there as we've seen what results from that.

I believe I never expounded on the mandatory nature of voting.  I trust I have been consistent in pointing out that voting permits citizens to select their representatives in government, and not to so vote undermines the very documents that formed this country as people will be elected whom do not represent the citizenry.

If enough follow those practices of not voting, we as a country might devolve into some type of aristocracy which rules us by force rather than by our own interests.

As far as the constitutional "right to vote", isn't that what clearly exists in the 15th which I referenced?

[Bigun]

I believe I never expounded on the mandatory nature of voting.  I trust I have been consistent in pointing out that voting permits citizens to select their representatives in government, and not to so vote undermines the very documents that formed this country as people will be elected whom do not represent the citizenry.

If enough follow those practices of not voting, we as a country might devolve into some type of aristocracy which rules us by force rather than by our own interests.

As far as the constitutional "right to vote", isn't that what clearly exists in the 15th which I referenced?

No sir! It is not. That speaks to who can vote if voting is the method chosen.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No sir! It is not. That speaks to who can vote if voting is the method chosen.

I read this as a right to vote by any citizen.  In no manner, shape or form did I say it was mandatory.

Patriotism is a right, but not mandatory, to be a citizen of this country.  We know this as there are lots and lots of unpatriotic people right now here, and unfortunately a lot of them are voting.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State

[Hoodat]

As far as the constitutional "right to vote", isn't that what clearly exists in the 15th which I referenced?

Uh, no.  It doesn't create a right to vote.  On the contrary, it openly acknowledges that the privilege to vote can be taken away by federal and/or state governments.  It merely says that the reason given (i.e. due process) for denying that 'privilege' cannot be based on race, color, or past servitude.

Most States deny the right to vote to convicted felons, prisoners, etc.

[Hoodat]

Also, Amendment XIV, Section 2:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

By the wording here, the author of this amendment is acknowledging that States have the power to deny voting privileges for their citizens.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Uh, no.  It doesn't create a right to vote.  On the contrary, it openly acknowledges that the privilege to vote can be taken away by federal and/or state governments.  It merely says that the reason given (i.e. due process) for denying that 'privilege' cannot be based on race, color, or past servitude.

Most States deny the right to vote to convicted felons, prisoners, etc.

A good catch there.
 
And you are correct.

The topic was related to the right to vote vs the mandate to vote.

So I will rephrase things that "unless otherwise prohibited by state or federal law, there is a right to vote".

[christian]

Its been a great two weeks with co-vid, second time around. Glad to see the forum hasn't turned full socialist Nazi Marxist.  Also glad the second time wasn't as bad as the first.

[Killer Clouds]

Its been a great two weeks with co-vid, second time around. Glad to see the forum hasn't turned full socialist Nazi Marxist.

Not yet but it's getting closer.

[sneakypete]

Not yet but it's getting closer.

@Killer Clouds

HEIL WHOEVER!