Democrat politicians set to rob the public to pay reperations to slaves.

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

You think taxes are voluntary, we have the choice not to pay them, that's funny. I couldn't read the rest of your shit after you said that.

So you want to see the guns, Joe? Don't pay your taxes and see how that goes, give your theory they are voluntary only a test run. Do it

Anyone who claims taxes are voluntary is a fool who doesn't understand the slightest thing about the realities of government and shouldn't be listened to

Once again, less-educated whites spurned America’s Democratic nominee

Polls incorrectly predicted that Joe Biden would claw back some of his party’s losses with this group

www.economist.com

How does that prove that taxes are voluntary?

Taxes are not voluntary

Funny how you never saw those charges against the folks that disrupted hearings for supreme court nominees. The non-equal application of our laws is becoming more apparent every day. Like the 1/6 folks being held without bail. So much for due process.

.

Bundy Brothers Acquitted in Takeover of Oregon Wildlife ...https://www.nytimes.com › 2016/10/28 › bundy-brothe...
Oct 27, 2016 — PORTLAND, Ore. — Armed antigovernment protesters led by Ammon and Ryan Bundy were acquitted Thursday of federal conspiracy and

Are you actually equating aquital with being held without bail?

the bundys were not held accountable by the court system

They were put on trial and aquited. That's how the legal process works. On the other hand, holding people without bail for minor crimes is how the police state works.

You selectively trust the American justice system

I don't trust it at all, turd.

Once again, less-educated whites spurned America’s Democratic nominee

Polls incorrectly predicted that Joe Biden would claw back some of his party’s losses with this group

www.economist.com

How does that prove our justice system isn't totally corrupt?

You agree with BLM

Our justice system is tilted in BLM's favor, moron.

Link?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Unity

âWe have a deal,â Biden says after meeting with Senate infrastructure group

President Joe Biden declared that the White House has struck an infrastructure deal with a bipartisan group of senators.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government,1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.2 “Its true office,” wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries, “is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, ‘provide for the common defense.’ No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted

Preamble. Annotations about the Preamble

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[LuckyDuck]

Kansas City Mayor Lucas, 10 other US mayors pledge to pay reparations for slavery

Mayor Jones says, ‘We need decisive action to address the racial wealth gap holding communities back across our country.”

fox4kc.com

How is stealing my money paid in taxes, ment to manage the cities needs, to pay random black people going to solve ANYTHING? I wasn't even alive when slaves existed.
We have created an endless tidalwave of victimhood & entitlement.
We've also spent TRILLIONS trying to help poor minority families and individuals to no avail.

360000 men died fighting for the north. When will random people receive reparations for their sacrifice?

When will black leaders rise up and demand that the left stop patronizing them?
Someone somewhere in my family tree was treated unjustly or worse but that has NOTHING to do with my success or failure in life.

Sounds like BS to me.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Eleven U.S. mayors — from Los Angeles to Kansas City — have pledged to pay reparations for slavery to a small group of Black residents in their cities, saying their aim is to set an example for the federal government on how a nationwide program could work.

The mayors had no details on how much it would cost, who would pay for it or how people would be chosen.

All of those details would be worked out with the help of local commissions comprised of representatives from Black-led organizations set up to advise the mayor of each city. But the mayors say they are committed to paying reparations instead of just talking about them.

Let's just say for argument sake that a deal was reached to pay blacks reparations for slavery.
Who actually pays the reparations?
All descendants of the men who fought in the Army of the North against the Democratic South's Confederacy in the Civil War, must be exempt from paying out of their taxes.
All descendants of peoples who arrived here "after" the Civil War must also be exempt.
Any descendants of people that never fought in the Civil War, didn't have slaves and opposed slavery, must also be exempt.
Only individuals who should pay reparations should be:
Descendants whose ancestors were officers in the Confederate Army (most of the enlisted only fought because they were just told that "Yankees were coming to take their land).
Descendants of families that actually owned slaves (including blacks that owned slaves).
Descendants of Native Americans that had black slaves.
OR....Just the people registered in the Democratic Party.
OR....we could all just look back on "history" and realize that slavery was still going on across the planet with only some exceptions. It was a more primitive time with primitive thinking and accept that in every place across the globe, it was THE PAST and move on from it.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Kansas City Mayor Lucas, 10 other US mayors pledge to pay reparations for slavery

Mayor Jones says, ‘We need decisive action to address the racial wealth gap holding communities back across our country.”

fox4kc.com

How is stealing my money paid in taxes, ment to manage the cities needs, to pay random black people going to solve ANYTHING? I wasn't even alive when slaves existed.
We have created an endless tidalwave of victimhood & entitlement.
We've also spent TRILLIONS trying to help poor minority families and individuals to no avail.

360000 men died fighting for the north. When will random people receive reparations for their sacrifice?

When will black leaders rise up and demand that the left stop patronizing them?
Someone somewhere in my family tree was treated unjustly or worse but that has NOTHING to do with my success or failure in life.

Sounds like BS to me.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Eleven U.S. mayors — from Los Angeles to Kansas City — have pledged to pay reparations for slavery to a small group of Black residents in their cities, saying their aim is to set an example for the federal government on how a nationwide program could work.

The mayors had no details on how much it would cost, who would pay for it or how people would be chosen.

All of those details would be worked out with the help of local commissions comprised of representatives from Black-led organizations set up to advise the mayor of each city. But the mayors say they are committed to paying reparations instead of just talking about them.

Let's just say for argument sake that a deal was reached to pay blacks reparations for slavery.
Who actually pays the reparations?
All descendants of the men who fought in the Army of the North against the Democratic South's Confederacy in the Civil War, must be exempt from paying out of their taxes.
All descendants of peoples who arrived here "after" the Civil War must also be exempt.
Any descendants of people that never fought in the Civil War, didn't have slaves and opposed slavery, must also be exempt.
Only individuals who should pay reparations should be:
Descendants whose ancestors were officers in the Confederate Army (most of the enlisted only fought because they were just told that "Yankees were coming to take their land).
Descendants of families that actually owned slaves (including blacks that owned slaves).
Descendants of Native Americans that had black slaves.
OR....Just the people registered in the Democratic Party.
OR....we could all just look back on "history" and realize that slavery was still going on across the planet with only some exceptions. It was a more primitive time with primitive thinking and accept that in every place across the globe, it was THE PAST and move on from it.

How many blacks killed by slavery and Jim crow?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Funny how you never saw those charges against the folks that disrupted hearings for supreme court nominees. The non-equal application of our laws is becoming more apparent every day. Like the 1/6 folks being held without bail. So much for due process.

.

Bundy Brothers Acquitted in Takeover of Oregon Wildlife ...https://www.nytimes.com › 2016/10/28 › bundy-brothe...
Oct 27, 2016 — PORTLAND, Ore. — Armed antigovernment protesters led by Ammon and Ryan Bundy were acquitted Thursday of federal conspiracy and

Are you actually equating aquital with being held without bail?

the bundys were not held accountable by the court system

They were put on trial and aquited. That's how the legal process works. On the other hand, holding people without bail for minor crimes is how the police state works.

You selectively trust the American justice system

I don't trust it at all, turd.

Once again, less-educated whites spurned America’s Democratic nominee

Polls incorrectly predicted that Joe Biden would claw back some of his party’s losses with this group

www.economist.com

How does that prove our justice system isn't totally corrupt?

You agree with BLM

Our justice system is tilted in BLM's favor, moron.

The results demonstrate that drug use and arrest rates are not correlated. In fact, in 2010 blacks were nearly four times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession as whites nationwide despite reporting very similar rates of use (within 1 – 2.5%). The rates of use among 18-25 year olds from 2001-2010, show consistently higher rates of use by whites (2 – 5% higher). Looking at those who report never having smoked pot, blacks report higher levels (of non-use) than whites

THE WAR ON DRUGS: RACE MATTERS - Sociology Toolbox

The Society Pages (TSP) is an open-access social science project headquartered in the Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota

thesocietypages.org

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Kansas City Mayor Lucas, 10 other US mayors pledge to pay reparations for slavery

Mayor Jones says, ‘We need decisive action to address the racial wealth gap holding communities back across our country.”

fox4kc.com

How is stealing my money paid in taxes, ment to manage the cities needs, to pay random black people going to solve ANYTHING? I wasn't even alive when slaves existed.
We have created an endless tidalwave of victimhood & entitlement.
We've also spent TRILLIONS trying to help poor minority families and individuals to no avail.

360000 men died fighting for the north. When will random people receive reparations for their sacrifice?

When will black leaders rise up and demand that the left stop patronizing them?
Someone somewhere in my family tree was treated unjustly or worse but that has NOTHING to do with my success or failure in life.

Sounds like BS to me.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Eleven U.S. mayors — from Los Angeles to Kansas City — have pledged to pay reparations for slavery to a small group of Black residents in their cities, saying their aim is to set an example for the federal government on how a nationwide program could work.

The mayors had no details on how much it would cost, who would pay for it or how people would be chosen.

All of those details would be worked out with the help of local commissions comprised of representatives from Black-led organizations set up to advise the mayor of each city. But the mayors say they are committed to paying reparations instead of just talking about them.

Let's just say for argument sake that a deal was reached to pay blacks reparations for slavery.
Who actually pays the reparations?
All descendants of the men who fought in the Army of the North against the Democratic South's Confederacy in the Civil War, must be exempt from paying out of their taxes.
All descendants of peoples who arrived here "after" the Civil War must also be exempt.
Any descendants of people that never fought in the Civil War, didn't have slaves and opposed slavery, must also be exempt.
Only individuals who should pay reparations should be:
Descendants whose ancestors were officers in the Confederate Army (most of the enlisted only fought because they were just told that "Yankees were coming to take their land).
Descendants of families that actually owned slaves (including blacks that owned slaves).
Descendants of Native Americans that had black slaves.
OR....Just the people registered in the Democratic Party.
OR....we could all just look back on "history" and realize that slavery was still going on across the planet with only some exceptions. It was a more primitive time with primitive thinking and accept that in every place across the globe, it was THE PAST and move on from it.

Reparations is not going to happen

 

[monkrules]

Maybe that's just what this country needs? A permanent reparations program so the black people will no longer have to work?

Black people WORK?!!

Who knew?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Maybe that's just what this country needs? A permanent reparations program so the black people will no longer have to work?

Black people WORK?!!

Who knew?

Black employment rate must be about 90%
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates declined in May for teenagers (9.6
percent), Whites (5.1 percent), and Hispanics (7.3 percent). The jobless rates for adult
men (5.9 percent), adult women (5.4 percent), Blacks (9.1 percent), and Asians (5.5
percent) showed little change in May. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.

Employment Situation Summary - 2024 M04 Results

www.bls.gov

 

[OKTexas]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government,1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.2 “Its true office,” wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries, “is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, ‘provide for the common defense.’ No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted

Preamble. Annotations about the Preamble

www.law.cornell.edu

ROFLMAO, your point? Try reading Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Tell me what you think it says.

.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Brazil and Russia see fresh wave of COVID cases, showing pandemic is far from over in many places

Brazil counted a record number of new cases of COVID-19 on Thursday, while Russia saw its highest tally since late January, highlighting the unequal state of...

www.marketwatch.com

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government,1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.2 “Its true office,” wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries, “is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, ‘provide for the common defense.’ No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted

Preamble. Annotations about the Preamble

www.law.cornell.edu

ROFLMAO, your point? Try reading Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Tell me what you think it says.

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Socialism

 

[OKTexas]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Definition of promote
transitive verb

1a: to advance in station, rank, or honor : RAISE
b: to change (a pawn) into a piece in chess by moving to the eighth rank
c: to advance (a student) from one grade to the next higher grade
2a: to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : FURTHER
promote international understanding

Definition of PROMOTE

to advance in station, rank, or honor : raise; to change (a pawn) into a piece in chess by moving to the eighth rank; to advance (a student) from one grade to the next higher grade… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Definition of provide
transitive verb

1a: to supply or make available (something wanted or needed)
provided new uniforms for the band
also : AFFORD
curtains provide privacy
b: to make something available to
provide the children with free balloons
2: to have as a condition : STIPULATE
the contract provides that certain deadlines will be met
3archaic : to prepare in advance
intransitive verb

1: to make preparation to meet a need
provide for entertainment
especially : to supply something for sustenance or support
provides for the poor

Definition of PROVIDE

to supply or make available (something wanted or needed); also : afford; to make something available to; to have as a condition : stipulate… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government,1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.2 “Its true office,” wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries, “is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, ‘provide for the common defense.’ No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted

Preamble. Annotations about the Preamble

www.law.cornell.edu

ROFLMAO, your point? Try reading Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Tell me what you think it says.

.

From about 1905 until about 1937, the Supreme Court used a narrow version of the Commerce Clause. However, beginning with NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), the Court recognized broader grounds upon which the Commerce Clause could be used to regulate state activity. Most importantly, the Supreme Court held that activity was commerce if it had a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce or if the “cumulative effect” of one act could have an effect on such commerce. Decisions such as NLRB v. Jones, United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) and Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) demonstrated the Court's willingness to give an enequivocally broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Recognizing the development of a dynamic and integrated national economy, the Court employed a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, reasoning the even local activity will likely affect the larger interstate commercial economic scheme

Commerce Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[OKTexas]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

I posted scotus interpretation