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.

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

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

Scotus changed their interpretation of Jim crow

Any more factoids that prove my point?

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

 

[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.

.

Why don't you do that?

I'm not the one posting irrelevant definitions. That would be you.

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

.

 

[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

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

Scotus changed their interpretation of gender discrimination.

Did they, or did the law change?

.

I presume both. I will investigate. Meanwhile can you answer my question

 

[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.

.

Why don't you do that?

I'm not the one posting irrelevant definitions. That would be you.

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

.

You don't know?

 

[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.

.

Why don't you do that?

I'm not the one posting irrelevant definitions. That would be you.

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

.

Did you read them?

 

[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.

.

Why don't you do that?

I'm not the one posting irrelevant definitions. That would be you.

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

.

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.

.

Why don't you do that?

I'm not the one posting irrelevant definitions. That would be you.

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

.

You don't know

 

[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.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

judicial review

www.law.cornell.edu

Judicial Review
Primary tabs
Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution.

The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

Wow, unelected lawyers bestowed more power on themselves, who'd a thunk.

.

The power of scotus comes from the Constitution

Yeah, that's what SCOTUS keeps telling us. The States should get together and do something about that.

.

 

[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.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

judicial review

www.law.cornell.edu

Judicial Review
Primary tabs
Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution.

The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

Wow, unelected lawyers bestowed more power on themselves, who'd a thunk.

.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

And?

.

 

[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.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

Scotus changed their interpretation of gender discrimination.

Did they, or did the law change?

.

I presume both. I will investigate. Meanwhile can you answer my question

What question, you made a statement.

.

 

[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

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

judicial review

www.law.cornell.edu

Judicial Review
Primary tabs
Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution.

The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

Wow, unelected lawyers bestowed more power on themselves, who'd a thunk.

.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

And?

.

In the 1970s, Ginsburg took to the courtroom to challenge gender-based classifications on constitutional grounds, primarily equal protection under the law guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Her involvement in that run of cases started as the lead author of the ACLU’s brief in Reed v. Reed, a landmark 1971 Supreme Court ruling that struck down part of the Idaho probate code that gave men preferential treatment over women when naming estate administrators

Ginsburg championed gender equality before joining Supreme Court

Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a name for herself fighting for women’s rights before joining the federal bench.

www.tampabay.com

 

[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.

.

Why don't you do that?

I'm not the one posting irrelevant definitions. That would be you.

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

.

You don't know?

Of course I do. I've done the work, but I'm not here to educate you. It's too much fun demonstrating what a dumb ass you are.

.

 

[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

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

Scotus changed their interpretation of gender discrimination.

Did they, or did the law change?

.

I presume both. I will investigate. Meanwhile can you answer my question

What question, you made a statement.

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

 

[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.

.

Why don't you do that?

I'm not the one posting irrelevant definitions. That would be you.

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

.

You don't know?

Of course I do. I've done the work, but I'm not here to educate you. It's too much fun demonstrating what a dumb ass you are.

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

 

[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.

.

Why don't you do that?

I'm not the one posting irrelevant definitions. That would be you.

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

.

You don't know?

Of course I do. I've done the work, but I'm not here to educate you. It's too much fun demonstrating what a dumb ass you are.

.

So you should be able to answer my question

 

[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.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

judicial review

www.law.cornell.edu

Judicial Review
Primary tabs
Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution.

The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

Wow, unelected lawyers bestowed more power on themselves, who'd a thunk.

.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

And?

.

In the 1970s, Ginsburg took to the courtroom to challenge gender-based classifications on constitutional grounds, primarily equal protection under the law guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Her involvement in that run of cases started as the lead author of the ACLU’s brief in Reed v. Reed, a landmark 1971 Supreme Court ruling that struck down part of the Idaho probate code that gave men preferential treatment over women when naming estate administrators

You still haven't figured out when you post copyright material you have to proved a link to it.

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations List of Current Active Moderators: AyeCantSeeYou Dont Taz Me Bro Coyote katsteve2012 White 6 Registration Guidelines: Individuals are allowed only one (1) account. Anyone found to be in violation risk having all accounts banned. Site Wide Rules And...

www.usmessageboard.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

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

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

judicial review

www.law.cornell.edu

Judicial Review
Primary tabs
Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution.

The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

Wow, unelected lawyers bestowed more power on themselves, who'd a thunk.

.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

And?

.

Section 2.
The judicial power

 

[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

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

judicial review

www.law.cornell.edu

Judicial Review
Primary tabs
Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution.

The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

Wow, unelected lawyers bestowed more power on themselves, who'd a thunk.

.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

And?

.

In the 1970s, Ginsburg took to the courtroom to challenge gender-based classifications on constitutional grounds, primarily equal protection under the law guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Her involvement in that run of cases started as the lead author of the ACLU’s brief in Reed v. Reed, a landmark 1971 Supreme Court ruling that struck down part of the Idaho probate code that gave men preferential treatment over women when naming estate administrators

You still haven't figured out when you post copyright material you have to proved a link to it.

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations List of Current Active Moderators: AyeCantSeeYou Dont Taz Me Bro Coyote katsteve2012 White 6 Registration Guidelines: Individuals are allowed only one (1) account. Anyone found to be in violation risk having all accounts banned. Site Wide Rules And...

www.usmessageboard.com

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

 

[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.

.

Why don't you do that?

I'm not the one posting irrelevant definitions. That would be you.

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

.

You don't know?

Of course I do. I've done the work, but I'm not here to educate you. It's too much fun demonstrating what a dumb ass you are.

.

"Of course I do" lie

 

[JoeB131]

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

Actually, I'm happy to pay my taxes. I like roads and police and clean water.

But the government doesn't need guns to make us pay our taxes. Usually, they can do most of legally, garnish wages, etc.

But then again, when you are a libertarian child, you think the world works by magic fairy dust.

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

Never said they were voluntary. I just laugh at his notion that the government goes around pointing guns at people to collect them.

 

[JoeB131]

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

Or maybe we live in a modern society, and we have to do what works for us, and not a bunch of dead slave rapists who shit in chamber pots.