- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
JimEverett
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 2295 |
| Registered on: | 5/26/2020 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: I finally got a response from a TD white male liberal re political beliefs
Posted by JimEverett on 4/18/26 at 5:44 pm to NIH
0
re: When Utah SC ruled against redistricting, a judge was sleeping with the opposition lawyer
Posted by JimEverett on 4/17/26 at 6:36 pm to K2LAW
The February order was not ruled on by the full Court - it was 3 justice panel of which Hage was not a part of, so I don't think she recused herself - she was not on the particular panel that ruled.
re: I was told Boots on the Ground were needed to defeat Iran?
Posted by JimEverett on 4/17/26 at 6:28 pm to SDVTiger
Oh - I see now. You are just full of shite.
re: I was told Boots on the Ground were needed to defeat Iran?
Posted by JimEverett on 4/17/26 at 6:25 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
We are partners with Iran and Venezuala in where their oil flows to
So we own them and will protect them
Do you tards not understand that?
Yeah - I do not understand that. How are we partners with Iran "in where their oil flows to"? Do we get paid? All? 50-50?
I have not read the Cease Fire and I am not going to pretend to know the details, so maybe I am a tard - but I would like to understand what you mean because that would be crazy good if we control Iran's oil.
re: When Utah SC ruled against redistricting, a judge was sleeping with the opposition lawyer
Posted by JimEverett on 4/17/26 at 6:21 pm to FlySaint
quote:
Shouldn’t this invalidate the ruling?
Most likely not, given that the two rulings from the Court have been unanimous. Plus, it is too late to redistrict for 2026.
re: Rep Casar to RFK Jr, “Have you met with any of the 1.4m who lost their health insurance?”
Posted by JimEverett on 4/17/26 at 6:05 pm to timdonaghyswhistle
quote:
Democrat principles focusing solely on anti-Judeo/Christian fervor is a fairly recent development.
That is a good way to put it. I think a lot of the change in the current Democrat party comes in no small part as a reaction over the religious right's influence on the Republican party. Some of that reaction is understandable to some extent - but most of it comes from a place of ignorance - a lot of it willful.
re: I was told Boots on the Ground were needed to defeat Iran?
Posted by JimEverett on 4/17/26 at 6:02 pm to SDVTiger
What do you mean "we own the oil"? WE have physical control over their oil production, or something else
re: DOJ removes lead prosecutor on Brennan probe
Posted by JimEverett on 4/17/26 at 4:19 pm to Bunk Moreland
Given Trump 2's DOJ history - it is most likely the latter
re: Standardized testing in schools
Posted by JimEverett on 4/17/26 at 1:06 pm to prouddawg
I don't like the tests for a variety of reasons. One being that I believe it promotes a sort of authoritarianism. The way the students are taught to pass the test inevitably leads to this "appeal to authority" as opposed to being taught tools that help a student navigate issues. Students are being taught to pass a test and the only explanation needed for a given answer is that the teacher or textbook said it is true.
Not that there was some golden age of teaching before tests, but I have noticed this "appeal to authority" group coming up over the last 20-25 years and there is a clear difference in how people educated before the infatuation with testing began vs. relatively recent groups.
Not that there was some golden age of teaching before tests, but I have noticed this "appeal to authority" group coming up over the last 20-25 years and there is a clear difference in how people educated before the infatuation with testing began vs. relatively recent groups.
re: The media hated Goldwater, so the U.S. got stuck with POS LBJ.
Posted by JimEverett on 4/17/26 at 9:55 am to GatorOnAnIsland
Would have been a great campaign had JFK not been murdered. JFK and Golwater respected each other. But Goldwater's fate was sealed in Dallas - no way the country was going to willingly have 3 Presidents in less than 14 months.
re: Muh bloodbath
Posted by JimEverett on 4/16/26 at 10:00 pm to jbdawgs03
Why slow-walk it?
Better chance a district court judge can block implementation of new maps due to being so close to election. Which would most likely not matter given how close we already are
Better chance a district court judge can block implementation of new maps due to being so close to election. Which would most likely not matter given how close we already are
re: Virginia Governor Abigail signs bill into law giving all electoral college votes to winner
Posted by JimEverett on 4/16/26 at 5:51 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
The way it looks to me, my state could decide to award electoral votes based on whether a groundhog saw his shadow that spring, whether Shaggy said "Far out" an odd or even number of times on any given episode of Scooby Doo, or whether the governor of Illinois drank Coke or Pepsi at Wrigley field last time he was there.
Could someone say that that last one constitutes letting another state determine the electoral votes for my state? Sure. And then I would simply say, "But it's my prerogative to allow another state to determine who gets my electoral votes. My legislature voted to allow it. Therefore, my state decided that that was our criteria."
The problem is that once the legislature allows a popular vote certain rights - namely equal protection rights come into play.
So yeah - the legislature could say our electors will go to the candidate whose last name is first in alphabetical order, or any number of things. But once you have an election, the scheme must protect the rights of voters.
Right now, when you vote in Virginia you are voting for a slate of electors that come from Virginia. If I vote for a slate that is pledged to Candidate A and that slate wins a majority (or plurality) of the vote in Virginia but that slate is not the slate Virginia uses to vote for in the Electoral College then I have a very strong Equal Protection argument. What the hell was I voting for? The voters chose Candidate A but the State sends electors pledged to Candidate B - as clear an equal protection violation as you can get.
Likewise if Virginia and/or others changed the details of what you were voting for and said it was presidential preference poll as opposed to a slate of electors then the question still remains. What the hell am I voting for? There is no national vote in the Unted States. So not only would there be an equal protection problem if Virginia's preference is candidate A but the slate of electors is the one pledged to candidate B - but also given that my vote in Virginia is being pooled with voters outside my State whose requirements for voting and how those votes are counted, and all sorts of other regulations are different than the rules and regs Virginia uses.
You cannot treat voters differently - so unless all these states have the exact same rules and regs for voting there will be an equal potection violation.
re: Virginia Governor Abigail signs bill into law giving all electoral college votes to winner
Posted by JimEverett on 4/16/26 at 2:22 pm to L.A.
Just to give one of many potential Equal Protection claims Consider:
Suppose the Virginia Legislature passed a bill that said Virginia would hold elections for Presidential electors but that the electors would be chosen based on who the Governor of California picked.
Constitutional? If not, then how do you differentiate it from the EV Compact? Both seem to me to violate basic concepts of free elections.
Suppose the Virginia Legislature passed a bill that said Virginia would hold elections for Presidential electors but that the electors would be chosen based on who the Governor of California picked.
Constitutional? If not, then how do you differentiate it from the EV Compact? Both seem to me to violate basic concepts of free elections.
re: Virginia Governor Abigail signs bill into law giving all electoral college votes to winner
Posted by JimEverett on 4/16/26 at 2:09 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Yeah, good question, it's because in that case the resulting criteria emerged as being whether the compact increased state power relative to federal power.
And part of the reasoning in its holding was that Congress consented - although in that case the consent was implied. That, in and of itself, strikes me as murkying the water on whether the EV Compact is Constitutional as it stands now. Congress has not explicitly consented - and the EV Compact on its face seems to imply a greater infringement on national power than a state boundary dispute. Regardless -has Congress implicitly consented? What would implicit consent look like? There aseems to be some pretty basic constitutional questions that are not cleared up just by looking at Virginia v. Tennessee.
quote:
Well the election framework in Article II is that the state legislatures decide unilaterally how to choose electors. And as I have posted several times now,
Sure - but the nature of the Compact itself makes a good argument that legislators in Virginia are not just legislating how electors in Virginia are awarded but how electors in various other states are awarded. Virginia would be on firmer Constitutional ground if its legislature just said our electors go to a "national vote winner" (however they define that term) then entering into a compact with other states which in effect makes the Virginia legislature a sort of inter-state legislature. That seems problematic in and of itself - but especially so when you consider possible Equal Protection claims. if a legislature decides to have a popular vote for President there are federal rules that must be followed (the legislature is, of course, free not to have popular vote elections for electors). If they do so and at the same time tie their state's electors to what legislators in other states do then there seems to be a whole host of potential Equal Protection claims.
It may well be Constitutional, but it is very far from obviously Constitutional.
re: Virginia Governor Abigail signs bill into law giving all electoral college votes to winner
Posted by JimEverett on 4/16/26 at 1:27 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
See the court's ruling on that a few posts up from this one.
How is what you wrote even close to dispositive of the idea that what Virginia and others are doing is constitutional?
The case you cited said Congress did consent to the boundary agreement made between Tennessee and Virginia . How do you go from that to saying there is no constitutional issue in this Electoral Vote Compact? I am not saying that the decision in Virginia v. Tennessee makes the current Compact unconstitutional in that respect - but if the Court's decision rests, in part, on the fact that a boundary dispute between states did receive congressional approval then I have no idea how that means there are no Constitutional issues with respect to the Electoral Vote Compact.
If it is an issue of State vs. Federal power - we are talking about the election of the Chief Executive of the United States. Seems more than a decent argument that the Electoral Vote Compact usurps the election framework for the Chief Executive found in Article II of the Constitution. Essentially the States forming this compact are creating an election scheme not found in the Constitution. The Constitution explicitly rejects a "popular vote" model for electing the President. This State compact is an end run around the Constitution, and thus "federal power" in that respect. I am not even sure congressional approval could save the Compact from constitutional scrutiny on these grounds.
re: Trump pulls millions from funding of Catholic Charities after war of words with Pope Leo
Posted by JimEverett on 4/16/26 at 11:59 am to Lee B
Weird you mentioned reagan and bush 1 when the real change came with clinton and W.
re: Trump pulls millions from funding of Catholic Charities after war of words with Pope Leo
Posted by JimEverett on 4/16/26 at 11:56 am to Eurocat
So before this public back-and-forth with Trump and the Pope tgere were reports of axlerod going to the vatican. Seems odd. What is going on?
re: Europe could run out of jet fuel in 6 weeks
Posted by JimEverett on 4/16/26 at 10:05 am to UtahCajun
quote:
Is it really ignoring or is it just cheaper and more realistic to import finished product since they do not have the raw materials to make it. Or at least very few European countries have oil.
Their reliance on Russian oil was certainly a choice, so "ignore" might the wrong word, but they chose wind and solar over coal and oil - hence they found themselves in the weird position of buying more Russian energy then they were funding Ukraine's defense.
i am not sure about their history of jet fuel production - but Europe produce far more oil than S. Korea - and the latter is a net exporter of jet fuel.
re: Europe could run out of jet fuel in 6 weeks
Posted by JimEverett on 4/16/26 at 9:54 am to captainFid
quote:
To put the scale of this disruption into perspective: The top three global exporters of jet fuel are China, South Korea and Kuwait. China has banned exports of jet fuel and South Korea has had to cut back on production, in both cases because they can't get enough crude to make it. And Kuwait can make jet fuel just fine — but can't send it anywhere.
if Europe really is in danger of running out of jet fuel it sounds like the problem is that they do not refine enough of the stuff domestically. Which sounds an awful lot like their energy problem where they were heavily reliant on Russian energy production.
Europe has ignored critical industrial and energy production in favor of green energy and stupid social/cultural shite for decades. It is our future as well as so many in our country worship the intellectual stupidity of Brussels.
re: Virginia Governor Abigail signs bill into law giving all electoral college votes to winner
Posted by JimEverett on 4/15/26 at 1:13 pm to NorCali
quote:
There is not a requirement for a "compact" for this to fly.
But it is a compact and thus needs Congressional approval.
A State could award its electoral votes according to who its Secretary of State says won a "national vote" (however defined) and that would not need congressional approval. But conditioning it on a compact that States agree will go into effect when enough states join does require congressional approval.
re: COUP:Jamie Raskin, introduced the Commission on Presidential Capacity Act to create an ind
Posted by JimEverett on 4/14/26 at 7:12 pm to SallysHuman
Jesus. Congress cannot force the President to go see a doctor. Do these people ever read the Constitution.
Not to mention bringing this up now after seeing the President from 2021 to 2025
Not to mention bringing this up now after seeing the President from 2021 to 2025
Popular
28
