Not voting because Harris is a woman?

[NEDenver]

1 hour ago, ffoz said:

The world is watching. The USA & the world DO NOT need TRUMP.

(from Australia)

I think it’s easier to see on the outside.  You can see people here, and the bulk of my family who all hear the bad stuff and figure they don’t want that so surely the Republicans won’t, say cut my brother’s military retirement and disability benefits (they will), won’t really make poor children work in factories (they already do), won’t punish gay and trans people for existing (they are in some places and want that everywhere), won’t destroy the air and water supplies (they’ve been working on it for decades).  They identify as Republicans, and they’re good, so surely the Republicans in office won’t make their lives worse.  
And they’re going to drag the rest of us to Hell with them.

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, hntnhole said:

The few indigenous that managed to escape the wholesale slaughter were rounded up, forced onto what was then deemed "useless" land, and left to fend for themselves, which basically remains the case down to this very day.  

Even worse: once the useless land given to the indigenous people turned out to be not so useless after all (see: Oklahoma and oil fields), we promptly began a campaign to steal that away, too. 

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, BBArchangel said:

If Trump wins they would have four years to change that.

In theory. But it would require a constitutional amendment, and the GOP could never get that through 3/4 of state legislatures, even if they somehow managed to get 2/3 of each chamber of congress to agree (which they also would not). 

[PozBearWI]

7 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Even worse: once the useless land given to the indigenous people turned out to be not so useless after all (see: Oklahoma and oil fields), we promptly began a campaign to steal that away, too. 

Indeed, Deadwood is a great example, but not the only one

[hntnhole]

19 hours ago, BBBxCumDumpster said:

It could be The Heritage Foundation

Hmmmmm .... Thanks for that most interesting twist to the issue.  

It wouldn't surprise me at all that the H.F. folks would use a truly dull and insipient man as cover or shill, particularly someone so desperately insecure as the former President. 

The potential Veep has remained in the weeds lately, which would mesh well with your suggestion.  Given whose tit he's been suckling on these past number of years, that wouldn't surprise me either.  

Thanks for pointing out that interesting twist.  

[Erik62]

On 10/29/2024 at 1:35 PM, NEDenver said:

Except he’s definitely not eligible because of the South African thing.

Not particularly knowledgeable on this topic but, would it be possible to change the rules with Trump as President & Republicans controlling the House & / or Congress 🤔🤔??? I think if Trump gets the Presidency, then anything & everything will be possible leading us into greater world conflict than Hitler & NAZI Germany. 

[Erik62]

On 10/30/2024 at 6:06 AM, hntnhole said:

I think "major freeloader" is waaaaay too gentle term.  

The North American Continent was invaded by "pale-faced" people, the first of which were befriended by the Native American peoples.  When enough of my forbears had arrived, they proceeded to hunt down, murder or otherwise eradicate the indigenous folks that had lived on this continent for millennia.  The few indigenous that managed to escape the wholesale slaughter were rounded up, forced onto what was then deemed "useless" land, and left to fend for themselves, which basically remains the case down to this very day.  

Of course, that outrage against humanity was followed up with the importation, enslavement of a race of people that has, at certain times, at least been acknowledged and some attempts at amelioration made, with further redress coming mostly from the flapping lips of those who at least give lip-service to the issue.

"Freeloader" is far too kind a word to use regarding this eradication of an entire population.  

Your bio states that, "You have NO racial hang-ups 🤔". It doesn't sound that way to me in any of your comments. Your bio also states that "You PREFER" non-caucasions. There is DEFINITELY a collision between what you say, & what you believe. 

[TaKinGDeePanal]

20 minutes ago, Erik62 said:

Not particularly knowledgeable on this topic but, would it be possible to change the rules with Trump as President & Republicans controlling the House & / or Congress 🤔🤔??? I think if Trump gets the Presidency, then anything & everything will be possible leading us into greater world conflict than Hitler & NAZI Germany. 

Constitutionally? IIRC, any Amendment would need around 75% of the Senate vote to pass after it has been through the House of Representatives - and then be ratified by all the States; and finally signed off by POTUS. However, if Congealed Fat Mountain wins, he's already pretty much promised to abolish the Constitution.

[Erik62]

On 10/30/2024 at 9:01 AM, BBBxCumDumpster said:

It could be The Heritage Foundation.  Perhaps it's  JD Vance, who wrote the foreword for Project 2025, who is the true "Manchurian Candidate,"  They've even cast Harris as the "communist tart" though Trump is really  Putin's concubine.  

Our Internet is being played with & keeps dropping out. You have said EXACTLY what I was writing before I got shut down 😘Thanks. 

[Erik62]

13 minutes ago, TaKinGDeePanal said:

Constitutionally? IIRC, any Amendment would need around 75% of the Senate vote to pass after it has been through the House of Representatives - and then be ratified by all the States; and finally signed off by POTUS. However, if Congealed Fat Mountain wins, he's already pretty much promised to abolish the Constitution.

Hej, question 🤔🫣?? Do you sit & wait for me to write comments😵‍💫?? You are so prompt & I am now finding that I actually wait for them to come by. Thanks 👍😜😘. 

[TaKinGDeePanal]

1 minute ago, Erik62 said:

Hej, question 🤔🫣?? Do you sit & wait for me to write comments😵‍💫?? You are so prompt & I am now finding that I actually wait for them to come by. Thanks 👍😜😘. 

We're two towns apart from each other. Same timezone.

[hntnhole]

18 hours ago, Erik62 said:

Your bio states that, "You have NO racial hang-ups 🤔". It doesn't sound that way to me in any of your comments. Your bio also states that "You PREFER" non-caucasions. There is DEFINITELY a collision between what you say, & what you believe. 

I regret your confusion, Erik62.

That reference to my preference for non-Caucasians only means I prefer men that don't look like me; in other words, merely a preference.  I've shared sex with every type of guy, and many times over.  More, preferences are merely that.  Just because I'd rather fuck men that don't look like me doesn't mean I haven't fucked Caucasians hundreds of times, or won't hundreds of times more.  

Actually, my commentary on issues like these is quite consistent.  I've long believed that the cultural barriers we construct are negative in value, no matter which particular barriers they happen to believe.  

If you consider that a "collision", well ..... so be it.  Have a great life anyway.  

[hntnhole]

18 hours ago, Erik62 said:

Not particularly knowledgeable on this topic but, would it be possible to change the rules with Trump as President & Republicans controlling the House & / or Congress 🤔🤔???

No.  "Changing the rules" would require altering the Constitution, which would have to be done well-prior to any election, considering all the factors that would have to be considered by Congress, and then voted upon and passed. 

Not that I'm familiar with rules governing your country, but I rather doubt it could be managed in Australia either, since your Government and ours originally branched out from the same source.  

[PozBearWI]

14 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

No.  "Changing the rules" would require altering the Constitution, which would have to be done well-prior to any election, considering all the factors that would have to be considered by Congress, and then voted upon and passed. 

Not that I'm familiar with rules governing your country, but I rather doubt it could be managed in Australia either, since your Government and ours originally branched out from the same source.  

Indeed, constitutional amendments have to be ratified by the states.  That takes way way longer than ram rodding in a supreme court justice.

[Erik62]

2 hours ago, hntnhole said:

No.  "Changing the rules" would require altering the Constitution, which would have to be done well-prior to any election, considering all the factors that would have to be considered by Congress, and then voted upon and passed. 

Not that I'm familiar with rules governing your country, but I rather doubt it could be managed in Australia either, since your Government and ours originally branched out from the same source.  

Changing rules is simply a matter of parliamentary voting, in both houses, & if a majority gained it is then legislated. Example, Port Arthur massacre where the Federal governing party (Liberal / National Coalition) introduced gun control legislation. This was one occasion where both government & opposition (Labor Party) agreed. As a result very strict gun controls were introduced nation wide. Any Constitutional change MUST BE DONE by national referendum. For any change we require a majority IN ALL states & BY ALL states. Our Constitution is less about personal rights (to carry arms) but more relevant to religious freedoms, discrimination etc.