@kevcvs57 saidPerhaps you would agree that the safest way out is to take power away from ALL
Your Republic is based on democracy and theres only one party and one candidate that are threatening to ignore the democratic will of the Republic. Ironically they call themselves Republicans.
of them, so as to reduce the wrongfulness to the masses, eh?
Ya. That's what I said long ago.
1 edit
@lemon-lime saidAll of the votes must be counted before we KNOW the electoral count for any state, much less the country.
You're right about that if it's a close race. But if electoral votes for Trump goes over 300 (a distinct possibility) then it's game over.
The post election 'protesting' will probably be as bad (if not worse) than when Trump won four years ago, and downtown Portland imo will stop looking like a ghost town... it will look like a war zone.
Strange... I live about 10 mile ...[text shortened]... dn't know anything about rioting, looting, burning and physical attacks. No one here talks about it.
You guys F'ed this up by suing to stop states from being able to start counting mail-in ballots before Nov. 3rd.
@earl-of-trumps saidThe ultimate power in a democratic republic rests with the People. Limiting government's ability to deal with problems that the People want resolved is just another way for the elite to maintain control.
Perhaps you would agree that the safest way out is to take power away from ALL
of them, so as to reduce the wrongfulness to the masses, eh?
Ya. That's what I said long ago.
With the always existing caveat that no government should be able to violate individual Natural Rights even if a majority want them to.
@earl-of-trumps saidIf you do that then rich peoples' property won't be protected at taxpayer expense anymore
Perhaps you would agree that the safest way out is to take power away from ALL
of them, so as to reduce the wrongfulness to the masses, eh?
Ya. That's what I said long ago.
@athousandyoung saidpolice are local.
If you do that then rich peoples' property won't be protected at taxpayer expense anymore
feds can't control that
@earl-of-trumps saidPolice don't chase people across State lines.
police are local.
feds can't control that
@suzianne saidOh no, say it ain't so!
All of the votes must be counted before we KNOW the electoral count for any state, much less the country.
You guys F'ed this up by suing to stop states from being able to start counting mail-in ballots before Nov. 3rd.
Whatever happened to instant gratification? You know that instant gratification is a right, right?
And if it's not in the constitution it SHOULD be... in the constitution.
Or bill of rights, because it's a right...
Right? 😮
@athousandyoung saidThere are some police that are deputized by the county sheriff to pursue perps
Police don't chase people across State lines.
through border towns, yes. But for a local cop to cross state lines...? That is not common practice.
But either way, artful dodger, the local police are NOT under the jurisdiction of the Feds.
@lemon-lime saidAnd the battle rages on...
Hang onto your seats folks, we're almost there...
[youtube]r3XNfLd78TM[/youtube]
😕
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidIt is illegal to cross State lines to chase fugitives. If they have corrupted their own police, then you are looking at a State vs State war. For example, California gangs would be able to overpower local police in any of the little States nearby and have a good chance of intimidating their own police to look the other way e.g. Crips, Hells' Angels, Mara Salvatrucha-13. Or, in New York, the Mafia could do the same thing. You need the FBI with the power of RICO to stop organizations like this.
There are some police that are deputized by the county sheriff to pursue perps
through border towns, yes. But for a local cop to cross state lines...? That is not common practice.
But either way, artful dodger, the local police are NOT under the jurisdiction of the Feds.
@AThousandYoung
That's nice. Didn't really contra what I had said.
And it is *still* the case that the feds do not oversee the local police, lest we forget the core of that subthread.
@earl-of-trumps saidThe Feds oversee any case that crosses State lines.
@AThousandYoung
That's nice. Didn't really contra what I had said.
And it is *still* the case that the feds do not oversee the local police, lest we forget the core of that subthread.
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidYes, because when it goes interstate, it can be construed to be federal,
The Feds oversee any case that crosses State lines.
but the FBI does not come roaring in every time a speeding driver on I-95
crosses a state border in hot pursuit.
now, besides boring me to death, do you even know what you are trying to prove at this point?
the VAST number of criminal cases are in state jurisdiction, NOT federal. The feds have
the FBI for federal cases ONLY. Enough of your pointless lesson giving.