Separate Elections, Too

[Flanders]

Democrats are working overtime trying to separate illegal aliens from federal government jurisdiction:

House Democrats voted Friday to defend localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections, turning back a GOP attempt to discourage the practice.

The vote marks a stunning reversal from just six months ago, when the chamber — then under GOP control — voted to decry illegal immigrant voting.

“We are prepared to open up the political process and let all of the people come in,” Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and hero of the civil rights movement, told colleagues as he led opposition to the GOP measure.


​

House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting
By Stephen Dinan
Updated: 11:51 a.m. on Friday, March 8, 2019

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/8/house-votes-favor-illegal-immigrant-voting/
​

So how about separating federal election ballots from state and local elections ballots.

In other words a separate federal ballot would be required listing only the names of candidates for federal offices —— presidents and members of Congress.

Separating elections by a year would simplify the process. Federal elections would be held in even numbered years, while statewide elections could be held in odd numbered years. The tab for both elections would also be separated. The feds pay for theirs, while state and local governments would pay for theirs.

I love my suggestion, but I doubt if ACLU parasites would take kindly to losing control of the courts?

Some illegal immigrants gained a new right of appeal Thursday when a federal appeals court ruled that Congress cannot prevent them from challenging their deportations in federal courts.


​

Court gives illegal immigrants new right of appeal before deportation
By Stephen Dinan
Thursday, March 7, 2019

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/7/court-gives-illegal-immigrants-new-right-appeal/
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...direction-On-The-Border&p=2763814#post2763814

I can imagine Democrats going bananas when the vote-count in federal elections are properly monitored —— and legitimate. Had the FEC done their job in 1960 JFK would have lost to Richard Nixon, nor would the Chicago sewer rat have gotten away with stealing two elections.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...1..gws-wiz.....0..0j0i131j0i22i30.Lfsl-DZzTo8

Parenthetically, Sixty-five or so years ago U.N.-loving traitors tried to sell the idea that everyone in the world should vote in our presidential elections. (I do not recall anyone saying that Americans should vote in foreign elections.) That was probably the first idiotic U.N. public relations campaign to erase national borders.

Inevitably, everybody in the world could run for President of the United States regardless of the Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution. In short: No need to abolish the Electoral College. No American would ever become president because a foreigner would always win the popular vote.

Also, illegal campaign contributions from wealthy foreigners achieved the very thing the U.N. called for decades ago. Each wealthy donor actually gets a lot more than one vote in our elections when you count the influence they get for their money.

It is no surprise that the United Nations crowd fight like hell to give foreigners huge numbers in order to dilute votes cast by American. The Administration asking the question has Democrats sweating bullets over this one:

​

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the Trump administration can add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The decision grants the administration's request for an immediate review of a lower court's ruling that stopped plans for the question. A hearing is expected to be held in April.


​

Supreme Court To Decide Whether 2020 Census Will Include Citizenship Question
Hansi Lo Wang

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/15/6926...-if-2020-census-includes-citizenship-question
​

NOTE: Chief Justice Roberts will probably side with the Democrats on the citizenship form. The lawyer pleading the case for the American people should at least ask the Nifty Nine to explain how the number of seats in the House of Representative will be allocated after every illegal alien gets a vote?

Finally, decades ago a graduated vote like our graduated income tax was proposed. The poor got one vote each while wealthy individuals get seven votes each. Each level in-between got votes according to their wherewithal (2-3-4-5-6). (Serving and retired military personnel would get seven votes each since they fight for the country.) Naturally, the graduated vote proposal went nowhere fast. Rather than pit the poor against the rich —— which the income tax does —— lets pit Americans against parasites:

Every individual whose major source of income is derived from tax dollars gets one vote each. That means government employees, teachers, and so on. It also means that every private sector parasite living on tax dollars for any reason gets one vote; most especially millionaire executives whose major source of income comes from tax dollars indirectly.

Every working American whose major source of income is not derived from tax dollars would get between 2 and 6 votes each. If nothing else a graduated vote would make it impossible to steal an election.

 

[floridafan]

Democrats are working overtime trying to separate illegal aliens from federal government jurisdiction:

House Democrats voted Friday to defend localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections, turning back a GOP attempt to discourage the practice.

The vote marks a stunning reversal from just six months ago, when the chamber — then under GOP control — voted to decry illegal immigrant voting.

“We are prepared to open up the political process and let all of the people come in,” Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and hero of the civil rights movement, told colleagues as he led opposition to the GOP measure.


​

House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting
By Stephen Dinan
Updated: 11:51 a.m. on Friday, March 8, 2019

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/8/house-votes-favor-illegal-immigrant-voting/
​

So how about separating federal election ballots from state and local elections ballots.

In other words a separate federal ballot would be required listing only the names of candidates for federal offices —— presidents and members of Congress.

Separating elections by a year would simplify the process. Federal elections would be held in even numbered years, while statewide elections could be held in odd numbered years. The tab for both elections would also be separated. The feds pay for theirs, while state and local governments would pay for theirs.

I love my suggestion, but I doubt if ACLU parasites would take kindly to losing control of the courts?

Some illegal immigrants gained a new right of appeal Thursday when a federal appeals court ruled that Congress cannot prevent them from challenging their deportations in federal courts.


​

Court gives illegal immigrants new right of appeal before deportation
By Stephen Dinan
Thursday, March 7, 2019

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/7/court-gives-illegal-immigrants-new-right-appeal/
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...direction-On-The-Border&p=2763814#post2763814

I can imagine Democrats going bananas when the vote-count in federal elections are properly monitored —— and legitimate. Had the FEC done their job in 1960 JFK would have lost to Richard Nixon, nor would the Chicago sewer rat have gotten away with stealing two elections.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...1..gws-wiz.....0..0j0i131j0i22i30.Lfsl-DZzTo8

Parenthetically, Sixty-five or so years ago U.N.-loving traitors tried to sell the idea that everyone in the world should vote in our presidential elections. (I do not recall anyone saying that Americans should vote in foreign elections.) That was probably the first idiotic U.N. public relations campaign to erase national borders.

Inevitably, everybody in the world could run for President of the United States regardless of the Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution. In short: No need to abolish the Electoral College. No American would ever become president because a foreigner would always win the popular vote.

Also, illegal campaign contributions from wealthy foreigners achieved the very thing the U.N. called for decades ago. Each wealthy donor actually gets a lot more than one vote in our elections when you count the influence they get for their money.

It is no surprise that the United Nations crowd fight like hell to give foreigners huge numbers in order to dilute votes cast by American. The Administration asking the question has Democrats sweating bullets over this one:

​

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the Trump administration can add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The decision grants the administration's request for an immediate review of a lower court's ruling that stopped plans for the question. A hearing is expected to be held in April.


​

Supreme Court To Decide Whether 2020 Census Will Include Citizenship Question
Hansi Lo Wang

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/15/6926...-if-2020-census-includes-citizenship-question
​

NOTE: Chief Justice Roberts will probably side with the Democrats on the citizenship form. The lawyer pleading the case for the American people should at least ask the Nifty Nine to explain how the number of seats in the House of Representative will be allocated after every illegal alien gets a vote?

Finally, decades ago a graduated vote like our graduated income tax was proposed. The poor got one vote each while wealthy individuals get seven votes each. Each level in-between got votes according to their wherewithal (2-3-4-5-6). (Serving and retired military personnel would get seven votes each since they fight for the country.) Naturally, the graduated vote proposal went nowhere fast. Rather than pit the poor against the rich —— which the income tax does —— lets pit Americans against parasites:

Every individual whose major source of income is derived from tax dollars gets one vote each. That means government employees, teachers, and so on. It also means that every private sector parasite living on tax dollars for any reason gets one vote; most especially millionaire executives whose major source of income comes from tax dollars indirectly.

Every working American whose major source of income is not derived from tax dollars would get between 2 and 6 votes each. If nothing else a graduated vote would make it impossible to steal an election.

The measure would have had no practical effect even if it had passed. Illegal immigrants — and indeed noncitizens as a whole — are not legally able to participate in federal elections.

 

[Flanders]

Illegal immigrants — and indeed noncitizens as a whole — are not legally able to participate in federal elections.

To floridafan: Keeping them out is the best way to stop them from voting.

Deporting them as soon as they are caught is the only way to stop from voting:

2. Repeal every law that blocks immediate deportation.

3. Stop lawyers from getting tax dollars to pay for all of those appeals illegal alien file after they are caught.

4. Make employers who hire illegals pay every cost associated with capture and deportation.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...direction-On-The-Border&p=2763814#post2763814

 

[floridafan]

To floridafan: Keeping them out is the best way to stop them from voting.

Deporting them as soon as they are caught is the only way to stop from voting:

2. Repeal every law that blocks immediate deportation.

Its really

3. Stop lawyers from getting tax dollars to pay for all of those appeals illegal alien file after they are caught.

4. Make employers who hire illegals pay every cost associated with capture and deportation.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...direction-On-The-Border&p=2763814#post2763814

Its really not a problem because they dont vote. I would be far more concerned about Republican election fraud such is what happened in NC, and surely many other places.

 

[Flanders]

Democrats are working overtime trying to separate illegal aliens from federal government jurisdiction:

Nutso dare not quote the Chicago sewer rat:

Is Nancy delusional or does she truly believe what she said?


​

XXXXX
​

We aren't opposed to welcoming legal immigrants from Central America. What Nancy is trying to say is that we don't welcome illegal aliens because they're from the southern border, not Europe. That's not the case at all. Conservatives don't care if a person comes from Central America, Asia or Europe. We just want to make sure people are doing it the proper way, that they're being vetted, that they're paying into our tax system and that they're contributing to society. We aren't standing with open arms to welcome anyone and everyone who wants to come to America. We don't want to see the drug cartel, terrorists, murderers and rapists crossing our border. And it doesn't matter if they're crossing the border by land, sea or air. We. Do. Not. Want. Them. Here. Period.


​

Um, What? Pelosi Tries To Argue Illegals Should Be Able to Vote...Using a Reagan Quote?
Beth Baumann
Posted: Mar 09, 2019 5:05 PM

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...-be-able-to-voteusing-a-reagan-quote-n2542872
​

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

Had the FEC done their job in 1960 JFK would have lost to Richard Nixon, nor would the Chicago sewer rat have gotten away with stealing two elections.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...1..gws-wiz.....0..0j0i131j0i22i30.Lfsl-DZzTo8

So I looked up the first report you referenced, and this is what it said:


Voting machine changes vote for Barack Obama to Mitt Romney

An electronic voting machine was taken out of service on Tuesday after being captured on video changing a vote for President Barack Obama into one for Mitt Romney.

The footage showed a voter in a polling booth repeatedly attempting to cast his ballot for Mr Obama, only to find the machine ticked Mr Romney's name.

Baffled by the result, the unnamed voter alerted staff at the Pennsylvania voting station to the problem before recording what was happening. He later posted the video on YouTube.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...ges-vote-for-Barack-Obama-to-Mitt-Romney.html


WTF?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The measure would have had no practical effect even if it had passed. Illegal immigrants — and indeed noncitizens as a whole — are not legally able to participate in federal elections.

sure, ignore this.....

“We are prepared to open up the political process and let all of the people come in,” Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat

 

[PostmodernProphet]

illegals already have the right to vote......in the country they should be returned to.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

twenty years ago I used to say it was too expensive to send all the illegals back home.......after watching the demmycunts block any effort to stop the problem for twenty years I no longer care how expensive it might be........track every one of them down and send them the fuck home.......

 

[jimmymccready]

Voting has been traditionally under state and local control.

We cannot let Big Government Progressive Republicans federalize voting control.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

because the last thing the left wants is controlled voting.....

 

[Flanders]

Voting has been traditionally under state and local control.

To jimmymccready: Not exactly. Issues have been in media hands since the 1920s; i.e. federal government Socialists.

We cannot let Big Government Progressive Republicans federalize voting control.

To jimmymccready: What are you talking about? Informed —— and uninformed —— voters retain control. Separating elections into odd and even numbered years makes it a lot more difficult for both Democrat and Republican campaign rhetoric to blend foreign policy with domestic issues.

And you might consider the beneficial effect separate elections would have over television’s diminished control over foreign policy and state issues.

 

[floridafan]

sure, ignore this.....

Sorry, there is a constitution which doesn't allow non citizens to vote.

 

[jimmymccready]

Yes, states have generally controlled voting.

Anyone who says differently has no idea about what they are talking.

They could make an exception about CRA and voting oversight, but that is not general or normal.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Sorry, there is a constitution which doesn't allow non citizens to vote.

Lewis is prepared to open things up.......

 

[Nordberg]

The census just counts people. It is about redistricting and what services are needed in a specific area. It counts children, who are not allowed to vote. It counts people who have never voted.
1. representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the states according to the numbers.
2. determines how to allocate federal spending programs
3. Foundation for data projections.
4. The data is shared with the business community for marketing and business strategies.

 

[Flanders]

Sorry, there is a constitution which doesn't allow non citizens to vote.

To floridafan: Somebody has not been enforcing it!

 

[floridafan]

Thats total BS my dear, created to cover up republican election fraud in NC and how many other states. Lets discuss that !

 

[floridafan]

I hope he opens up the republican election fraud being perpetrated in North Carolina and how many other states. You just accuse the Democrats of doing exactly what you have done, in the hope that no one will notice

 

[Flanders]

Separating elections by a year would simplify the process. Federal elections would be held in even numbered years, while statewide elections could be held in odd numbered years.

Nutso & Company should have checked with me. There is nothing unconstitutional about my suggestion:

​

At some level, you have to give House Democrats some credit for ambition. They may have just sent to the Senate the most comprehensively unconstitutional bill in modern American history. It’s called the “For the People Act,” and it’s a legislative buffet of bad ideas.

The alleged purpose of the bill, H.R. 1, is to “expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants.”



​

There are no ethics rules to strengthen. Ethics Committees are where corruption goes to be buried every time a “public servant” get caught doing anything unethical.

In reality, the bill represents an extraordinary federal power grab. At every turn, it grants federal regulators more power. Time and again, it renders federal election law more complex — creating a chilling effect on political communication through sheer uncertainty and confusion.

The free-speech problems are so obvious that free-speech organizations on the left and right are united in opposition. Comprehensive analyses from the Institute for Free Speech and the American Civil Liberties Union are worth reading in their entirety and raise remarkably similar concerns.

At a time of extraordinary public harassment, boycotts, intimidating public shame campaigns, the act would expand financial-disclosure requirements, including in some circumstances requiring public disclosure of the names and addresses even of donors who did not know about or perhaps even support the political message of the organization they funded. Donors may give money, for example, to fund one aspect of an organization’s mission only to be involuntarily exposed as a “political donor” when the organization chooses — without the donor’s knowledge or consent — to mention a politician by name in a different context. As the ACLU points out, “it is unfair to hold donors responsible for every communication in which an organization engages.”

Moreover, in the effort to further limit “coordination” between candidates and political action committees, the bill sets forth language so broad that, as the ACLU explains, it affects communications that “merely refer to a candidate or an opponent to a candidate 120 days before an election or 60 days before a primary or a caucus.” The Institute for Free Speech’s Bradley Smith argues that, with such language, “the goal seems to be to limit discussion of candidates to the candidates and parties themselves, at the expense of the public at large.”

Compounding the problems, the bill revamps the Federal Election Commission, making practical partisan control a near-certainty. While no more than two members of one party could be appointed to the new, five-person commission, it would be easy to achieve ideological control by appointing a like-minded “independent” to break the logjam. As a result, two Democrats and an independent socialist could control the interpretation and enforcement of H.R. 1’s extraordinarily broad and vague provisions. Under current law, the FEC is supposed to have six commissioners, with no more than three of the same party. It takes a vote of four for the commission to act, so the commission can’t act without at least some degree of bipartisan consensus.

In addition to controlling political speech, the bill would transform the federal government into the sugar daddy of American politics by dramatically increasing federal funding of campaigns. Are Democrats truly worried about the influence of “big money” over politicians, or do they simply want to ensure that the government is the donor?

The bill would also strip from the states the ability to draw their own congressional districts (requiring instead that they be drawn by an independent commission) and the ability to engage in prudent, constitutionally appropriate measures to ensure the accuracy of their voter rolls. Moreover, it directly contradicts the text of the 14th Amendment, which grants states the ability to prohibit or restrict the voting rights of felons.

The bill also expands the definition of “lobbyist” far beyond the bounds of reason — to include even those individuals who provide “legislative, political, and strategic counseling services” to actual lobbyists, even if the person who provides “counseling services” never communicates with the relevant government officials. As the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky explained in his written testimony opposing H.R. 1, the language is broad enough that it could even encompass casual conversations at social gatherings.

But there’s a larger concern with the bill beyond the multiple constitutional problems with individual provisions. Taken together, it directly contradicts two foundational virtues of the American constitution: its protection of political speech and its respect for federalism. The “For the People Act” is a legislative megaphone amplifying the Democrats’ belief that political speech is somehow particularly suspect. Political speakers are particularly suspicious.

The Democrats seem to believe that political speech is just too dangerous to be unrestrained. It has to be micromanaged, regulated by technocrats until it is directed into its government-approved lanes. This is of course exactly what incumbent politicians tend to prefer. They want predictable debates, reliable funding streams, and (above all) power — including the power to punish their opponents.

Finally, federalism isn’t just valuable as the “laboratory of democracy” (though that is valuable), it also recognizes the reality that American states have different cultures and different priorities. Drawing legislative districts according to state priorities allows each state to shape its federal delegation the way the people of the state dictate, not according to Washington’s demands.

Throughout the Trump years, Democrats have raised multiple alarms over the alleged authoritarianism of the Trump administration, and while we have not agreed with the propriety of all the administration’s actions, nothing it has proposed or enacted is as alarming as H.R. 1. This bill is a frontal assault on the Constitution, and the nation should be grateful that the Republican-controlled Senate will almost certainly block it from becoming law.


​

The Democrats’ Election-Reform Bill Is an Unconstitutional, Authoritarian Power Grab
By The Editors
March 10, 2019 9:32 PM

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019...le-act-election-reform-bill-unconstitutional/
​