|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 08 2015 03:10 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 02:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds like you need to rewrite the state constitution to put in better safeguards. A big problem with that is that NYC is a totally different culture than the rest of the state. Upstate NY is much more rural, and mostly conservative. NYC is obviously urban, and is very liberal. We don't get along at all. There's no way to keep both groups happy under the same constitution. Take the SAFE act for example again. Only one district outside NYC voted in favor of it. And yet it still passed. Well, one solution would be to split into two states. Another would be to focus on making legislation that can have broad support, though that one is trickier. Also, I'm sure you can keep both happy under the same constitution, constitutions are broad enough to do that, unlike laws.
The same fight comes up every election in Washington. Western Washington has all the people and the coastline though, so if Eastern Washington ever did leave they would wither on the vine shortly after. They practically fund their police from people traveling through to WSU or the Gorge. Which are both mainly constituted of visitors from outside eastern Washington.
All I know is if you don't like your states laws (say the SAFE act) or legislators one is just supposed to move to another state or change it legislatively, not bitch and moan and wish it was different?
|
On May 08 2015 01:24 farvacola wrote:Ok, so, to those who read this thread continuously, it will come as no surprise that I think state governments have a severe problem with how their legislatures operate, particularly when it comes to how dominantly Republican state legislatures routinely shit the bed in managing things like public university financials. Here's an excellent example of something similar happening in New York state, and the results are interesting to say the least. Show nested quote +ALBANY — Democrats walked out of the New York State Senate in protest on Wednesday after Republicans blocked their effort to oust the majority leader, Dean G. Skelos, following his arrest on federal corruption charges.
It was a tempestuous scene: With Senator Skelos absent from the chamber, his colleagues squabbled over parliamentary procedures, clarified the proper terminology to describe the senator’s legal troubles and — in the view of some members — insulted a championship high school basketball team.
The quarreling concluded with dueling declarations. As a Democratic senator denounced the Republicans, a Senate official simultaneously read a resolution commending the basketball team — the boys’ varsity from Shenendehowa High School in Clifton Park, near Albany.
Democratic senators hoped that by seeking a vote to remove Mr. Skelos from his position, they would add to the pressure on his fellow Republican senators by at least requiring them to take a public position on the matter.
“The people of New York are entitled to know where their senators stand on this critical issue right now,” said Senator Michael N. Gianaris of Queens, the deputy minority leader, who led the effort to force a vote on the Senate floor.
The chaos unfolded two days after Mr. Skelos, whose district is on Long Island, and his son, Adam B. Skelos, were arrested. The senator is accused of using his influence to generate income for the younger man, including by extorting a real estate developer that eventually arranged a lucrative consulting job for Adam Skelos at an environmental company.
The day started with a hint of conspiracy: Democrats accused the Republican majority of withholding audiovisual equipment for the news conference that the Democrats had organized to announce their plans. (A spokesman for the Republicans denied any nefarious intent.)
The Senate session otherwise would have been filled largely with warm feelings. It was West Point Day, for one thing. With a number of cadets and the academy’s superintendent in attendance, the session began with a series of senators rising to pay tribute to their service.
Then came a resolution to honor a Democratic former senator from Queens, George Onorato, who died in February. But before it could be considered, Democrats sought to suspend the Senate rules in order to permit a vote on a resolution removing Mr. Skelos as leader.
After some parliamentary wrangling — and raised voices — the senator who was presiding over the chamber, Jack M. Martins, a Long Island Republican, turned back their effort.
“There are rules in this house,” Mr. Martins said. “We do not substitute those rules on a whim.”
Democrats tried again later in the session, when it was time for a resolution honoring the Shenendehowa basketball team. Once again, shouting ensued.
“You cannot single-handedly make up the rules,” Mr. Gianaris chastised Mr. Martins, as the Senate official read the text of a resolution congratulating the team.
Senate Democrats then left the chamber en masse, leaving Republicans to express regret to their high school guests.
“Please accept my apologies for the lack of decorum demonstrated by my colleagues in the chamber today,” Mr. Martins said.
Another senator, Hugh T. Farley, a Republican from the capital region who was first elected to the Senate in 1976, said he had never seen such “rudeness” in the chamber.
A spokeswoman for the Senate Republicans, Kelly Cummings, criticized the Democrats’ actions as political in nature. “The liberal, progressive Democrats no longer believe in the presumption of innocence, and that is dangerous to all of our freedoms, including their own,” Ms. Cummings said in a statement.
Senator Skelos has proclaimed his innocence and has derided the criminal complaint as “nothing more than a press release.” His Republican colleagues decided on Monday night that he would remain as majority leader.
But Mr. Skelos’s fate is far from assured. Several Republican senators have said he should step down as leader, as have newspaper editorial boards around the state. Republican senators will spend the next several days in their districts, where they could face questions about their continued support for Mr. Skelos. The Senate is scheduled to reconvene on Monday, and Democrats have promised to try again. Acrimony in Albany as Senate Republicans Stop Effort to Oust Skelos
Pretty embarrassing, but I'm not sure how you're relating this to university funding or other public policy choices. Lots of states, both run by R's or D's run into funding issues because it is a difficult thing to do right and voters have unrealistic expectations that politicians are all too happy to exploit.
California is largely run by D's and is a chronic financial mess. Detroit just went through bankruptcy and Chicago may not be far behind (last I heard the school system was really badly indebted). Also not a state, but Puerto Rico is heading into a public debt crisis.
|
On May 08 2015 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 03:10 zlefin wrote:On May 08 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 02:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds like you need to rewrite the state constitution to put in better safeguards. A big problem with that is that NYC is a totally different culture than the rest of the state. Upstate NY is much more rural, and mostly conservative. NYC is obviously urban, and is very liberal. We don't get along at all. There's no way to keep both groups happy under the same constitution. Take the SAFE act for example again. Only one district outside NYC voted in favor of it. And yet it still passed. Well, one solution would be to split into two states. Another would be to focus on making legislation that can have broad support, though that one is trickier. Also, I'm sure you can keep both happy under the same constitution, constitutions are broad enough to do that, unlike laws. The same fight comes up every election in Washington. Western Washington has all the people and the coastline though, so if Eastern Washington ever did leave they would wither on the vine shortly after. They practically fund their police from people traveling through to WSU or the Gorge. Which are both mainly constituted of visitors from outside eastern Washington. All I know is if you don't like your states laws (say the SAFE act) or legislators one is just supposed to move to another state or change it legislatively, not bitch and moan and wish it was different?
It's really quite a similar problem to the one the founding fathers faced. They were poorly represented in the English parliament; Western New Yorkers are poorly represented in the state legislature. George Washington and co. didn't just leave or change things legislatively.
|
On May 08 2015 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 03:10 zlefin wrote:On May 08 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 02:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds like you need to rewrite the state constitution to put in better safeguards. A big problem with that is that NYC is a totally different culture than the rest of the state. Upstate NY is much more rural, and mostly conservative. NYC is obviously urban, and is very liberal. We don't get along at all. There's no way to keep both groups happy under the same constitution. Take the SAFE act for example again. Only one district outside NYC voted in favor of it. And yet it still passed. Well, one solution would be to split into two states. Another would be to focus on making legislation that can have broad support, though that one is trickier. Also, I'm sure you can keep both happy under the same constitution, constitutions are broad enough to do that, unlike laws. The same fight comes up every election in Washington. Western Washington has all the people and the coastline though, so if Eastern Washington ever did leave they would wither on the vine shortly after. They practically fund their police from people traveling through to WSU or the Gorge. Which are both mainly constituted of visitors from outside eastern Washington. All I know is if you don't like your states laws (say the SAFE act) or legislators one is just supposed to move to another state or change it legislatively, not bitch and moan and wish it was different?
Lol yeah basically. I'm gonna be moving to wsu from Seattle for fall semester so I'll basically have to go exactly the speed limit through all of eastern Washington to avoid having to give free money to some small hick town.
|
On May 08 2015 03:16 always_winter wrote:
Lol I had initially read the plausible bit as agreement with my conclusion, when in fact it seems you're suggesting the finding of this survey is plausible. Might be time to step out of that bubble. If you're suggesting a majority of Americans would prefer a gay president over an overly religious one, I'm afraid you're disconnected from reality.
If you're expecting me to back that up with empirical data (was this a joke or....?), I'm definitely not going to. Feel like that kinda goes without saying. Could just be me. I like to have context. Much love.
Anecdotally, I'm an evangelical Christian from Indiana who is comfortable with a gay president so there's that. But yes, all of us are the same over hurr in the sticks 
|
On May 08 2015 04:21 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2015 03:10 zlefin wrote:On May 08 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 02:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds like you need to rewrite the state constitution to put in better safeguards. A big problem with that is that NYC is a totally different culture than the rest of the state. Upstate NY is much more rural, and mostly conservative. NYC is obviously urban, and is very liberal. We don't get along at all. There's no way to keep both groups happy under the same constitution. Take the SAFE act for example again. Only one district outside NYC voted in favor of it. And yet it still passed. Well, one solution would be to split into two states. Another would be to focus on making legislation that can have broad support, though that one is trickier. Also, I'm sure you can keep both happy under the same constitution, constitutions are broad enough to do that, unlike laws. The same fight comes up every election in Washington. Western Washington has all the people and the coastline though, so if Eastern Washington ever did leave they would wither on the vine shortly after. They practically fund their police from people traveling through to WSU or the Gorge. Which are both mainly constituted of visitors from outside eastern Washington. All I know is if you don't like your states laws (say the SAFE act) or legislators one is just supposed to move to another state or change it legislatively, not bitch and moan and wish it was different? Lol yeah basically. I'm gonna be moving to wsu from Seattle for fall semester so I'll basically have to go exactly the speed limit through all of eastern Washington to avoid having to give free money to some small hick town.
I'm sure they were livid when they couldn't ticket and drag people to court over small cannabis possession. Admittedly not all of them are total dicks though.
story time:
+ Show Spoiler + One time on a trip to the Gorge for an endfest in an old VW hippy van, Our driver didn't have a seatbelt so they pulled us over (they had an officer sitting on the offramp flagging people to keep going or pull over for no seatbelt). We convinced him the bus was made before seatbelts were required for the back seats (as we were sitting in beanbags and such) and that the smell he smelt was in fact what the officer referred to as "the lingering aroma of Tacoma" and not some illicit substance. He wrote the driver a ticket (which we pooled for since he did the most of the smooth talking) and sent us on our way. I have a dozen bad stories for every good one but that cop was cool (as cool as you can be farming seatbelt tickets anyway).
|
On May 08 2015 04:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2015 03:10 zlefin wrote:On May 08 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 02:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds like you need to rewrite the state constitution to put in better safeguards. A big problem with that is that NYC is a totally different culture than the rest of the state. Upstate NY is much more rural, and mostly conservative. NYC is obviously urban, and is very liberal. We don't get along at all. There's no way to keep both groups happy under the same constitution. Take the SAFE act for example again. Only one district outside NYC voted in favor of it. And yet it still passed. Well, one solution would be to split into two states. Another would be to focus on making legislation that can have broad support, though that one is trickier. Also, I'm sure you can keep both happy under the same constitution, constitutions are broad enough to do that, unlike laws. The same fight comes up every election in Washington. Western Washington has all the people and the coastline though, so if Eastern Washington ever did leave they would wither on the vine shortly after. They practically fund their police from people traveling through to WSU or the Gorge. Which are both mainly constituted of visitors from outside eastern Washington. All I know is if you don't like your states laws (say the SAFE act) or legislators one is just supposed to move to another state or change it legislatively, not bitch and moan and wish it was different? It's really quite a similar problem to the one the founding fathers faced. They were poorly represented in the English parliament; Western New Yorkers are poorly represented in the state legislature. George Washington and co. didn't just leave or change things legislatively.
Similar, but not the same; the issue in the past was NO representation, as opposed to low representation.
There's no ideal solution to the inevitable fact that some people or regions will be in a minority and won't be entirely happy with what their government is doing on a regular basis.
|
On May 08 2015 04:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 04:12 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2015 03:10 zlefin wrote:On May 08 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 02:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds like you need to rewrite the state constitution to put in better safeguards. A big problem with that is that NYC is a totally different culture than the rest of the state. Upstate NY is much more rural, and mostly conservative. NYC is obviously urban, and is very liberal. We don't get along at all. There's no way to keep both groups happy under the same constitution. Take the SAFE act for example again. Only one district outside NYC voted in favor of it. And yet it still passed. Well, one solution would be to split into two states. Another would be to focus on making legislation that can have broad support, though that one is trickier. Also, I'm sure you can keep both happy under the same constitution, constitutions are broad enough to do that, unlike laws. The same fight comes up every election in Washington. Western Washington has all the people and the coastline though, so if Eastern Washington ever did leave they would wither on the vine shortly after. They practically fund their police from people traveling through to WSU or the Gorge. Which are both mainly constituted of visitors from outside eastern Washington. All I know is if you don't like your states laws (say the SAFE act) or legislators one is just supposed to move to another state or change it legislatively, not bitch and moan and wish it was different? It's really quite a similar problem to the one the founding fathers faced. They were poorly represented in the English parliament; Western New Yorkers are poorly represented in the state legislature. George Washington and co. didn't just leave or change things legislatively. Similar, but not the same; the issue in the past was NO representation, as opposed to low representation. There's no ideal solution to the inevitable fact that some people or regions will be in a minority and won't be entirely happy with what their government is doing on a regular basis.
You will never be represented perfectly, I agree, but that doesn't mean I have to accept that the current situation in NY is an adequate level of representation.
|
United States43964 Posts
On May 08 2015 04:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 04:12 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2015 03:10 zlefin wrote:On May 08 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 02:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds like you need to rewrite the state constitution to put in better safeguards. A big problem with that is that NYC is a totally different culture than the rest of the state. Upstate NY is much more rural, and mostly conservative. NYC is obviously urban, and is very liberal. We don't get along at all. There's no way to keep both groups happy under the same constitution. Take the SAFE act for example again. Only one district outside NYC voted in favor of it. And yet it still passed. Well, one solution would be to split into two states. Another would be to focus on making legislation that can have broad support, though that one is trickier. Also, I'm sure you can keep both happy under the same constitution, constitutions are broad enough to do that, unlike laws. The same fight comes up every election in Washington. Western Washington has all the people and the coastline though, so if Eastern Washington ever did leave they would wither on the vine shortly after. They practically fund their police from people traveling through to WSU or the Gorge. Which are both mainly constituted of visitors from outside eastern Washington. All I know is if you don't like your states laws (say the SAFE act) or legislators one is just supposed to move to another state or change it legislatively, not bitch and moan and wish it was different? It's really quite a similar problem to the one the founding fathers faced. They were poorly represented in the English parliament; Western New Yorkers are poorly represented in the state legislature. George Washington and co. didn't just leave or change things legislatively. Similar, but not the same; the issue in the past was NO representation, as opposed to low representation. There's no ideal solution to the inevitable fact that some people or regions will be in a minority and won't be entirely happy with what their government is doing on a regular basis.
They had the King looking out for their interests on behalf of all his subjects. Now you may correctly identify that that wasn't very much representation and I'd agree but it does beg the question about how much is sufficient.
|
On May 08 2015 05:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 04:57 zlefin wrote:On May 08 2015 04:12 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2015 03:10 zlefin wrote:On May 08 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 02:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds like you need to rewrite the state constitution to put in better safeguards. A big problem with that is that NYC is a totally different culture than the rest of the state. Upstate NY is much more rural, and mostly conservative. NYC is obviously urban, and is very liberal. We don't get along at all. There's no way to keep both groups happy under the same constitution. Take the SAFE act for example again. Only one district outside NYC voted in favor of it. And yet it still passed. Well, one solution would be to split into two states. Another would be to focus on making legislation that can have broad support, though that one is trickier. Also, I'm sure you can keep both happy under the same constitution, constitutions are broad enough to do that, unlike laws. The same fight comes up every election in Washington. Western Washington has all the people and the coastline though, so if Eastern Washington ever did leave they would wither on the vine shortly after. They practically fund their police from people traveling through to WSU or the Gorge. Which are both mainly constituted of visitors from outside eastern Washington. All I know is if you don't like your states laws (say the SAFE act) or legislators one is just supposed to move to another state or change it legislatively, not bitch and moan and wish it was different? It's really quite a similar problem to the one the founding fathers faced. They were poorly represented in the English parliament; Western New Yorkers are poorly represented in the state legislature. George Washington and co. didn't just leave or change things legislatively. Similar, but not the same; the issue in the past was NO representation, as opposed to low representation. There's no ideal solution to the inevitable fact that some people or regions will be in a minority and won't be entirely happy with what their government is doing on a regular basis. They had the King looking out for their interests on behalf of all his subjects. Now you may correctly identify that that wasn't very much representation and I'd agree but it does beg the question about how much is sufficient.
When an entire state is red excluding two small specks, and the state votes blue, something is wrong.
|
United States43964 Posts
On May 08 2015 05:18 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 05:15 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 04:57 zlefin wrote:On May 08 2015 04:12 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2015 03:10 zlefin wrote:On May 08 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 02:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds like you need to rewrite the state constitution to put in better safeguards. A big problem with that is that NYC is a totally different culture than the rest of the state. Upstate NY is much more rural, and mostly conservative. NYC is obviously urban, and is very liberal. We don't get along at all. There's no way to keep both groups happy under the same constitution. Take the SAFE act for example again. Only one district outside NYC voted in favor of it. And yet it still passed. Well, one solution would be to split into two states. Another would be to focus on making legislation that can have broad support, though that one is trickier. Also, I'm sure you can keep both happy under the same constitution, constitutions are broad enough to do that, unlike laws. The same fight comes up every election in Washington. Western Washington has all the people and the coastline though, so if Eastern Washington ever did leave they would wither on the vine shortly after. They practically fund their police from people traveling through to WSU or the Gorge. Which are both mainly constituted of visitors from outside eastern Washington. All I know is if you don't like your states laws (say the SAFE act) or legislators one is just supposed to move to another state or change it legislatively, not bitch and moan and wish it was different? It's really quite a similar problem to the one the founding fathers faced. They were poorly represented in the English parliament; Western New Yorkers are poorly represented in the state legislature. George Washington and co. didn't just leave or change things legislatively. Similar, but not the same; the issue in the past was NO representation, as opposed to low representation. There's no ideal solution to the inevitable fact that some people or regions will be in a minority and won't be entirely happy with what their government is doing on a regular basis. They had the King looking out for their interests on behalf of all his subjects. Now you may correctly identify that that wasn't very much representation and I'd agree but it does beg the question about how much is sufficient. When an entire state is red excluding two small specks, and the state votes blue, something is wrong.
Yes, what is wrong is your map.
Why on earth would you use a map weighted by geographic area rather than population when trying to show voter preference? Unless voting power is diluted by population density a map simply showing geographic area has no value in this discussion.
|
On May 08 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 02:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds like you need to rewrite the state constitution to put in better safeguards. A big problem with that is that NYC is a totally different culture than the rest of the state. Upstate NY is much more rural, and mostly conservative. NYC is obviously urban, and is very liberal. We don't get along at all. There's no way to keep both groups happy under the same constitution. Take the SAFE act for example again. Only one district outside NYC voted in favor of it. And yet it still passed.
And that's because there are 8.5 million people in NYC right? I don't fundamentally disagree with recognizing there are vastly different demographics in different parts of States (I live in Colorado, which is one such example), but I constantly see Republicans point to electoral maps and say "Look at all the red! The system is broken if the Democrats win!" without acknowledging that no one lives in those states. If your SAFE measure passed because the majority of NYC wanted it to pass and no one else did, that IS the will of the people.
EDIT: You beat me to it. No, nothing is wrong. The population density of your red blob is not anywhere near the population density of the blue specks. Why should all of those people have their vote discounted because they happen to live in NYC? Western New Yorkers may be poorly represented, but it sounds like that is because there just aren't very many of them compared to people living in the city. In that way they should be less represented, as long as they are not being exploited by their relative lack of power.
|
United States43964 Posts
Hell, I could make a 3D map showing the geographic volume of New York State and the miles of air above it and show that the tiny minority of people in planes flying over the city are massively underrepresented compared to the people on the ground when you take into account all that volume they occupy. It'd be a pretty dumb map because we don't care about volume, we care about numbers of voters, but I could make it. And it'd be no dumber than your "the map is mostly red but the result is blue" map.
|
also the Senate already is represented by two members regardless of the state population size, right? So there already is compensation to give smaller states a little more representation on the federal level.
|
On May 08 2015 04:42 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 03:16 always_winter wrote:
Lol I had initially read the plausible bit as agreement with my conclusion, when in fact it seems you're suggesting the finding of this survey is plausible. Might be time to step out of that bubble. If you're suggesting a majority of Americans would prefer a gay president over an overly religious one, I'm afraid you're disconnected from reality.
If you're expecting me to back that up with empirical data (was this a joke or....?), I'm definitely not going to. Feel like that kinda goes without saying. Could just be me. I like to have context. Much love. Anecdotally, I'm an evangelical Christian from Indiana who is comfortable with a gay president so there's that. But yes, all of us are the same over hurr in the sticks
Realistically, truthfully, unequivocally, non-anecdotally, the study posited Americans are MORE comfortable with a gay president than an evangelical. If you're actually telling me that you'd be more comfortable with a gay president than one who shares your faith and likely maintains a similar worldview, then you're either lying to dispute a straw man's argument or are are truly one in a million.
I'm done derailing this thread with such nonsense. One love.
|
On May 08 2015 05:48 always_winter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 04:42 mordek wrote:On May 08 2015 03:16 always_winter wrote:
Lol I had initially read the plausible bit as agreement with my conclusion, when in fact it seems you're suggesting the finding of this survey is plausible. Might be time to step out of that bubble. If you're suggesting a majority of Americans would prefer a gay president over an overly religious one, I'm afraid you're disconnected from reality.
If you're expecting me to back that up with empirical data (was this a joke or....?), I'm definitely not going to. Feel like that kinda goes without saying. Could just be me. I like to have context. Much love. Anecdotally, I'm an evangelical Christian from Indiana who is comfortable with a gay president so there's that. But yes, all of us are the same over hurr in the sticks Realistically, truthfully, unequivocally, non-anecdotally, the study posited Americans are MORE comfortable with a gay president than an evangelical. If you're actually telling me that you'd be more comfortable with a gay president than one who shares your faith and likely maintains a similar worldview, then you're either lying to dispute a straw man's argument or are are truly one in a million. I'm done derailing this thread with such nonsense. One love.
It would depend on the candidate. If you're talking Mike Huckabee vs some gay candidate who I actually believe can run and lead a country well I'll pick the other guy. I'm not electing a spiritual leader after all. But yes, the study's findings aren't what I would expect either.
|
I hear that Texas is legalizing marijuana is this true?
|
On May 08 2015 06:01 soul55555 wrote:
I hear that Texas is legalizing marijuana is this true?
Part of the plan to lull them into submission for the hostile military takeover military exercise.
|
I think what Militron is going for, correct me if I'm wrong, is that NY should be split into the red part and the blue part. The blue part can have the S.A.F.E. law and the red part can be as hick as they want.
|
United States43964 Posts
On May 08 2015 06:08 JinDesu wrote:
I think what Militron is going for, correct me if I'm wrong, is that NY should be split into the red part and the blue part. The blue part can have the S.A.F.E. law and the red part can be as hick as they want.
That's called secession. I don't think it's popular in the US, there was some kind of war about it. In the UK however we're fine with letting Scotland choose if it wants to leave after years of rule by a government the Scots never voted for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
