Cethin

Why is there no pressure to reform the EC then?

There’s plenty of pressure. Just not in the direction you’d prefer.

My question was rhetorical. You said there wouldn’t be pressure. There obviously is, including in the direction I prefer. Your doomerism is annoying. People on the left are working to change things. The NPVIC is pretty old, so the pressure from the left has obviously been around for quite a while, and it’s stronger now than ever before.

Why is there no pressure to reform the EC then? Are we not holding any more elections after that?

If all hell breaks loose, governors will also have a lot of power to defend things too.

It also gives the opportunity to create new rising stars on the left, whether that’s the governors themselves or someone in their staff. More experience is always welcome.

States with an opposition majority can simply exit the Compact.

They can’t just simply exit. They’ll need to pass a new bill to exit, at minimum.

SCOTUS can rule the Compact invalid as soon as it becomes a hinge point for a presidential contest.

This is potentially true. It seems constitutionally sound from SC precedence, but it’s not like the current SC cares about that. Hopefully the court gets repaired before they have the chance to shoot it down.

The EC will quite likely be effectively ended by states before Congress gets to it. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will make the EC follow the popular vote, not the stupid state-based voting currently being done.

I definitely did not read all the comments. Yeah, some are really bad. I think a lot of the comments started fine, but yeah, some people took things too far.

I don’t really think it’s slut shaming to make fun of the woman for jerking off some man in a theater with a bunch of people around. I don’t give a shit if you want to sleep around, and I also don’t give a shit if you want people to watch. That’s all fine. The people around need to consent though. It’s shaming her for being an asshole, which overlaps her sluttiness.

Running a successful campaign requires immense physical and mental energy.

Apparently it sometimes doesn’t. Lol.

Oh you again, with this same bullshit. Like we said last time, no one is defending Democrats! Why do you think that’s some “got ya”? The Republicans are the ones preventing things from being released though.

Anyone seeing this, remember that you can tag users. This guy is constantly a Republican troll.

The way this has been done by states already is passing amendments that require them to vote yes when it gets enough votes. This means it’s only a few new states that need to pass a law for this to actually happen. Previous states can’t back out.

Honestly, I disagree. A stance I hold is that voters should have to see the horrors of war. You shouldn’t be allowed to elect someone who may send people off to die brutally without knowing what that looks like. By this, I don’t mean watching Band of Brothers or something. I mean actual footage of people being injured or dying in modern combat. You’re choosing that for other people, so you should have to know what it actually is.

I would love to see it, but I’d rather be rid of him. Hoping for the ideal outcome, which is unlikely, and not acting on something that’s still good is a bad idea.

Oh, good. I was thinking this was some generated bullshit.

I wouldn’t say it’s trivial. It’s just one more indication of all the rot. There is no enforcement of the laws against them, only the poor.

I’m certain that isn’t true. They are just normally done with all the shit and don’t want to deal with a lot of the same shit but with the addition of being out ruled by any of the other assholes in Congress.

I would definitely trust that the will have planted listening devices, or other mechanisms for collecting data.

This is literally 1984 shit, as in it’s actually a thing the book talks about, not hyperbole.

It’s more of a question of what they have to gain. They can instantly get a lot of money to stop the attacks. It also gives them the biggest tool they have back. If they continue to stop shipping, and require a toll, they don’t have that as leverage to use later. It’s just the standard. Think about if they were doing that before the invasion. The US would just leave and give them nothing, because it’s the status quo.

The one at the top of this chain did. The one I was responding to.

That page disagrees with you though. The thing being acted upon gets whom. That’s the rule. That entire page is just different situations where that can happen.

Disqualified by who?

Yeah, neither of these are happening. It’s a crime though. They should (not will) face criminal consequences, not just a disqualification.

(Edit: Just FYI, I originally copied your question, but “whom” is not correct here. Just use “who” if you don’t know how to use it. It doesn’t make people look smart. Anyway, “whom” is for the subject of the verb. “Who” here is performing the action of disqualification. “They disqualified whom” would be where “whom” is used. I don’t really care if people just use “who” all the time, but it really bothers me when people go out of their way to use “whom” but don’t actually know when to use it. It isn’t just for the end of the sentence.)