Best President ever

[JSRG]

Voter registration is required in the US, and you must declare a party affiliation. I used to be a registered Republican, until 2016. When the Republicans aligned themselves with Trump, I changed my voter registration to Independent. It was my way of distancing myself from a party that I no longer felt represented my values. That is what my registration as Independent means to me.

You are correct that because I am not registered with either party, I am not permitted to vote in the primaries.

This is the case in some states, but not others.

In some states, you can only vote in a primary if you are registered to that party (a closed primary). In other states, you can only vote in the primary of your party, but people who are not registered with a party can vote in any party's primaries they want (though, at least in my state, only one at a time--that is, if I want to vote in the Democratic primary for Senator, I cannot simultaneously vote in a Republican primary for governor).

Thus to vote in primaries in some states, it's smarter to not have a party affiliation (as it lets you vote in any primary), but in others you need to have a party affiliation to vote in the primaries, and thus it's smarter to have one. It's why it can be smart to register against your actual preferred party, if it would give you more options to vote in primaries.

 

[probinson]

This is the case in some states, but not others.

In some states, you can only vote in a primary if you are registered to that party (a closed primary). In other states, you can only vote in the primary of your party, but people who are not registered with a party can vote in any party's primaries they want (though, at least in my state, only one at a time--that is, if I want to vote in the Democratic primary for Senator, I cannot simultaneously vote in a Republican primary for governor).

Thus to vote in primaries in some states, it's smarter to not have a party affiliation (as it lets you vote in any primary), but in others you need to have a party affiliation to vote in the primaries, and thus it's smarter to have one. It's why it can be smart to register against your actual preferred party, if it would give you more options to vote in primaries.

Thanks for the info. I was obviously only speaking from my own experience in the state I've lived in my entire life. I was not aware the primary laws were different in other states, so thank you for that.

 

[stevil]

Profanity is against forum rules. You might want to edit that before it gets reported

Oh, i didn't realise that word was profanity, thanks for pointing out

 

[BPPLEE]

Thanks for the info. I was obviously only speaking from my own experience in the state I've lived in my entire life. I was not aware the primary laws were different in other states, so thank you for that.

I don’t think I have ever registered with either party, they just ask which ballot I want in the primary

 

[stevil]

No not referencing inflation... referencing the crisis of illegals invading and leftist lunatics choosing rapists and murderers over veterans.

Oh OK, yeah, the bipartisan border bill was voted down by the Republicans, even by some of them that wrote it.

No one is choosing rapists and murders.

 

[stevil]

You register because of which primary you’re going to vote in. In Alabama they just ask you which ballot you want

Yeah, but why do people then refer to themselves out of that context "I'm a Republican", or "I'm a registered Democrat"? Like it means something outside of the primaries?

 

[BPPLEE]

Yeah, but why do people then refer to themselves out of that context "I'm a Republican", or "I'm a registered Democrat"? Like it means something outside of the primaries?

The same reason some say “I’m an Independent “

 

[stevil]

The same reason some say “I’m an Independent “

That doesn't answer the question. Who cares if you are voting in or have voted in the primaries?
It seems even a person that thinks they are a Democrat can register as a Republican and vote in the Republican primaries.
So it really is meaningless.

So outside of the primaries, why would someone say I'm a registered Democrat, or I'm a registered Republican or I'm a registered independent? Is it supposed to mean something?

 

[SimplyMe]

See my last post. The meeting was investigated and there were no charges

Yes, there were no charges, just as there were no charges against Hillary Clinton. So which is it, is Hillary Clinton blameless and did not break the law because they felt they could not successfully charge her? The same is true with the Trump Tower meeting and Manafort sharing polling data with Russians, etc. -- in fact, the reasoning between not charging Clinton and not charging members of the Trump campaign are basically the same. In both cases, the finding was that they broke the law but that, because of not realizing they broke the law and a lack of intent, they cannot be successfully prosecuted.

 

[Pommer]

Just because you are a registered Republican does not mean you can't vote Democrat or vice versa. When you're in the polling booth, you can vote however you like. The only real limitation is the exclusion from primaries.

Changing my voter registration was my way of distancing myself from a party that I didn't feel was representative of my values any longer. That's all. It wasn't some grand gesture. It was a personal decision.

I switched party affiliation in 2018 (R to D) and did so because I didn’t want to give up my franchise in selecting primary candidates, since I too, live in a Commonwealth that has closed primaries.

(Some states allow all voters, regardless of party affiliation, to vote in primary elections and “cross-vote”, these are called open-primaries.)

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't know how people function in the imperial system, do you guys always keep a calculator handy, does your calculator have buttons for conversion (inches to feet, feet to yards, yards to miles) or do you guys have to memorise that stuff?

I would imagine it might be more complicated for somebody that's an engineer, but I have no problem working with imperial units. And we don't usually need a calculator unless we are bad at math.

And then for precise things like to the millimetre, is there an imperial equivalent or do you do fractions of an inch?

We use fractions of inches.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes, there were no charges, just as there were no charges against Hillary Clinton. So which is it, is Hillary Clinton blameless and did not break the law because they felt they could not successfully charge her? The same is true with the Trump Tower meeting and Manafort sharing polling data with Russians, etc. -- in fact, the reasoning between not charging Clinton and not charging members of the Trump campaign are basically the same. In both cases, the finding was that they broke the law but that, because of not realizing they broke the law and a lack of intent, they cannot be successfully prosecuted.

What law was broKen at the Trump Tower meeting?

 

[stevil]

What law was broKen at the Trump Tower meeting?

You'd have to play it out in the courts to know for sure. Mueller didn't indict so it didn't play out in the courts. But there seems to be an argument for it being illegal.

Trump Tower, Collusion and the Law - FactCheck.org

In a recent tweet, President Donald Trump said the Trump Tower meeting was "to get information on an opponent" and was "totally legal and done all the time in politics." Some legal experts disagree.

www.factcheck.org

They argue the meeting may have violated election laws or could have amounted to conspiracy to defraud the government.


In emails exchanged with Trump Jr. to arrange the meeting, music publicist Rob Goldstone said the meeting was to “provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father [Trump Sr.]. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The younger Trump responded, saying, “f it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer

The Federal Election Campaign Act, enshrined in the federal code, prohibits foreign nationals, either “directly or indirectly” from making “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” to a campaign. It also makes it illegal for a person to “solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation” from a foreign national.

“Yes, there could be crimes here,” David Sklansky, who teaches criminal law at Stanford, told us. “Soliciting campaign assistance from a foreign agent is illegal, although it is unclear whether opposition research counts as assistance for this purpose.”

“Conspiring to hide campaign activity from the FEC [Federal Election Commission], or conspiring to hide the activities of a foreign agent from the DOJ [Department of Justice], could be a conspiracy to defraud the United States, depending on the details,”

The special counsel’s office charged three Russian organizations and 13 Russian nationals in February with violating U.S. criminal laws to interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections, which included spending “millions of dollars” on a pro-Trump social media campaign. The indictment specifically alleged the defendants conspired to defraud the United States “by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of State in administering federal requirements for disclosure of foreign involvement in certain domestic activities.”

And then there is the question of obstruction, and whether Trump Jr.’s initial, misleading response to the media about the purpose of the meeting — which Trump’s legal team later acknowledged the president “dictated” — could be construed as part of a pattern of obstruction.

“It’s a crime to corruptly attempt to obstruct a lawful criminal investigation,” Sklansky said. “It’s very clear that President Trump has tried repeatedly to derail the investigation into ties between his campaign and Russia; the question has been why — was it because he honestly believed there was nothing there, or because he knew there was something there? The fact that the meeting was really an effort to get dirt from the Russians on Clinton, and that Trump had his son to lie about it, is strong evidence that it’s the latter–which is to say, it’s strong that President Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.”

 

[BPPLEE]

You'd have to play it out in the courts to know for sure. Mueller didn't indict so it didn't play out in the courts. But there seems to be an argument for it being illegal.

Trump Tower, Collusion and the Law - FactCheck.org

In a recent tweet, President Donald Trump said the Trump Tower meeting was "to get information on an opponent" and was "totally legal and done all the time in politics." Some legal experts disagree.

www.factcheck.org

They argue the meeting may have violated election laws or could have amounted to conspiracy to defraud the government.


In emails exchanged with Trump Jr. to arrange the meeting, music publicist Rob Goldstone said the meeting was to “provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father [Trump Sr.]. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The younger Trump responded, saying, “f it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer

The Federal Election Campaign Act, enshrined in the federal code, prohibits foreign nationals, either “directly or indirectly” from making “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” to a campaign. It also makes it illegal for a person to “solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation” from a foreign national.

“Yes, there could be crimes here,” David Sklansky, who teaches criminal law at Stanford, told us. “Soliciting campaign assistance from a foreign agent is illegal, although it is unclear whether opposition research counts as assistance for this purpose.”

“Conspiring to hide campaign activity from the FEC [Federal Election Commission], or conspiring to hide the activities of a foreign agent from the DOJ [Department of Justice], could be a conspiracy to defraud the United States, depending on the details,”

The special counsel’s office charged three Russian organizations and 13 Russian nationals in February with violating U.S. criminal laws to interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections, which included spending “millions of dollars” on a pro-Trump social media campaign. The indictment specifically alleged the defendants conspired to defraud the United States “by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of State in administering federal requirements for disclosure of foreign involvement in certain domestic activities.”

And then there is the question of obstruction, and whether Trump Jr.’s initial, misleading response to the media about the purpose of the meeting — which Trump’s legal team later acknowledged the president “dictated” — could be construed as part of a pattern of obstruction.

“It’s a crime to corruptly attempt to obstruct a lawful criminal investigation,” Sklansky said. “It’s very clear that President Trump has tried repeatedly to derail the investigation into ties between his campaign and Russia; the question has been why — was it because he honestly believed there was nothing there, or because he knew there was something there? The fact that the meeting was really an effort to get dirt from the Russians on Clinton, and that Trump had his son to lie about it, is strong evidence that it’s the latter–which is to say, it’s strong that President Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.”

May or could have

 

[probinson]

Oh OK, yeah, the bipartisan border bill was voted down by the Republicans, even by some of them that wrote it.

Don't forget the Democrats. The fact is, the Democrats couldn't get everyone in their own party to vote for the bill, which is why it failed. If they would have had unity in the voting, it wouldn't have mattered what the Republicans did.

 

[probinson]

I switched party affiliation in 2018 (R to D) and did so because I didn’t want to give up my franchise in selecting primary candidates, since I too, live in a Commonwealth that has closed primaries.

(Some states allow all voters, regardless of party affiliation, to vote in primary elections and “cross-vote”, these are called open-primaries.)

I never found the primaries all that compelling. As this past year's elections demonstrated, the primaries are mostly for show. The powers-that-be in the party pretty much decide who their candidate will be. I suppose the primaries give voters the illusion of choice, but the Democrats laid bare just how meaningless those elections are.

 

[stevil]

Don't forget the Democrats. The fact is, the Democrats couldn't get everyone in their own party to vote for the bill, which is why it failed. If they would have had unity in the voting, it wouldn't have mattered what the Republicans did.

Well, the bill was heavily influenced by the Republicans on the team. The Republicans then turned around and voted against the very bill they wrote, because He deemed it would be better for His election chances if the border issues weren't improved.

 

[probinson]

Well, the bill was heavily influenced by the Republicans on the team. The Republicans then turned around and voted against the very bill they wrote, because He deemed it would be better for His election chances if the border issues weren't improved.

Let's not downplay the fact that even though that happened, had the Democrats remained united, they could have passed the bill anyway. I realize this is a fact that is inconvenient to the narrative that Republicans prevented the bipartisan border bill from passing. Nevertheless, the main reason the bill didn't pass is because the Democrats could not get everyone in their party to agree with it.

 

[stevil]

Let's not downplay the fact that even though that happened, had the Democrats remained united, they could have passed the bill anyway. I realize this is a fact that is inconvenient to the narrative that Republicans prevented the bipartisan border bill from passing. Nevertheless, the main reason the bill didn't pass is because the Democrats could not get everyone in their party to agree with it.

It's not an inconvenient fact. They put together a bipartisan team to create the bill, they were appealing to both sides. Unbeknownst to them the Republicans on the bipartisan team were acting in bad faith. They were never going to approve any bipartisan bill. They were just wasting everyone's time. Had no intent to improve the border situation, not under a Democrat administration.
This approach the Republicans have taken creates a dysfunctional government with one side wanting to do thing to make the country better and the other side just trying to make sure nothing gets done regardless if the proposals better the country or not.
One of Biden's biggest downfalls was that he went into his term wanting to reach across the aisle and get things done in a bipartisan manner.

You would have thought he would have learnt better given how the Republicans approached the Obama terms.

Trump on the other hand is ruling by Executive Order and in instances where Congress are required to sign off on things, the Republicans in congress have decided to abdicate their responsibilities by making the rest of the year count as only one calendar day.

 

[stevil]

May or could have

You are setting an impossible standard. If it hasn't gone through the court system "may" or "could have" is all you are going to get.