teatree

On 11/5/2020 at 7:35 PM, welovesundaysatspace said:

Good, so they can get counted. That’s what should happen with votes, no? 

It depends when they arrived.

As I understand it, the law in Pennsylvania is that only votes arriving on the day of the election  before 8PM are to be counted.

The Pennsylvania supreme court had previously made a ruling that as long as the postmark was for the day of the election votes could be counted even if they arrived after.

The whole ongoing legal case hinges on the fact that the court does not have the ability to change law as that is the ability of legislators and therefore the ruling is unconstitutional. So it may well be that the votes not received by 8PM on election are invalid and will not be counted.  This could cost Biden Pennsylvania.

How did he get found out?

23 hours ago, heybruce said:

Legally that is true, and there was no reason not to consider Merrick Garland's nomination ten months before the 2016 election.

 

However nominating and attempting to confirm a Supreme Court Justice less than six weeks before a very heated election is insane.

The reason Garland was rejected was because the Republicans could.  If the shoe was on the other foot, and the Dems held the Senate right there is no doubt they would do exactly the same. 

Yes, the election is heated and the result looks likely to be challenged by who ever loses.  All the more reason to fill the SC asap.  The election could well go down to a SC judgement and there must not be an equal number of judges to avoid a tie.  Imagine the constitutional crisis if that happened!   

On 9/21/2020 at 7:06 AM, scorecard said:

True, he thinks of one person only and with no respect for anybody else including no respect for this sadly now deceased wonderful lady who has made great contributions to the US and deserves total/absolute respect. 

Ginsburg said herself in 2016 that a president being in his last year of office does not disqualify him from appointing SCOTUS.

If Obama can get the peace and then proceed to drop more bombs than Bush, why not Trump?

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

If you redifine it, sure, there will be multiple definitions. But the principle is really easy, and that principle says that Scotland is a country.

 

Even if it wouldn't be a country, comparing it to London is ludicrous.

But technically speaking it is similar.  They are both constituants of the UK with devolved powers.

Of course I understand Scotland as an ancient country...but that is a separate definotion as laid out in the link you yoirself sent.

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

Your entire line of argument seems to be Scotland should not be given another referendum because Scotland is not a country right?

You then seem to be putting remarkable effort into redefining what a country is.

Do you honestly believe this is ever going to convince the people of Scotland and turn them away from seeking independence?

What?  You need to go and read previous replies to other posters.

Someone called the UK the UKSSR.  I pointed out that this was absurd as a democratic referendum was given amd the UK was not behaving like some Sovoet dictatorship.  

They then said Scotland was being oppressed because the big bad UK had to grant them permission and that the fact that they could not do it unilaterally was a sign of this oppression.

To this I replied that under the current arrangement Westminster held the key tk a referendum and so legally any vote had to be appproaved by them. 

These are all matter of fact.  Good luck on the Scots if they vote for true indepemdence and leave the UK AND dont join the EU.  But I think leaving to then join the EU would be a mistake.

18 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Such affairs are a matter for the sovereign governments of EU members.

 

The EU neither backed nor opposed the UK granting Scotland an independence referendum in 2014 because it was nothing to do with the EU.

 

The EU did not back the Spanish government 'to the hilt' in 2017 for the same reason; it was nothing to do with them!

 

Hmmm, a Brexiteer who knows virtually nothing about how EU membership effects a member's sovereignty, who would have guessed?

Did you hear a peep out of the EU over the terriblely violent crackdown of the Catalonia referendum?  Nope.  The EU is not interested allowimg regions within a state gaining independence.

18 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Totally wrong. Scotland is a country with it's own parliament. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom

England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are not themselves listed in the International Organization for Standardization(ISO) list of countries. However the ISO list of the subdivisions of the UK, compiled by British Standards and the UK's Office for National Statistics, uses "country" to describe England, Scotland, and Wales.^[

^{(from the link you posted)}

^{Hmmmm almost as if there is more than one definition of what country means.}

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Totally wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom

Care to explain rather than just post an assertion and run away?

10 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Your entire argument just fell apart.

Scotland is not a region. It is a country. You giving examples of regions in Spain and Italy are simply not comparable.  

Catalonia has its own language.

The Basque region has its iwn language and terrorists willing to kill to get independence.  Do your homework son.

And tecnically speaking the UK is the country.  In legal terms the UK is the sovereign state based in London.  

7 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

The United Kingdom comprises of four countries. Scotland is one of it. 
 

Exactly. So you agree to what I said: A member country of the UK is not a sovereign state. Otherwise it could unilaterally decide to leave. 

 

The big difference is that EU member states can sovereignly decide on their own whether they are ok with trading a bit of independence for the benefits of the membership. Same as I as an individual can decide to hand over a bit of my personal independence to my employer in return for a paycheck, but no one can force me to stay in that relationship. That’s a big difference to being a member of the UK.  

 

I don’t know what the EU would have done. I don’t have a white crystal ball. What would you expect the EU to do that you consider “democracy”?
 

I think you need to distinguish between two different definitions of what country means.

The UK is a country.  Technically speaking.  It has a capital (London) and its goverenment is elected by the constituants of whole of the UK and represented at Westminster.  THIS IS THE SOVEREIGN STATE.  

England, NI, Scotland and Wales are also countries individually but not in the same sense.  It is more of a culural and ethnic sense of the word.  Individually these countries may have some devolution but they are still underneath the UK. So no, individually they are not sovereign states.  The sovereign state is the UK.

Sayimg that Sturgeon should have unilateral rights to declare independence is like saying  the Lomdon Assembley should have the same rights to declare an independent London city state.  No, they are both part of the UK governmemt at Westminster (you know the UK as a country in the 1st definition above, the one connected with law) and must 1st seek approval from the UK parliamemt.

25 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

EU member states don’t need ask for permission to leave (or even just permission to hold a referendum). 

 

It doesn’t. If it did, it would let the Scots decide their own fate. But it doesn’t. 
 

I’m just using the Brexiteer rhetoric and turn it against them. I don’t hate England. 

Scotland is part of the country called the UK.  It has devolved powers but cannot unilaterally vote to leave under current arrangements.  It had a chance to leave this arrangement but declined.  That is the way it is right now....a region of a country, just as England, Wales and NI are.  And any region in any part of any country in the world would have to go a similar process to Scotland if they wanted independence so please don't give me all this oppresion nonsense.  Scotland could have voted out and more importantly they had the chance.

Of course the EU and the UK are different.  One is a country and one is a bloc of countries.  I am not arguing against that.  I just don't see being part of the EU as independence.  Perhaps it would mean more independence than part of the UK, but still not true independence.

One thing you should consider about the EU is that had the UK government refused to grant a referendum (as Spain did with Catalonia) then the EU would have backed it to the hilt (as it did when Spain refused to grant Catalania a referendum).  Seems the EU isnt as much of a believer in democracy as the UK...hmmmm who would have guessed?

20 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

You answered your own question: As a vassal state in the UKSSR, you have to beg someone to “allow” you a referendum. If Scotland was a sovereign state, it could decide these matters on their own. That’s how being an EU member is different from being an UKSSR vassal. 

You could say that about any country.  If England wanted out it would need permission from Westminster (that is how a country works).  If Lombardy wanted out of Italy it would need to go through Rome. Etc etc etc.

The difference is that the UK is one of the very few countries willing to allow democracy to follow its course and let the people decide.  Therefore calling it the UKSSR is frankly absurd and makes you look like a rabid English hater.

26 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

EU members are sovereign. They can leave whenever and however they please. They are not forced to join. They have veto rights. They discuss four days and nights until everyone agrees. Compare that to being a vassal state of the UKSSR.

Ha...if the UK is such an oppressive, Soivet style dictatorship then why did it allow a democratic referendum on Scotland leaving?  What a load of dribble.

I bet Scotland gets THIRD referendum (after the next one is rejected) before Spain will allow Catalonia its first.  

Hardly true independence if you are then to go into the EU is it?

Get out of the UK, don't join the EU, and become a truly independent country.  I would respect that. 

Still, doubt the Scots will vote to leave anyway when the inevitable referendum comes in a few years.

The sad thing is that the Thai public will just suck this up and forget about it until the next big injustice.

On 7/15/2020 at 8:58 AM, stephenterry said:

In which case he should have responded like any politician by side-tracking the racism card and focusing on what should have been done to prevent violent crime rates. But, in his case, he's a sociopath without any conscience. 

Why should he side-step?  The while BLM mess going on at the moment is based on a gross misrepresentation of the facts and it is about time someone pointed that out.

Ok..so her English isn't great, but she is better than nothing.

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

That would destroy the DFL. It's Biden or Bernie anything else and they are a party divided in two. 

Then Trump wins by a landslide in November.  The bumbling buffoon Biden doesn't stand a chance.