You have to understand lot of people don't like politicians or the people who get lured into being blue or red for the rest of their lives and these people can see who's worst than the other options because these people don't put their feelings into politics. They use common sense.

If you have A) Trump who's going to annihilate mass immigration or B] Kamala who said there's no issues at the boarder. The answer is; Go Trump! Both are shit but Trump is the better play here to have a strong and thriving economy like he had pre covid and no new ongoing wars. Kamala will be an extension of the war machine that is the Democrats.

The ultimate play would be to have multiple young leaders from different parties who ain't the property of corporations/billionaires/WEF.

This post was edited by iLoveMyUsername on Jul 23 2024 04:12pm

Term limits already exist they just aren't followed.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States,and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

That's 1 term at a time, keep it local, keep it fresh.

This post was edited by PapaPsych on Jul 23 2024 04:10pm

The constitution uses double negatives. It says no person shall be a representative if the shall not be an inhabitant of the state they are representing, which is the same as saying a representative must be an inhabitant of a state they are representing.
While clumsy to read and confusing, the reason the law uses double negatives all the time is because they are much harder to bend with reinterpretations, with prohibitions being harder to twist than positive affirmations.
An example is that America has a first amendment saying congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech, while communist china has a constitution stating citizens of china enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and demonstration.
Easy for a court to whittle away at what a positive affirmation means until its meaningless

i don’t know if they can do that again. 2020 was peak covid and biden old so it was almost accepted to hide him.

if they are running kamala on the “youth” angle (she’s turning 60 but whatever) then they cannot feasibly have her hidden and play that angle.

then again the media and lefties (sorry for the redundancy) have coronated her already so it’s a moot point really.

Now I know you are just blowing smoke up my ass, it means what it says, there is no double negatives there.
What's your take on these peculiar definitions that are expanded upon nowhere in the law?

The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

Yes, but BLM is upset that Kamala is in without any primaries. Cracks me up.


Black Lives Matter demands DNC host virtual primary

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/black-lives-matter-demands-dnc-host-virtual-primary-2024-07-23/

This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 23 2024 04:42pm

The Harris campaign team is trying to galvanize the black vote and woman vote.

But it's not working like they hoped.

makes sense. why would African Americans be galvanized by a half Indian half Jamaican crooked cop lmao

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

{No person shall}
* {who shall not have}
* {who shall not, ... , be}

Its not that hard to parse. It lays out disqualifying conditions for senators, stated as "No person shall be a senator". Ergo, all that follows are the disqualifying conditions
The conditions are:
>who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States
and
>who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen

If either of those conditions are true, you can't be a senator. They have their own substructures, thus it follows:

(~A) if (~(B & C) || ~D)
where
A = can be a senator
B = is 30+ years old
C = has been a citizen for 9+ years
D = is an inhabitant of that state when elected


This is very purposefully written as a double negative, using a negative at each branch, instead of the inverse case which would be;
A if ((B & C) & D)
which would translate to
"A person can be a senator if he has attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen."


The statements are the same in discrete logic, but have a huge difference in law as millenia of creative reinterpretation of text has allowed judiciaries throughout history to bend affirmations far more than negations. The founding fathers were very wary of the kinds of shit modern day courts run amok doing all the time, and prescient to that danger they wrapped lots of important clauses in onerous double negatives to basically tell elana kagan to fuck off

The shall nots don't cancel each other, they are not even describing the same object which is qualification in this case, its a reiteration.