Virginia house passes national popular vote bill.

Or cap benefits if contributions are uncapped

 

OK, so figure out who would have become the President under Article XII = https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

 

THANK YOU!!!

That's an EXCELLENT point and it's a point I'm going to make to my state senator tonight.

 

Which means blue states are paying even more to support the welfare red states... which directly refutes your point.

What happened to individual responsibility?

 

Yes, people are owed.
Your narrative is false and advocates theft.

 

I'm really not sure if I'm interpreting the entire "opt out" clause correctly....having a hard time wrapping my brain around the implications of it.

(I do think the courts will find the pact to be unconstitutional anyway, so it' probably a moot point. But....this should go to court before enough states join to get anywhere close to 270 electoral votes.)

 

So if we changed the system so that the popular vote winner becomes President, it would render the country "so unstable it's life would be measured in microseconds"?

Yeah, no.

 

But, rather than any particular amount, they are only owed what the government says they are owed.
As you are always paid what you are owed, and as you do not actually own anything in this respect, nothing is stolen from you

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

 

What are you referring to?

 

That's fine. Just remove their electoral college votes if it doesn't work for them. VA has become a blue state anyways.

How about you, CA?

 

Sounds familiar... Oh, of course, because we heard that in 2008, 2012, and 2016. Meanwhile, over 60% of Americans are more happy after 3 years of Trump.

 

As long as they're pumping in millions of illegals, a popular vote will be nearly impossible in favor for the right.

 

The people of VA now have two major issues to deal with, this and the gun situation.

I'm guessing that there will be more issues coming.

I've never protested a single thing in my life but if this crap comes to Florida, I'm going to be breaking that pattern.

 

I'm going to have to read the entire bill myself, but your point stands anyway.

Why should we hold elections in Virginia if they're only going to be cast to whoever wins the popular vote?

And think about this, if the voters vote for the person who loses the popular vote, there will have been no point in holding an election. Everyone's votes will have been nullified.

It's this last point I find utterly unconstitutional. If this passes - and it may not make it out of the Senate where Dems possess only a 2 seat majority - our legislature and Governor KKKoonman will succeed in disenfranchising the voters in our commonwealth.

 

The constitution on states and compacts:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded......

Without congressional approval, which has not been given, this is unconstitutional. There really shouldn’t be ANY debate about that. States are passing unconstitutional compacts and agreements with each other and it’s actually cheered on by some. I will never understand that. And honestly, don’t try to help me understand it. I can read. Until congressional approval is granted, this is without a doubt unconstitutional.

 

There won't be an executive branch to whine about either because there wasn't one under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

 

No, what it means is they will now be paying "their fair share".

 

See Post #124, bro. You're gonna like it.

All is not lost in Virginia - not yet at least. We're in this damned mess today on account of previous incompetence in the VA GOP and discontent and apathy towards the party at the grassroots. Within the last year the leadership of the party was replaced and we've got a lot of mad people - many of whom are just coming off the sidelines - who are ready to punish Democrats for their overreach.

 

The NPVC proponents will tell you about the USSC's ruling in Virginia v Tennessee, where a compact that has no bearing on federal supremacy does not need congressional approval.

These people haven't actually read the case, however, because it speaks plainly to the need for congressional approval for compacts that increase the political power of the states so involved relative to those not - which the NPVC clearly does.

 

Precisely my point.

 

Not necessarily, most of those illegals are of Hispanic decent, with little or no education. Not likely to support gay candidates or the party that foists that on them. This cycles weak Democrat field could have ramifications for years to come! The Democrat establishment doesn't like Sanders, which leaves them with the village mayor. This whole thing can blow up in their faces, and it all is thanks to Obama and Hillary sucking so bad...

 

Paying into a system and getting one's just return, so as not to be "theft" according to you.

Know any systems that we are forced to pay into that have a capped benefit, and for which politicians are talking about uncapping the forced contribution without uncapping the benefit?
Think hard

 

No. It means that blue states are gouging you for state taxes that other states don't gouge their citizens for. So now you pay your state taxes that you voted for, but don't get a personal rebate with federal money that we all pay for. (Pro tip: Vote for people who will lower your state and local taxes.)

Red and blue states pay for the federal costs of red and blue states. Some high-welfare recipient states are blue and some are red.

Percentage of state budget which is federal funds...




Top ten state in federal funds receipts per capita (all fed funds, not just welfare)....

1. Virginia
• Net federal funding: $10,301 per resident
• Total revenue from fed. gov.: $176.8 billion (5th most)
• SNAP benefit recipiency: 8.1 percent (8th lowest)
• Median household income: $71,535 (9th highest)

2. Kentucky
• Net federal funding: $9,145 per resident
• Total revenue from fed. gov.: $70.8 billion (19th most)
• SNAP benefit recipiency: 14.1 percent (8th highest)
• Median household income: $48,375 (7th lowest)

3. New Mexico
• Net federal funding: $8,692 per resident
• Total revenue from fed. gov.: $31.7 billion (19th least)
• SNAP benefit recipiency: 17.4 percent (the highest)
• Median household income: $46,744 (5th lowest)

4. West Virginia
• Net federal funding: $7,283 per resident
• Total revenue from fed. gov.: $24.6 billion (15th least)
• SNAP benefit recipiency: 16.8 percent (2nd highest)
• Median household income: $43,469 (the lowest)

5. Alaska
• Net federal funding: $7,048 per resident
• Total revenue from fed. gov.: $13.0 billion (8th least)
• SNAP benefit recipiency: 10.8 percent (tied - 22nd lowest)
• Median household income: $73,181 (7th highest)

6. Mississippi
• Net federal funding: $6,880 per resident
• Total revenue from fed. gov.: $37.8 billion (21st least)
• SNAP benefit recipiency: 15.3 percent (6th highest)
• Median household income: $43,529 (2nd lowest)

7. Alabama
• Net federal funding: $6,694 per resident
• Total revenue from fed. gov.: $65.8 billion (21st most)
• SNAP benefit recipiency: 14.0 percent (9th highest)
• Median household income: $48,123 (6th lowest)

8. Maryland
• Net federal funding: $6,035 per resident
• Total revenue from fed. gov.: $105.1 billion (11th most)
• SNAP benefit recipiency: 10.3 percent (17th lowest)
• Median household income: $80,776 (the highest)

9. Maine
• Net federal funding: $5,572 per resident
• Total revenue from fed. gov.: $17.4 billion (10th least)
• SNAP benefit recipiency: 12.8 percent (17th highest)
• Median household income: $56,277 (20th lowest)

10. Hawaii
• Net federal funding: $5,270 per resident
• Total revenue from fed. gov.: $19.9 billion (13th least)
• SNAP benefit recipiency: 10.7 percent (20th lowest)
• Median household income: $77,765 (3rd highest)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...ding-each-state-receives-government/39202299/

 

No. It would take about 20 years, like Venezuela went from being the richest, most self-sufficient country in Latin America to living without water, electricity or a stable food supply. The popular vote went for Socialism. They got what they "paid" for.

 

So a negative federal tax rate for the red states while the blue states are supporting them is “paying their fair share”?
Explain