November 2022 Election Predictions

[Botten]

Originally Posted by magnetaress [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Are we actually worrying about whos gonna marry who again?

Gay marriage and women freedom scares the preaching zealots.

[magnetaress]

i wouldnt force someone to marry two ppll they dont want to marry

the state should just print a number on ur head and if u mate with someone outside of ur number u die

[MrSparkle001]

Nobody's gonna be banning interracial marriage.

A lot of times lawmakers will add other matters to these bills in order to force the other party to vote against it and give themselves a political win. Like if there was a bill introduced that codified interracial marriage but democrats added a fossil fuel ban or something that would force republicans to vote against it. Then all of a sudden it would be all about "republicans are against interracial marriage!"

I'm not making sense yet this morning lol.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nobody's gonna be banning interracial marriage.

A lot of times lawmakers will add other matters to these bills in order to force the other party to vote against it and give themselves a political win. Like if there was a bill introduced that codified interracial marriage but democrats added a fossil fuel ban or something that would force republicans to vote against it. Then all of a sudden it would be all about "republicans are against interracial marriage!"

I'm not making sense yet this morning lol.

Anyone who supports the original bill supports polygamy.

• Makes clear that the bill does not require or authorize the federal
government to recognize polygamous marriages.

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anyone who supports the original bill supports polygamy.

So they had to amend the bill to add that polygamy clause? The original bill would have meant supporting polygamy?

That was either an oversight or it was done on purpose. Oversights happen all the time, but the conspiracy theorist in me says it was done to give democrats some political firepower knowing republicans will vote against the bill because of that polygamy and thus interracial marriage.

It's an ugly game.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So they had to amend the bill to add that polygamy clause? The original bill would have meant supporting polygamy?

That was either an oversight or it was done on purpose. Oversights happen all the time, but the conspiracy theorist in me says it was done to give democrats some political firepower knowing republicans will vote against the bill because of that polygamy and thus interracial marriage.

It's an ugly game.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[magnetaress]

most things aren't honest mistakes in house/senate anymore

1) its still a stupid law
2) we shouldn't need such a law if the constitution didn't suck so bad and was adheared 2

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by magnetaress [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

most things aren't honest mistakes in house/senate anymore

1) its still a stupid law
2) we shouldn't need such a law if the constitution didn't suck so bad and was adheared 2

The constitution is well over 200 years old and doesn't cover much of anything about modern society, including firearms and abortion.

This is all about the game of politics. The law isn't necessary but proposing it as a bill and adding flaws or something else to it that makes the other party vote it down is to score political points.

It's an ugly game that sadly the majority of the population does not understand. They only understand the headlines they cause.

[magnetaress]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The constitution is well over 200 years old and doesn't cover much of anything about modern society, including firearms and abortion.

This is all about the game of politics. The law isn't necessary but proposing it as a bill and adding flaws or something else to it that makes the other party vote it down is to score political points.

It's an ugly game that sadly the majority of the population does not understand. They only understand the headlines they cause.

yes i agree its ugly and dumb

lets just not let the government decide these dumb things in any capacity

the constitution is there to place limits on the government not us

[magnetaress]

 

@mblake gangs should be armed maybe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

`tis a pretty local form of government