Connect with us

Politics

Nevada Goes for The Jugular with ‘Popular Vote’ Bill

There are serious concerns about the move – concerns that conservatives in New York State and California have been warning us about for decades.

Published

on

Nevada

We all remember that one kid in school who would change the rules to whatever game you were playing whenever they were losing.

It seemed to always be the most prevalent in the game of Monopoly, where the “house rules” were more malleable than Play-Doh in August in St. Augustine.  When and where hotels could be built was always a contentious battle for the disadvantaged, regardless of whether or not this disadvantage was self afflicted.  Then there were the unseemly declarations regarding free money, jail time, etc.

In other words, some people just can’t stand to lose, and they lash out in unhealthy ways when that fate befalls them.

Trending: WATCH: Candace Owens Rips White Liberal Activists Who Lecture Her About Threats to Blacks

Such seems to be the case these days with the democrats as well, who are still reeling from their electoral evisceration at the hands of Donald Trump back in 2016.

take our poll - story continues below

Have smartphones made the world better or worse?

  • Have smartphones made the world better or worse?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Now, after being bested through the electoral college, a great many anti-Trump organizations are pushing to change the rules of the game.

Nevada is just the latest to pontificate on just such an adjustment.

Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak, a Democrat, will consider signing a new bill that would require the state’s six Electoral College votes to be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of the state’s vote.

The legislation would only take effect once states representing a majority of the nation’s 538 electoral votes agree to join. Thus far, the participating states or jurisdictions include: California (55), Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), the District of Columbia (3),  Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New Mexico (5), New York (29), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (12). These represent a total of 189 electoral votes. Most are solid “blue” states, but Colorado and New Mexico are considered swing states, albeit leaning Democratic. Nevada would be the third swing state to join the coalition.

There are major concerns about such a move however.

One of the most cogent and prominent issues with a “national” popular vote is the incentivizing of big city politicking over reaching out to Americans in more rural areas.  In states such as New York and California, this disparity has even led to calls for secession within the state, allowing cities such as Los Angeles and The Big Apple to live on a political island, as it were, as to not adversely affect the livelihood of the far more conservative areas of the states that are far less populated.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

New Women’s March Board Member Gets Kicked To The Curb After Two Days On The Job Over Anti-Semitic Tweets

This lady is deplorable.

Published

on

There seems to be something about the Women’s March that’s a beacon for individuals who just love to hate Jews and Israel. In fact, the group’s latest board member was only on the job two days before being booted after anti-Semitic tweets were discovered on her Twitter profile. Hmmm. Really does make you wonder. Why do these kind of people gravitate toward this group? via TheBlaze: On Monday, The Washington Post reported that inaugural co-chairs Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour had stepped down from their positions at the organization, noting that the trio had “been dogged by accusations of anti-Semitism, infighting and financial mismanagement.” Conservative news outlets were quick to point out that many in the 17-member board replacing the former leaders were no better, and exposed an array of anti-Semitic tweets and messages expressing support for black nationalist Louis Farrakhan. One of the new board members was Zahra Billoo, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The Washington Examiner reported that Billoo’s Twitter feed was “filled with anti-Zionist tweets, which the Anti-Defamation League has deemed ‘anti-Semitic.'” On Wednesday, Billoo revealed that she had been voted off the board of the Women’s March, following “an Islamophobic smear campaign.” She went on to slam the organization for letting her go, saying “it has effectively said, we will work on some women’s rights at the expense of others.” So wait a minute. Is she really going to play the victim card here? It certainly seems that’s what she’s doing. It’s kind of hard to garner any sort of sympathy for a person trying to claim they are the victim of some sort of hate and racism, when they themselves have been engaged in heinous acts of hatred themselves. Billoo wasn’t removed because she’s a Muslim. She was removed…

Continue Reading

News

Andrew Yang Plans To Combat Climate Change By Forcing You To Stop Eating Meat By Jacking Up Prices

How about no.

Published

on

Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang is all about being a crusader against climate change, so much in fact, he’s created a plan to stop it by forcing you to stop eating meat. How does he plan to do that? By making the prices so high and expensive you simply can’t afford to purchase it. Typical leftist, wanting to try and limit people’s freedom and force them do something he believes is best, despite the fact the science on this whole subject is flimsy. via TheBlaze: “I do think it’s difficult to regulate diets. So what you would want to do again is you’d want those cattle producers to have to internalize the cost of emissions,” Yang continued. “So then, what that would naturally do, and some people are going to hate this, but it would probably make those products more expensive,” he concluded. “And that is appropriate, because there is a cost to producing food in that way. And so if you were to make it more expensive, then you would end up changing consumption patterns.” The plan follows in the vein of that from the “Green New Deal” from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), which bizarrely plotted to eliminate “farting cows” in a FAQ document ridiculed brutally by her critics. The document was eventually deleted from her official website. https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1174748818988052480 Or, how about this, we just let people eat whatever they want, since we all know for a fact that not eating meat isn’t going to have any sort of actual, legitimate impact on climate change? That sounds like a much better plan in my book, wouldn’t you agree? You see, much of the evidence coming out now, suggests that what the planet is experiencing now is a normal fluctuation in temperatures that has occurred since God created it. It’s…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend