But this retail movement eventually made news and people were buying without fear of loss. It became a movement of sorts.
If JPM bought a ton for no reason, they’d stand to lose a lot and it also wouldn’t be particularly newsworthy
A big part of it is the stock needs some type of spark to set the short squeeze off. Normally it’d be positive stock news (new CEO, new acquisition, etc.). Here, the spark was retail investors grouping together on no positive news whatsoever
And I hate how frustrating it is to talk about third party voting when that virtually guarantees a win for democrats. You have to truly believe in the long term plan which isn’t guaranteed so I share your frustrations.
Yes third party votes split the party and ultimately lose.
BUT, take a brief look at presidential elections throughout history. There are always two major parties and once one wins enough times, a new comes along and starts to win. There has to be a transition period to evolve.
You had Federalists, Democratic-Republican, Democratic, Whig, Republican.
Republicans are getting blown out in popular vote every election. It takes losing to evolve and force change. The key is appealing to all or most of the original Republican Party while appealing to more moderates as well. If I had the answers on how to do that I wouldn’t be sitting here talking to you on the internet.
Ok here’s my idea to get rid of the two-party problem (although ironically it ends in a two-party vote)
-Around June we have as many parties as they want vote in primaries and pick their candidate
-Around August we have a nationwide election and the two parties with the most votes will face off in the presidential election in November.
This would mean that in august people could vote for a patriot party or Green Party or libertarian party without fear of throwing away their vote in the presidential election. For example, you vote for a patriot party unsuccessfully and it ends up being democrat vs Republican again, you can vote Republican for president without throwing away your vote.
It would also allow for more voices and ideas to be heard such as there could be a “modern Republican Party” vs “classic Republican Party” etc.
Yes. Read my first comment and yours. You sound like a bitter old faggot so then I reminded you that you are one. Second, how is my legal analysis a joke? I gave the only Supreme Court issue on the topic since 1869 lol. You asked about how it could work and I responded. Then you showed up so fucking deep in your feelings for some reason. Maybe you are upset with others who post about secession and wanted to take out that anger on me which is fine. However, it doesn't take away from what I posted. I posted how it would be possible. I didn't post about the likelihood or the practicality of it. I actually didn't even post if I supported it. But that wouldn't stop an emotionally depressed person like yourself from getting upset and attacking me now would it?
I believe you posed the question in bad faith. I don't actually believe you support much of anything on this website and are here simply to argue with others
If it wasn't clear from my first and fourth points, I was calling you a faggot, faggot.
Texas couldn't beat Mexico.
It's called allies, idiot. Also, Texas has had no need to actually form a strong military of its own. There's nothing to indicate it couldn't leading up to a secession. In my original comment that upset you so fucking badly for some reason, all I did was assess the legality of secession. I showed that there is a legal way to secede without revolution and violence--as unlikely as it may be to carry out. You took that and ran with it and came to conclusions such as "it will be over the objections of the US." Not sure where you got that from considering I literally stated the possibly of secession with a vote.
Much like Hong Kong can exist in China with significantly worse circumstances, I don't see the possibility of Texas not being able to thrive with a legal secession and ally with the United States. Do I think it would actually happen? Not in 100 years. Do I think it's possible and could be successful? No doubt possible and could even be successful.
So no, the real problem with MAGA movement would be little bitches like you that act with emotion and start with name calling when someone takes a legal analysis to the current state of affairs regarding the possibility of a legal secession.
Ok first off faggot, chill.
Second, it’s the 21st century. Mexico is not going to take over Texas. Are you aware Texas actually has a military? Are you aware that before seceding, Texas could increase funding to create an even larger military? Did you also know that Texas could still maintain positive relationships with the US or other allies?
Third, did anyone anywhere say there would be locked down borders amongst the states? You can have what are called “agreements” between Texas and the US. Ya know this place called Europe? Not very large countries all next to each other? People actually go to and from each country DAILY!!! I swear man look that up! (Google.com)
Fourth, you’re still a faggot and I didn’t want you to forget the first point.
Attorney here. Keep in mind I don't do Constitutional Law which is a beast of its own.
Here's what I've found in a short amount of research. The answer was decided by Supreme Court in 1869 in Texas v. White. Basically they said Texas cannot secede without approval from rest of States.
HOWEVER, a quote from the ruling states, "The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States,"
This is the key to secession. I don't know what "consent of the States" means specifically, but remember that half the States vote red (more in a legal election) and it could be possible that other States support Texas secession much like we supported Brexit.
Attorney here. Keep in mind I don't do Constitutional Law which is a beast of its own.
Here's what I've found in a short amount of research. The answer was decided by Supreme Court in 1869 in Texas v. White. Basically they said Texas cannot secede without approval from rest of States.
HOWEVER, a quote from the ruling states, "The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States,"
This is the key to secession. I don't know what "consent of the States" means specifically, but remember that half the States vote red (more in a legal election) and it could be possible that other States support Texas secession much like we supported Brexit.
I’m pretty confident that Texas wouldn’t be able to legally secede, but can you identify where it’s written that Texas cannot secede?
Edit: "When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation," Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote in that decision. "The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."
So it appears the only way Texas could legally secede would be through permission from the States. So yes, Texas could secede with permission, but not unilaterally. Also, the last Supreme Court case about this was in 1868 so it’s always possible to get a modern day ruling. Not saying it will go anywhere.
Reminder: half the states vote red (more if you get fair elections) so it would be possible to get red states to approve it by simple majority depending on what “consent of the states” means.
Right, but the principle is the same: to limit the media influence over what is presented to the audience. Of course that federal law was not written with social media in mind so it would need some tweaking, but the point is really to go against people who say, “Facebook is a private company and can do what they want.” Those tv channels are private companies as well.
I think it’s because 99% of them are calling us white supremacists so it’s nice to see someone on the other side.
Other than that, I dgaf what somebody who majored in lesbian dance therapy in school and hasn’t lived a normally life for 20+ years thinks about politics
Wrong denomination of money. Just going to go to republicans who already know this
(Just joking)