Maine votes out electoral college

Althea said:
And still, they're working toward it.
Click to expand...

And the parties are working on the "Green New Deal," making Mexico pay for the wall, repealing and replacing Obamacare on day one, Medicare for All, and many more measures that will never pass.

I heard fears Obama was going to declare martial law and cancel the 2016 election. But I knew it was only scare tactics and would never happen. Don't be taken in by such trash. Even if a couple of states outlaw the "abortion pill" there will still be many forms of free birth control.

When all else fails, I would not let a .50 cent condom stand between me and an unwanted pregnancy by claiming I do not have access to free contraception.
 
Flash said:
Hobby Lobby employees receive all the mandated contraceptives under the ACA. But Hobby Lobby does not pay for the objectionable methods from their insurance but are paid by government funding (like religious organizations are allowed to do).
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks. So the company is not saying you can’t take birth control it’s a funding thing.

Regardless of one’s politics I do not like the approach he’s taken in this thread with a number of hyperbolic or deceptive (dishonest) arguments on this topic. (Again, I’m not saying this from a partisan perspective because us right-wingers do it too).
 
cawacko said:
Ok, thanks. So the company is not saying you can’t take birth control it’s a funding thing.

Regardless of one’s politics I do not like the approach he’s taken in this thread with a number of hyperbolic or deceptive (dishonest) arguments on this topic. (Again, I’m not saying this from a partisan perspective because us right-wingers do it too).
Click to expand...

Correct. There were 2-3 methods that Hobby Lobby objected to for religious reasons and did not want to pay for. They were happy to pay for any of the several other birth control methods.

They did much more for their employees than most businesses that choose to keep their current plans which exempted them from ACA mandates. The court decision only applied to closely held (?) for profit companies.

Those dishonest arguments were worse during the ACA debates with the right claiming you could be put in jail for not buying insurance and that the plan contained "death panels." I also remember when the Hobby Lobby case was being debated on Amazon with wild charges like they were forcing their religious views on their employees, etc. I just went and read the case and learned 99% of the posts were based on emotion rather than the actual case.
 
Flash said:
But I knew it was only scare tactics and would never happen. Don't be taken in by such trash. Even if a couple of states outlaw the "abortion pill" there will still be many forms of free birth control.

When all else fails, I would not let a .50 cent condom stand between me and an unwanted pregnancy by claiming I do not have access to free contraception.
Click to expand...
You're deflecting. Whereas it isn't (yet) illegal, what IS legal in these states it the ability for employers to deny access to contraceptives via insurance. Couple that with the closed PP clinics, and you have a situation where women are being denied access to the contraceptive choices that everyone should have.

For many, an IUD is preferable to pills, condoms, etc. There is absolutely no reason to deny this device, especially given that in the Hobby Lobby case, they invest in companies that manufacture these devices.

Or, at least, they didn't narrow the scope of the investments the mutual funds in their 401k's invest in when the SC gave them the right to deny contraception.
 
Althea said:
You're deflecting. Whereas it isn't (yet) illegal, what IS legal in these states it the ability for employers to deny access to contraceptives via insurance. Couple that with the closed PP clinics, and you have a situation where women are being denied access to the contraceptive choices that everyone should have.

For many, an IUD is preferable to pills, condoms, etc. There is absolutely no reason to deny this device, especially given that in the Hobby Lobby case, they invest in companies that manufacture these devices.

Or, at least, they didn't narrow the scope of the investments the mutual funds in their 401k's invest in when the SC gave them the right to deny contraception.
Click to expand...

Nobody is being denied access to contraception

One can merely pay cash.

Stop lying
 
Althea said:
You're deflecting. Whereas it isn't (yet) illegal, what IS legal in these states it the ability for employers to deny access to contraceptives via insurance. Couple that with the closed PP clinics, and you have a situation where women are being denied access to the contraceptive choices that everyone should have.

For many, an IUD is preferable to pills, condoms, etc. There is absolutely no reason to deny this device, especially given that in the Hobby Lobby case, they invest in companies that manufacture these devices.

Or, at least, they didn't narrow the scope of the investments the mutual funds in their 401k's invest in when the SC gave them the right to deny contraception.
Click to expand...

There is no logical reason why many people choose to do certain things as part of their religious beliefs, but it is still protected by the 1st Amendment. If specified groups can
use peyote, drink hallucinogenic hoasca tea, or cover up the "Live Free or Die" slogan on their NH license plate as part of their religious beliefs they are not required to justify those beliefs.

What Hobby Lobby chooses to allow its employees to invest in has no relevance to their religious beliefs from a constitutional perspective. If I refuse to say the pledge allegiance to the flag I don't have show my retirement account does not have mutual funds in companies that say the pledge every morning.

Hobby Lobby employee's investment choices should not be determined by the owners religious beliefs.

If insurance doe not cover contraceptives it does not deny women access to birth control--it just means somebody else does not have to pay for it.
 
Grokmaster said:
The ELECTORAL COLLEGE is not under STATE JURISDICTION. Maine can do no such thing.

Leftidiots gobble up whatever BULLSHIT they are SPOONFED BY THEIR MASTERS, no matter HOW RIDICULOUS and/or ASININE....
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is. Yeah, Maine can. Read your Constitution. Nineteen states have already done this

Maine Senate sends bill giving state's electoral votes to national ...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/15/politics/maine-popular-vote/index.html
3 days ago - The Maine Senate voted 19-16 Tuesday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would give all committed states' electoral votes to the winning popular vote candidate should the group accrue the 270 votes necessary for a majority.
 
jimmymccready said:
Yeah, it is. Yeah, Maine can. Read your Constitution. Nineteen states have already done this

Maine Senate sends bill giving state's electoral votes to national ...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/15/politics/maine-popular-vote/index.html
3 days ago - The Maine Senate voted 19-16 Tuesday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would give all committed states' electoral votes to the winning popular vote candidate should the group accrue the 270 votes necessary for a majority.
Click to expand...

DUH...Homer. All STATES are guaranteed (Article 4, Section 4, Clause) to give their popular vote over to the Electoral College (a federal/national) body of voters (Republican Representation instead of popular vote nationally). What the state of Maine basically accomplished was going to the same format of "winner take all"......just like 49 other states. Its all bluster and "noise" as if the democrats in Maine have found a solution to their TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome)….because the left wing politicians of Maine are still pissed that Trump was awarded 1 singe EC vote due to their own format of counting the popular vote tallies.

Enlighten us? Just how is this new system of Maine going to change the EC format? There is nothing new.....It still takes a total of at least 270 votes cast nationally to elect a POTUS. That's like California writing legislation to join NY...….and totaling their EC vote and casting them together.....DUH! Count them singularly or combined.....the TOTAL will never change.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
DUH...Homer. All STATES are guaranteed (Article 4, Section 4, Clause) to give their popular vote over to the Electoral College (a federal/national) body of voters (Republican Representation instead of popular vote nationally). What the state of Maine basically accomplished was going to the same format of "winner take all"......just like 49 other states. Its all bluster and "noise" as if the democrats in Maine have found a solution to their TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome)….because the left wing politicians of Maine are still pissed that Trump was awarded 1 singe EC vote due to their own format of counting the popular vote tallies.

Enlighten us? Just how is this new system of Maine going to change the EC format? There is nothing new.....It still takes a total of at least 270 votes cast nationally to elect a POTUS. That's like California writing legislation to join NY...….and totaling their EC vote and casting them together.....DUH! Count them singularly or combined.....the TOTAL will never change.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many liberals know that there really no criteria, that requires the EC representative to vote for a specific candidate; unless it's been changed and I'm not aware of the change?
 
Twenty states, mental Ralph, if Maine passes it, will have signed onto the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

The NPVIC is not unconstitutional. Your problem, mental, not mine.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I wonder how many liberals know that there really no criteria, that requires the EC representative to vote for a specific candidate; unless it's been changed and I'm not aware of the change?
Click to expand...

Indeed there is a documented history of there being over 150 "faithless" EC VOTERS. It depends upon whether or not you are a Pledged voter or an unpledged voter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpledged_elector

Most EC voters are pledged to vote via party lines and are hand picked via political parties in their conventions. But there are instances where no pledge has been taken...thus an unpledged EC elector can never be considered UNFAITHFUL. But historically the EC vote has followed party lines and represented their constituents faithfully. There were exceptions in history where certain candidates were so hated that an entire 23 EC electorate refused to cast their votes for a certain candidate for POTUS. See State of Va. history.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
Indeed there is a documented history of there being over 150 "faithless" EC VOTERS. It depends upon whether or not you are a Pledged voter or an unpledged voter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpledged_elector

Most EC voters are pledged to vote via party lines and are hand picked via political parties in their conventions. But there are instances where no pledge has been taken...thus an unpledged EC elector can never be considered UNFAITHFUL. But historically the EC vote has followed party lines and represented their constituents faithfully. There were exceptions in history where certain candidates were so hated that an entire 23 EC electorate refused to cast their votes for a certain candidate for POTUS. See State of Va. history.
Click to expand...

Now add in that there is no legal remedy if a "pledged ED elector" votes differently then what they pledged to do.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
 
Flash said:
There is no logical reason why many people choose to do certain things as part of their religious beliefs, but it is still protected by the 1st Amendment. If specified groups can
use peyote, drink hallucinogenic hoasca tea, or cover up the "Live Free or Die" slogan on their NH license plate as part of their religious beliefs they are not required to justify those beliefs.

What Hobby Lobby chooses to allow its employees to invest in has no relevance to their religious beliefs from a constitutional perspective. If I refuse to say the pledge allegiance to the flag I don't have show my retirement account does not have mutual funds in companies that say the pledge every morning.

Hobby Lobby employee's investment choices should not be determined by the owners religious beliefs.

If insurance doe not cover contraceptives it does not deny women access to birth control--it just means somebody else does not have to pay for it.
Click to expand...
If you are declaring that your religious beliefs forbid you from doing something, then those same beliefs should forbid you from investing in the very devices you claim that you don't believe in.

In essence, their religious beliefs aren't quite as strict as they claim.
 
Teflon Don said:
You should try to be more informed.

Costs about $800. Same cost as an iPhone.
Click to expand...
Back atcha...

Add the surgical cost:

[FONT=&quot]IF YOU DO NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE, OR IF MIRENA AND KYLEENA ARE NOT COVERED BY YOUR INSURANCE[/FONT][FONT=&quot] – You can expect to pay the Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC), also known as the list price for the Kyleena IUD or Mirena IUD, which is $953.51. This comes to $15.89 per month over a 5-year period.[/FONT]
 
Althea said:
If you are declaring that your religious beliefs forbid you from doing something, then those same beliefs should forbid you from investing in the very devices you claim that you don't believe in.

In essence, their religious beliefs aren't quite as strict as they claim.
Click to expand...

They don't have to be. The 1st Amendment freedom of religion allows you to believe anything you want even if you are the only person with those views.

And Hobby Lobby is not investing in those companies. They are among the mutual funds employees can choose from as part of their retirement account.

A person can have very strict religious beliefs but does not want to let those interfere with the investment choices of the employees.
 
Althea said:
So what? Would you be happy about having to pay for your Viagra, after paying insurance premiums?
Click to expand...

If your insurance policy does not include Viagra you should expect to pay for it yourself. You are not paying twice. Same goes for birth control, maternity, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top