1 - 10 Next
The Presidential oath in Article II of the Constitution doesn't include it, and Article VI prohibits requiring it. If you don't like our Constitution, leave.
They take it to the United States. Read Article II Sec 1, the president's oath doesn't include "so help me God". Read the Oaths and Affirmations clause of Article VI, it notes "no religious test" shall be required for public trust positions under the United States, which positions in the military definitely qualify as. It's been optional in every branch of the armed services since their respective foundings, with the exception of the Air Force, which made it mandatory in 2013, and there was never a problem.
Decades? This part of the oath was always optional as far as I remember back, except for when the Air Force changed its policy in 2013. I'm glad it's changed back, I don't see how an officer can force someone to recite an oath to God as a requirement of holding a public trust position (which is what enlisted servicemembers hold) without violating THEIR oath to uphold the Constitution, which explicitly prohibits such requirements in Article VI.
Which districts had greater than 100% turnout? I've heard people say this but searching on the internet I can only find easily disproved arguments about districts that had more "registrations" than eligible voters, mostly in collegetowns with high population turnovers where people forget to alert the election board that they're leaving.
Oh that's certainly true, but publishing the methodology allows skeptics such as myself to more readily accept the results. I'm inherently wary of anyone that doesn't publish their methodology, because its essential to evaluating their claim.
Am I the only one that is curious why there's no methodology reported? 44k voter registrations doesn't surprise me, people forget to update the election board when they move all the time, and I'm sure a lot of people move between Virginia and Maryland, that doesn't mean anyone voted improperly. As for the 164 duplicate voters, this is where I'd like some explanation of methodology. How did they determine these were the same people? Full social? Partial social? How did they verify these were the same people, and not just different people with the same name?
The project was extremely popular in the area politically, and county officials took flak for it being cancelled. Why would they have done that 10 months ago? It seems like you're just grasping at straws to defend a clearly debunked story. The county has already entertained other offers on the property, and ENN has gone elsewhere for investment opportunities, unless you have some evidence that it wasn't cancelled, you're just making things up.
The federal government has never sold permanent grazing rights to this land, which it has owned since 1848. I'm not sure why you think the fact that it used to be managed under the General Land Office rather than the BLM is relevant, they're both under the Department of the Interior. Regardless, the fact that this project is cancelled absolutely does demonstrate it wasn't the motivator for this action. There's no need to throw rationality out of the window.
If what ever happens to me? If people make up a story about me, you'll keep in mind that I've corrected false stories about others? Thanks.
The Desert Tortoise Conservation Center did indeed euthanize about half of the tortoises that were in their care when they shut down, primarily because those tortoises had grown up in captivity, usually as pets, and so would not have survived in the wild. That sounds like a terrible argument because it is, but I'm not arguing the feds are bright, killing tortoises so nature doesn't sounds like something they'd do.
1 - 10 Next