20 Prozi Questions to the Emperor, Part the Fourth.

And onwards and upwards we go, to the final five. The original, and much more even-tempered answers (not a single “boob” in there), can be found here.

We’re going a bit long here, but that’s in part because one of the Prozis is trying to impersonate somebody who has read the Constitution, when we all know that him impersonating somebody who could read would be sufficiently ridiculous to be unbelievable out of hand. So we educate him a bit. Trying very hard to not use too many words with more than two syllables.

16) Bill Pieper ?@WilliamPieper How can a conservative square the funding request for the wall with past demands that spending be offset elsewhere?

By offsetting the spending elsewhere, of course! Are you dim or something? You just said it yourself, you blathering bovine bumpkin.

Ever heard of something called “sanctuary cities?” They get a lot of federal funds. More than enough to pay for the wall and then some. Something tells us that the citizens living in those cities, the same citizens who keep electing their outstanding Prozi city governments while their homes fall apart around them, are about to face either some massive local tax hikes or learn how to get by without other people’s money.

Not that it really matters. You only need to offset a tab that you’re covering yourself. Mexico’s got this one covered. They’ve just not realized it yet. But they will. It will be glorious.

17) Pete Sikora ?@PeteSikora1 Also, does it bother you that tiny #s of richest people have the same wealth as bottom half of entire world pop?

No. His Imperial Majesty generally doesn’t give two fly covered shits about “the entire world pop”, excepting the part of it that happens to reside within the United States of America. And the very small group outside of our borders that are either friends or family.

We call that group of individuals living in areas unfortunate enough to not yet be under Imperial Administration “the rest of the world”, and they’re not our responsibility. First of all because they’re not, we’re not the welfare office of the rest of the planet who don’t pay us any taxes, and second because even when we do give a damn, they usually bitch and moan about our Imperialistic imposing upon them, “forcing” them to eat the free ice cream they don’t much like the flavor of.

(Ever heard of saying “no thank you?” Of course you haven’t, you bawling, greedy little birdlets)

A worse bunch of useless ingrates would be very hard to find in all of recorded history.

If they have an issue with their employers having more money than themselves (which is sort of necessary in order to meet payroll, but don’t confuse those envious sloths with facts), they can bloody well deal with it themselves. They don’t live in mommy and daddy’s house, and it’s time they started paying their own damned credit card bills for once.

In many places they do, actually, try to deal with it. Often with hilariously disastrous results, and almost always incompetently. Just ask Venezuela, for instance. They decided to “deal with” their “income inequality” because they were butthurt that the people signing their paychecks and producing the goods they consumed had more money than they did.

Now they have no jobs, no money and no goods to purchase with the money they used to have.

Socialism is such a wonderful idea. It’s just a great pity that it never, ever works.

So no, it doesn’t bother us at all.

What does bother us is that a tiny percentage, 1% to be exact, of this nation’s population pays 25% of all taxes while 50% pay no taxes at all.

Talk about inequality. Just don’t do it near a precious little snowflake Prozi or you’ll make it cry sad, sad tears of sadness.

On second thoughts…

18) Delll ?@DelDink1 Why do conservatives assume that Black people’s views on society are a result of brainwashing by the left rather than by our own experience?

Because the only alternative to that very thoroughly documented explanation would be that black people are so fucking terminally stupid and incompetent that they’d be unable to spit without hitting themselves in the back of the head.

And we leave that sort of disgusting racism to the Democrats who will never stop hating us for having taken their slaves away in 1865 and then rubbed their faces in it by ending segregation over their loud howls of protestation and egregious bigotry 100 years later.

They’re much better at it.

19) John Hare ?@johnahare Is there any point at which the electoral college/popular vote split would become a concern?

No.

Here’s a little known fact among you Prozis (which is basically how you can describe any fact): There is absolutely no mention of such an animal as a “popular vote” in the Constitution which, last we checked, is supposed to be the document that determines how Presidential elections are decided in this nation. It does, however, mention electors:

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;

ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 3

It then goes on to describe what to do in situations where the candidate with the largest number of electoral votes doesn’t have more than 50% of the total number of votes, but that’s irrelevant for now.

Incidentally, we’ve always found the first sentence of this clause interesting. We can’t wait for the Prozi Party to accidentally hand the primary to two candidates both from California. That’s 55 electors out of the race right there, but we digress…

We suppose what confuses you Prozi defectives is how we pick the electors, which is by popular vote. But no, no help can be found for your psychotic delusions there either:

[The President] shall…together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 2

That’s it. All of it.

See anything about “popular vote” in there, our sweet demented child? No? Good. At least that means that you’re not going through one of your frequent hallucinatory episodes, so we can put the Thorazine back in the cabinet for now. In fact, many States used to have the State Legislature appoint them since they’d already been elected by popular vote and, quite frankly, it’s just silly to throw an additional election just because you can. Presumably, the result would be much the same.

But the bottom line is that nowhere in the part of the Constitution about how Presidents are to be elected do the words “popular vote” pop up, but the word “elector” does. In fact, nowhere does it say, specifically, how the individual States are supposed to appoint those electors. “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,…” Again. that’s IT.

The great State of Wherever could decide, effective immediately, to appoint their future electors in a raffle or by asking a local rodent, and there would be nothing un-Constitutional about it.

Nothing.

Short version: The point at which any sort of mention of “the popular vote” would become a concern to us and anybody else who’ve ever actually read the Constitution for comprehension, would be exactly when the Constitution were amended to give a good shit about it. Until then “the popular vote” and any splits, trends, jumps or shifts associated with it relative to anything at all would be as much of an electoral concern to us as the price of tea in China.

20) Chris ?@howlingchris Why are you more comfortable with banning foreigners than banning assault weapons?

Because “assault weapons” (meaning, to anybody who knows what a dictionary is, “any weapon that can be used in an assault”, meaning “any weapon” or, shorter still, “anything”) don’t kill people.

Foreigners, particularly the kind with a penchant for Sudden Jihadi Syndrome, DO.

So banning the latter rather than the former would seem like the logical thing to do if you were interested in instituting a ban that would reduce the chance of somebody getting dead in an untimely fashion.

No, don’t get started on how weapons bans “make us safer.” We were born and raised in a nation with weapons bans so extensive and draconian that they’d make a little Prozi like you spontaneously orgasm in ways that would probably kill you from dehydration, yet the time it took to get a hold of one of those “banned” weapons was less than half an hour. We tested it.

Is that clear enough for you, or should we perhaps engrave it on the receiver of an AK-47 and wrap it around your scrawny neck? Don’t worry. No matter how tightly we wrap it, it’s unlikely to do anything worse than restrict the oxygen flow to your brain, and that one is obviously dead already.

Thatisall.

5 comments

  1. 1
    LC&IB Vulcanrider, MSgt, USAF, Ret growls and barks:

    20) Chris ?@howlingchris Why are you more comfortable with banning foreigners than banning assault weapons?

    Emperor, allow me to add that for the umpteenth day in a row, my evil assault weapons sat peacefully in my gun cabinet, loaded and failed to kill a single human being. Just sayin’.

  2. 2
    Retired Spook growls and barks:

    My guns have never assaulted anyone. Hurt their feelings a little, maybe, but nothing more than that. In fact, they’ve never even gotten out of the gun safe by themselves, the lazy bastards! They sit in their on their lazy butts until I drag them out and make them go to work. What has the world come to?

  3. 3
    LCBrendan growls and barks:

    You have GOT to see this

    Snivelling Schumer was just well and truly SCHOOLED

    Chuck Schumer ?@SenSchumer 3h

    Today @VP Mike Pence did something no one else has ever done: cast the tie breaking vote on his own cabinet nominee. #RiggedCabinet 0 replies . 5,516 retweets 7,547 likes Aaron Rennow ?@vasprintf 3h

    and an immortal comeback

    @senschumer @vp @siracusa Those damn Republicans snuck that provision into the Constitution 230 years ago.
    0 replies . 35 retweets 279 likes

    BWAHAHAHJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :em05: :em05: :em05:

  4. 4
    lc purple raider growls and barks:

    Is that clear enough for you, or should we perhaps engrave it on the receiver of an AK-47 and wrap it around your scrawny neck? Don’t worry. No matter how tightly we wrap it, it’s unlikely to do anything worse than restrict the oxygen flow to your brain, and that one is obviously dead already.

    Leftists’ brains are not in their head, they are further down…

  5. 5
    FrJim, Imperial Chaplain growls and barks:

    “What does bother us is that a tiny percentage, 1% to be exact, of this nation’s population pays 25% of all taxes while 50% pay no taxes at all.”

    In the world of People Who Want To Get Ahead ™, studying and modeling those 1% would be a near obsession.

    In the minds of Libtards, we just punish the 1% so they can eliminate jobs for the other 99%, raise unemployment rates, devalue the macroeconomy, and hurt the poor.

    And remember: #libtards care and are good people.

    -Jim+