View Full Version : Faithless electors...?
bullypulpit
11-20-2016, 01:24 PM
In the days since Donald Trump amassed sufficient electoral votes, though losing the popular vote, to secure the title "President Elect", much has been made about "faithless" electors. These are, by current definition, electors who fail to abide by the vote they are bound to by 29 states. A binding which, incidentally, is not addressed in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution which states "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President". Allow me to suggest an alternate definition.
In the Federalist Papers #68, Alexander Hamilton discussed the Electoral College and its purpose which is two-fold. The first is to ensure that "the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust (as POTUS) was to be confided". In this case, the majority of voters who voted for Hillary Clinton.
Secondly, the Electoral College is intended to prevent "the desire in foreign powers (Russia in the case of this election?) to gain an improper ascendant in our councils" and prevent ascension to the presidency on anyone "who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" and whose "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" may secure them the office of President of the United States. A better, more polite description of Donald Trump I simply cannot find words for.
This election has us on the brink of thrusting a man so preeminently unqualified by training or temperament that he poses an existential threat to the Republic. The "faithless electors" are those who would put loyalty to party and ideology above the good of the country and cast their votes for a septuagenarian degenerate whose disdain for key pillars of the Republic...freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, the rule of law...have been repeatedly and forcefully expressed throughout his campaign for the Presidency. And let's not forget his running mate, Mike Pence, a man for whom homophobia and misogyny come as naturally and easily as breathing, as does the expression of his particularly intolerant brand religious right wing-nuttery.
No, the "faithless electors" are not those who would vote contrary to the manner in which they have been bound by their state. They are those who would, without thought, install a man who poses a clear and present danger to the Republic and. potentially, the world as President of the United States.
NightTrain
11-20-2016, 01:32 PM
:laugh2:
lol, you rabid moonbat.
Good luck trying to sway Republican electors with your typical commie crime-ridden demonstrators.
This election has done wonders exposing the ignorance that liberals are brimming with.
Never thought I'd see the outright destruction of the Democrats this year... but I can't say it's not gratifying to watch! :popcorn:
jimnyc
11-20-2016, 01:38 PM
Not happening dummy!
Is this all you wackanoodles have left? Do you really want to put yourself in a position to watch so many cry - yet again??? It's cool with me, because I enjoy laughing at you knuckleheads.
Trump won, that's simply not changing. The wall stuff has already started and they are in the planning stages. Get used to it and enjoy it!
How about those executive orders from Obama doing? You must be thrilled that we won't see them anymore from him, considering how you acted while GWB was in office. And don't say GWB wrote more, it doesn't matter. What matters is you whining about them non-stop for 8 years - and then not having an issue with a single one once Obama hit office.
Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
11-20-2016, 01:48 PM
In the days since Donald Trump amassed sufficient electoral votes, though losing the popular vote, to secure the title "President Elect", much has been made about "faithless" electors. These are, by current definition, electors who fail to abide by the vote they are bound to by 29 states. A binding which, incidentally, is not addressed in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution which states "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President". Allow me to suggest an alternate definition.
In the Federalist Papers #68, Alexander Hamilton discussed the Electoral College and its purpose which is two-fold. The first is to ensure that "the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust (as POTUS) was to be confided". In this case, the majority of voters who voted for Hillary Clinton.
Secondly, the Electoral College is intended to prevent "the desire in foreign powers (Russia in the case of this election?) to gain an improper ascendant in our councils" and prevent ascension to the presidency on anyone "who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" and whose "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" may secure them the office of President of the United States. A better, more polite description of Donald Trump I simply cannot find words for.
This election has us on the brink of thrusting a man so preeminently unqualified by training or temperament that he poses an existential threat to the Republic. The "faithless electors" are those who would put loyalty to party and ideology above the good of the country and cast their votes for a septuagenarian degenerate whose disdain for key pillars of the Republic...freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, the rule of law...have been repeatedly and forcefully expressed throughout his campaign for the Presidency. And let's not forget his running mate, Mike Pence, a man for whom homophobia and misogyny come as naturally and easily as breathing, as does the expression of his particularly intolerant brand religious right wing-nuttery.
No, the "faithless electors" are not those who would vote contrary to the manner in which they have been bound by their state. They are those who would, without thought, install a man who poses a clear and present danger to the Republic and. potentially, the world as President of the United States.
Actually, it was set up to thwart ignorant shills like you from by corrupt means, swaying and buying votes, by foul means and use of propaganda..
I have to laugh that now that it came to pass that TRUMP WON BY THE VERY MEANS you moonbats were championing hillary having a lock on before the damn election..
Suddenly she loses by that means and you ingrats, blithering crybabies, start cyring about how unfair it is!-- :laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr
aboutime
11-20-2016, 06:17 PM
In the days since Donald Trump amassed sufficient electoral votes, though losing the popular vote, to secure the title "President Elect", much has been made about "faithless" electors. These are, by current definition, electors who fail to abide by the vote they are bound to by 29 states. A binding which, incidentally, is not addressed in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution which states "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President". Allow me to suggest an alternate definition.
In the Federalist Papers #68, Alexander Hamilton discussed the Electoral College and its purpose which is two-fold. The first is to ensure that "the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust (as POTUS) was to be confided". In this case, the majority of voters who voted for Hillary Clinton.
Secondly, the Electoral College is intended to prevent "the desire in foreign powers (Russia in the case of this election?) to gain an improper ascendant in our councils" and prevent ascension to the presidency on anyone "who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" and whose "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" may secure them the office of President of the United States. A better, more polite description of Donald Trump I simply cannot find words for.
This election has us on the brink of thrusting a man so preeminently unqualified by training or temperament that he poses an existential threat to the Republic. The "faithless electors" are those who would put loyalty to party and ideology above the good of the country and cast their votes for a septuagenarian degenerate whose disdain for key pillars of the Republic...freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, the rule of law...have been repeatedly and forcefully expressed throughout his campaign for the Presidency. And let's not forget his running mate, Mike Pence, a man for whom homophobia and misogyny come as naturally and easily as breathing, as does the expression of his particularly intolerant brand religious right wing-nuttery.
No, the "faithless electors" are not those who would vote contrary to the manner in which they have been bound by their state. They are those who would, without thought, install a man who poses a clear and present danger to the Republic and. potentially, the world as President of the United States.
bullydeeppulpit...Guess you haven't noticed here, how you are the lone whiner, complaining about FAITHLESS electors? Who left you in charge? Who decided (other than a Hillary whiner) who is FAITHLESS?
Because you go by the name bullypulpit, doesn't mean Crap here. So. As "W" once famously said "Either you are with us, or you are against us!" Gonna be a terribly miserable 4 years for you, constantly reminding yourself, Hillary won, while Trump makes AMERICA GREAT AGAIN for the REST OF US.
Black Diamond
11-20-2016, 06:24 PM
In the days since Donald Trump amassed sufficient electoral votes, though losing the popular vote, to secure the title "President Elect", much has been made about "faithless" electors. These are, by current definition, electors who fail to abide by the vote they are bound to by 29 states. A binding which, incidentally, is not addressed in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution which states "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President". Allow me to suggest an alternate definition.
In the Federalist Papers #68, Alexander Hamilton discussed the Electoral College and its purpose which is two-fold. The first is to ensure that "the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust (as POTUS) was to be confided". In this case, the majority of voters who voted for Hillary Clinton.
Secondly, the Electoral College is intended to prevent "the desire in foreign powers (Russia in the case of this election?) to gain an improper ascendant in our councils" and prevent ascension to the presidency on anyone "who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" and whose "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" may secure them the office of President of the United States. A better, more polite description of Donald Trump I simply cannot find words for.
This election has us on the brink of thrusting a man so preeminently unqualified by training or temperament that he poses an existential threat to the Republic. The "faithless electors" are those who would put loyalty to party and ideology above the good of the country and cast their votes for a septuagenarian degenerate whose disdain for key pillars of the Republic...freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, the rule of law...have been repeatedly and forcefully expressed throughout his campaign for the Presidency. And let's not forget his running mate, Mike Pence, a man for whom homophobia and misogyny come as naturally and easily as breathing, as does the expression of his particularly intolerant brand religious right wing-nuttery.
No, the "faithless electors" are not those who would vote contrary to the manner in which they have been bound by their state. They are those who would, without thought, install a man who poses a clear and present danger to the Republic and. potentially, the world as President of the United States.
How about we compromise and give Hillary a participation trophy?
Doesn't it resemble something? http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)
http://www.forumdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/117.jpg
KarlMarx
11-20-2016, 06:27 PM
In the days since Donald Trump amassed sufficient electoral votes, though losing the popular vote, to secure the title "President Elect", much has been made about "faithless" electors. These are, by current definition, electors who fail to abide by the vote they are bound to by 29 states. A binding which, incidentally, is not addressed in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution which states "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President". Allow me to suggest an alternate definition.
In the Federalist Papers #68, Alexander Hamilton discussed the Electoral College and its purpose which is two-fold. The first is to ensure that "the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust (as POTUS) was to be confided". In this case, the majority of voters who voted for Hillary Clinton.
Secondly, the Electoral College is intended to prevent "the desire in foreign powers (Russia in the case of this election?) to gain an improper ascendant in our councils" and prevent ascension to the presidency on anyone "who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" and whose "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" may secure them the office of President of the United States. A better, more polite description of Donald Trump I simply cannot find words for.
This election has us on the brink of thrusting a man so preeminently unqualified by training or temperament that he poses an existential threat to the Republic. The "faithless electors" are those who would put loyalty to party and ideology above the good of the country and cast their votes for a septuagenarian degenerate whose disdain for key pillars of the Republic...freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, the rule of law...have been repeatedly and forcefully expressed throughout his campaign for the Presidency. And let's not forget his running mate, Mike Pence, a man for whom homophobia and misogyny come as naturally and easily as breathing, as does the expression of his particularly intolerant brand religious right wing-nuttery.
No, the "faithless electors" are not those who would vote contrary to the manner in which they have been bound by their state. They are those who would, without thought, install a man who poses a clear and present danger to the Republic and. potentially, the world as President of the United States.
"Not qualified by training or temperament" .... I submit that Hillary Clinton fits this definition. Why? Because she has shown that she cannot be trusted to follow the law. Period. It does not matter if the FBI director who reports to the AG, an Obama appointee, stated that there was nothing worth prosecuting. Setting up an unsecured, unauthorized server and knowingly transmitted and received classified information and disclosed that information to people who had no need to know nor were cleared to view that information. Such a person presents a clear and present danger to our national security.
So, why would the electors go back on their word, en masse, to elect such a person?
aboutime
11-20-2016, 06:29 PM
"Not qualified by training or temperament" .... I submit that Hillary Clinton fits this definition. Why? Because she has shown that she cannot be trusted to follow the law. Period. It does not matter if the FBI director who reports to the AG, an Obama appointee, stated that there was nothing worth prosecuting. Setting up an unsecured, unauthorized server and knowingly transmitted and received classified information and disclosed that information to people who had no need to know nor were cleared to view that information. Such a person presents a clear and present danger to our national security.
So, why would the electors go back on their word, en masse, to elect such a person?
KarlMarx. Ask bully to ask the very same questions about OBAMA, pre-2008. And Obama never ran a business, or ever paid a paycheck to anyone (unless he was paying ACORN members)
KarlMarx
11-20-2016, 06:42 PM
KarlMarx. Ask bully to ask the very same questions about OBAMA, pre-2008. And Obama never ran a business, or ever paid a paycheck to anyone (unless he was paying ACORN members)
In my opinion, Obama colluded with the AG to allow Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democrat nominee to skate when she committed acts that were tantamount to espionage. (MY opinion).
The Democrat Party lost what little credibility it had when it went out of its way to choose Hillary Clinton. Had they chosen Bernie Sanders (while I disagree with his policies vehemently), they would have been better off. Why? Because in my opinion, Bernie Sanders seems to be honest and sincerely believes in what he stands for. But, the Democrats made a deal with the Clinton Devil and reaped what it sowed... utter and ignominious defeat (I always wanted to use a sentence with that word :) )
gabosaurus
11-20-2016, 09:33 PM
Faithless electors like a river flows
Raindrops falling on a broken rose
Down in some valley where nobody goes
And the night blows in like the cold dark wind
Faithless electors like a river flows
Faithless electors where did I go wrong
Was it telling stories in a heartbreak song
Where nobody's right and nobody was wrong
Faithless electors will find you
And the misery entwine you
Faithless electors where did I go wrong
(with apologies to JD Souther)
aboutime
11-20-2016, 10:07 PM
Faithless electors like a river flows
Raindrops falling on a broken rose
Down in some valley where nobody goes
And the night blows in like the cold dark wind
Faithless electors like a river flows
Faithless electors where did I go wrong
Was it telling stories in a heartbreak song
Where nobody's right and nobody was wrong
Faithless electors will find you
And the misery entwine you
Faithless electors where did I go wrong
(with apologies to JD Souther)
You should apologize gabby. Look at how you intentionally distorted the word LOVE by exposing your stupidity, and stealing lyrics from someone to please yourself.
Bilgerat
11-21-2016, 07:47 AM
All I'm saying
http://brightcove04.o.brightcove.com/4221396001/4221396001_5202772695001_5202426000001-vs.jpg?pubId=4221396001
fj1200
11-21-2016, 11:24 AM
No, the "faithless electors" are not those who would vote contrary to the manner in which they have been bound by their state. They are those who would, without thought, install a man who poses a clear and present danger to the Republic and. potentially, the world as President of the United States.
Won't happen.
... blithering crybabies, start cyring about how unfair it is!----Tyr
Irony: Makes me laugh.
I have no doubt that the next step (assuming damn few "faithless electors will appear), we will be hearing about "armed revolution" as the only recourse left for the anti-Trump crowd.
Gunny
11-21-2016, 12:00 PM
I have no doubt that the next step (assuming damn few "faithless electors will appear), we will be hearing about "armed revolution" as the only recourse left for the anti-Trump crowd.Yeah. They already tried the hanging chad trick. Running out of options.
Thing is, I don't put it past them to get violent. That ALWAYS works for the snivelers. Just best not come around here with any such notion.
I have no doubt that the next step (assuming damn few "faithless electors will appear), we will be hearing about "armed revolution" as the only recourse left for the anti-Trump crowd.
And the slogan will be - "Everybody to struggle against Trampism-Putinism!" :laugh:
bullypulpit
11-22-2016, 06:30 PM
:laugh2:
lol, you rabid moonbat.
Good luck trying to sway Republican electors with your typical commie crime-ridden demonstrators.
This election has done wonders exposing the ignorance that liberals are brimming with.
Never thought I'd see the outright destruction of the Democrats this year... but I can't say it's not gratifying to watch! :popcorn:
Oh hell, I know it's not gonna happen. But, it should.
jimnyc
11-22-2016, 06:44 PM
Oh hell, I know it's not gonna happen. But, it should.
Not, shouldn't, won't... it's hilarious watching the kooks even discuss this crap. So many kooks out there, millions and millions signing crap from lady gaga - all.for.nothing.
gabosaurus
11-22-2016, 10:37 PM
Just for a laugh, I went back and read a few days worth of DP threads and comments after Obama won the 2008 election. There were all sorts of sour grapes and mournful grousing about the forthcoming disaster facing America.
Then there was Michelle Malkin (who is currently as irrelevant as many Democrats) trying to pep up the troops.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/05/gird-your-loins-conservatives/
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.