Dems Are Stalling, Recount Will Not Be Completed, WISCONSIN WILL FORFEIT TRUMP VOTES

[FA_Q2]

Yes. That is why I stated:
'that law does not reside within the federal government.'

What we are talking about here is that the constitution does not require the EC to vote in any particular way. Shackles has stated that electors are held by the constitution to vote based on the election results of the state they are appointed from. That is false, the constitution does not hold electors to any standard. The states are free to place any standard on them that they chose (and many have essentially none at all other than they are selected by the party that wins).

You made it sound in the post I responded to like Electors can vote any way they want. If you're saying that's not what you meant then fine, I accept you at your word

Under federal rules they can. Under many state rules they can as well. Only those states that actually have laws against faithless electors is that not kosher and if I am not mistaken most of those electors can vote how they want as well. They just have consequences when they cast that vote.

What you are trying to convince me is that a state could (in fact) carry more districts clearly choosing a democrat candidate, but the electorate is not bound at all by the results those voting districts carry. In fact, Constitutionally, they are free to simply give their states' electorates to the Republican candidate, if that's what they [the electorate] would rather do as their OWN decision.

I don't see any clear evidence of that in the Constitution, with any federal law that you have provided, or with regard to how the founders had established the electoral college in of itself.

Then explain why this very thing has happened multiple times in the past.

Again, you have to show evidence of where this is allowed under Federal law or under our. Constitution. I already stated my case for the electoral college process, listing where and stating verbatim what the Constitution says. I need more than "the federal law allows" or "it's stated in several state laws".

You have to be able to back up your argument with those facts you claim are there.

Yes, you cited the constitution but you are adding words to it that are not there. What you cited actually supports my argument, not yours. Further, I cited actual events where electors did chose differently than the vote went. Actual electors that did so without repercussion and those votes stood.

AGAIN, that is hard proof you are interpreting the passage incorrectly. If you were correct, those events could not have legally happened. They did. That is hard proof.

 

[SavannahMann]

Well, that was the whole point of the recount. To push the election to Congress so that the entire Trump administration could be denounced as Illegitimate by the mainstream news. This has never had anything to do with uncovering fraud. There is no way to uncover fraud without Voter ID. Without Voter ID the only thing you can say is that Bob Jones voted. You can't say if it was Bob Jones who actually voted. And even if you decide it wan't Bob Jones it was really John Roberts, there is no way to go in and take out his vote. He could lie and say he voted for Hillary. He could Lie and say he voted for Jill Stein. He could lie and say he voted for Trump.

The only purpose of this recount is to thwart the will of the many states that elected Trump. The only result will be in the public becoming even more disgusted with the elites and professional politicians. Perhaps the Democrats are praying that Congress can be pressured into selecting Hillary. If that is the idea, then you better stock up on canned food and shotgun shells before that happens, because there will be the second American Civil War as a result.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You made it sound in the post I responded to like Electors can vote any way they want. If you're saying that's not what you meant then fine, I accept you at your word

Under federal rules they can. Under many state rules they can as well. Only those states that actually have laws against faithless electors is that not kosher and if I am not mistaken most of those electors can vote how they want as well. They just have consequences when they cast that vote.

What you are trying to convince me is that a state could (in fact) carry more districts clearly choosing a democrat candidate, but the electorate is not bound at all by the results those voting districts carry. In fact, Constitutionally, they are free to simply give their states' electorates to the Republican candidate, if that's what they [the electorate] would rather do as their OWN decision.

I don't see any clear evidence of that in the Constitution, with any federal law that you have provided, or with regard to how the founders had established the electoral college in of itself.

Then explain why this very thing has happened multiple times in the past.

Again, you have to show evidence of where this is allowed under Federal law or under our. Constitution. I already stated my case for the electoral college process, listing where and stating verbatim what the Constitution says. I need more than "the federal law allows" or "it's stated in several state laws".

You have to be able to back up your argument with those facts you claim are there.

Yes, you cited the constitution but you are adding words to it that are not there. What you cited actually supports my argument, not yours. Further, I cited actual events where electors did chose differently than the vote went. Actual electors that did so without repercussion and those votes stood.

AGAIN, that is hard proof you are interpreting the passage incorrectly. If you were correct, those events could not have legally happened. They did. That is hard proof.

No, it was quoting verbatim under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie 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


You also did not provide the federal law that states electorates are not bound to what the vote reveals, where I have specifically cited sections of the Constitution

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

US elections: broken machines could throw Michigan recount into chaos
Source: The Guardian

Tuesday 6 December 2016 07.38 GMT

Broken polling machines may have put vote counts in question in more than half of Detroit’s precincts and nearly one-third of surrounding Wayne County, possibly throwing the Michigan recount into chaos.

If the discrepancies can’t be solved by recounting every paper ballot in question by hand, a recount in those precincts simply won’t happen.

Donald Trump’s slim margin over Hillary Clinton means any chance that the state might flip on a recount likely hinges on Wayne County, where she won by a landslide. Clinton lost by 10,704 votes in Michigan; Wayne’s population of 1,759,335 makes it the likeliest candidate to contain errors bigger than that margin.

Eighty-seven of Wayne County’s decade-old voting machines broke on election day, according to Detroit’s elections director, Daniel Baxter. He told the Detroit News, which first reported the story, that ballot scanners often jammed when polling place workers were trying to operate them. Every time a jammed ballot was removed and reinserted, he suspects the machine may have re-counted it


Read more: US elections: broken machines could throw Michigan recount into chaos

 

[Toro]

Hillary is doing this in several states and it will cause civil war, but hillary has no choice. If trump is prez she's going to prison.

WI GOP Lawmaker: Dems Are Stalling, Recount Will Not Be Completed, WISCONSIN WILL FORFEIT TRUMP VOTES

dec 1 2016 Wisconsin Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI) went on with Tucker Carlson tonight to discuss the recount in Wisconsin.

Duffy said Democrats and far left Green Party supporters are stalling the recount in Dane County Wisconsin, where Madison is located. The county is holding a hand recount. The recount will not be completed by the deadline on December 20th. Therefore, according to Rep. Duffy, the state will quite possibly be forced to forfeit their electoral votes.

This was the plan all along. Democrats knew they couldn’t make up 20,000 votes. But they also knew if they stalled on the recount the state could not certify the vote.

Wisconsin, won fairly by Donald Trump, will forfeit.

Federal law says that presidential recounts must be completed within 35 days after an election. Stein waited until 90 minutes before the Wisconsin deadline for filing a recount petition expired.

All the votes have to be certified by December 13 according to a report on Friday. The electors meet on December 19.

So, has this happened yet?

 

[kaz]

Read Article Ii Section 1

It says the electors SHALL MAKE a list of the candidates voted AND certify the vote counts of each candidate of their assigned state. That result is sealed and presented to the president of the senate. The state awards the candidate the electoral count based on those votes which are certified.

Shall make is not suggestive and does not leave interpretation for an "option". Article II section 1 and Amendment XII both give clear instruction regarding how states are to follow the process of an electoral college, which specifies a list candidates and to provide certified vote counts of each candidate that's voted on. Only if no presidential candidate receives a count of 270 can a group of representatives, and not the people, be allowed to make a decision regarding the selection of a President and Vice President. That case senerio is stated and a resolution provided under the XII Amendment, the Constitution makes no other allowances to a change in the decision for president.

I've quoted what's written in the United States Constitution regarding the electing of a president from a selection of candidates. Now I want you to show me where it clearly states your argument, regarding the electoral college. Namely that electors of a state CAN relinquish their electoral college contrary to the voting count they have received - Amendment or Article and section. When is it shown "historically" that a state electorate has actually made a decision that was contrary to those votes received, that successfully changed the nomination and outcome in making its final decision of a presidential election. I would like to see where you are finding that to have specifically occurred in a national election, and where it's written in the constitution that electorates have allowances to make their own decisions in choosing for themselves (not based on voting results received) a presidential candidate, in your next response to back up your argument.

I did. SHALL MAKE A LIST of the ELECTOR'S votes. That has no required connection with the popular vote in the state in question. You continue to make that connection when it simply does not exist. An elector may cast a vote for anyone that they want. It does not state they shall make a list of the PV in that state. It does not state that they shall make a list pertaining to the vote process in that state. It does sirectly state that they shall make a list of the candidates voted for BY THE ELECTORS. Nowhere does it say that those electors are beholden to anything at all - that law does not reside within the federal government.

If what you state is true then square it with the FACT that faithless electors have not only existed in the past but the cold hard fact that those faithless elector votes were valid and counted. Again, if what you stated were correct those faithless elector's votes would be illegal and invalid. As they are not you are clearly adding things to that amendment which are not actually stated.

True, the Constitution gives no say to the Federal government, but you do know Electors need to follow the laws of their State, right?

Yes. That is why I stated:
'that law does not reside within the federal government.'

What we are talking about here is that the constitution does not require the EC to vote in any particular way. Shackles has stated that electors are held by the constitution to vote based on the election results of the state they are appointed from. That is false, the constitution does not hold electors to any standard. The states are free to place any standard on them that they chose (and many have essentially none at all other than they are selected by the party that wins).

You made it sound in the post I responded to like Electors can vote any way they want. If you're saying that's not what you meant then fine, I accept you at your word

Under federal rules they can. Under many state rules they can as well. Only those states that actually have laws against faithless electors is that not kosher and if I am not mistaken most of those electors can vote how they want as well. They just have consequences when they cast that vote.

29 States have laws. BTW, a common consequence of a faithless elector is they are removed and replaced

 

[Pogo]

I did. SHALL MAKE A LIST of the ELECTOR'S votes. That has no required connection with the popular vote in the state in question. You continue to make that connection when it simply does not exist. An elector may cast a vote for anyone that they want. It does not state they shall make a list of the PV in that state. It does not state that they shall make a list pertaining to the vote process in that state. It does sirectly state that they shall make a list of the candidates voted for BY THE ELECTORS. Nowhere does it say that those electors are beholden to anything at all - that law does not reside within the federal government.

If what you state is true then square it with the FACT that faithless electors have not only existed in the past but the cold hard fact that those faithless elector votes were valid and counted. Again, if what you stated were correct those faithless elector's votes would be illegal and invalid. As they are not you are clearly adding things to that amendment which are not actually stated.

True, the Constitution gives no say to the Federal government, but you do know Electors need to follow the laws of their State, right?

Yes. That is why I stated:
'that law does not reside within the federal government.'

What we are talking about here is that the constitution does not require the EC to vote in any particular way. Shackles has stated that electors are held by the constitution to vote based on the election results of the state they are appointed from. That is false, the constitution does not hold electors to any standard. The states are free to place any standard on them that they chose (and many have essentially none at all other than they are selected by the party that wins).

You made it sound in the post I responded to like Electors can vote any way they want. If you're saying that's not what you meant then fine, I accept you at your word

Under federal rules they can. Under many state rules they can as well. Only those states that actually have laws against faithless electors is that not kosher and if I am not mistaken most of those electors can vote how they want as well. They just have consequences when they cast that vote.

29 States have laws. BTW, a common consequence of a faithless elector is they are removed and replaced

I believe it's 25 actually. And it's not commonly enforced beyond something like a simple fine.

 

[Pogo]

You also did not provide the federal law that states electorates are not bound to what the vote reveals,

OH FOR SHIT'S SAKE USE YOUR HEAD. You don't write a Constitution with negative statements -- it doesn't codify what IS NOT.

 

[Pogo]

Well, that was the whole point of the recount. To push the election to Congress so that the entire Trump administration could be denounced as Illegitimate by the mainstream news. This has never had anything to do with uncovering fraud.

It can't do that anyway. Recounts are irrelevant to EC voting, just as the entire Election Day charade is. Neither Wisconsin nor any other state Constitutionally needs to know how their population voted, or if they voted at all. That premise of the OP was shot down wid a quickness.

The only purpose of this recount is to thwart the will of the many states that elected Trump. The only result will be in the public becoming even more disgusted with the elites and professional politicians. Perhaps the Democrats are praying that Congress can be pressured into selecting Hillary. If that is the idea, then you better stock up on canned food and shotgun shells before that happens, because there will be the second American Civil War as a result.

That's at least the second time I've heard that dystopian prediction. The first guy I asked why it would mean that. He ran away. So let's hear your explanation --- why the fuck would it mean a "second American Civil War"? Because Rump hath decreed it? Do you know anything about the actual Civil War?

Several POTUSes have been elected with even less popular support than Rump's 46%. Some even while losing the popular vote None of them resulted in civil war --- not as a result of an election.

 

[kaz]

True, the Constitution gives no say to the Federal government, but you do know Electors need to follow the laws of their State, right?

Yes. That is why I stated:
'that law does not reside within the federal government.'

What we are talking about here is that the constitution does not require the EC to vote in any particular way. Shackles has stated that electors are held by the constitution to vote based on the election results of the state they are appointed from. That is false, the constitution does not hold electors to any standard. The states are free to place any standard on them that they chose (and many have essentially none at all other than they are selected by the party that wins).

You made it sound in the post I responded to like Electors can vote any way they want. If you're saying that's not what you meant then fine, I accept you at your word

Under federal rules they can. Under many state rules they can as well. Only those states that actually have laws against faithless electors is that not kosher and if I am not mistaken most of those electors can vote how they want as well. They just have consequences when they cast that vote.

29 States have laws. BTW, a common consequence of a faithless elector is they are removed and replaced

I believe it's 25 actually. And it's not commonly enforced beyond something like a simple fine.

No, it's 29. Google is your friend.

And some are a fine, some remove and replace the faithless elector. Your post responding to my post saying what some States do doesn't contradict me, I said some States.

All of them are pretty much ending their career in their party.

All of the declared faithless electors on this election are not voting for Hillary as a protest against Trump. You are a member of the wacko party

 

[Pogo]

Yes. That is why I stated:
'that law does not reside within the federal government.'

What we are talking about here is that the constitution does not require the EC to vote in any particular way. Shackles has stated that electors are held by the constitution to vote based on the election results of the state they are appointed from. That is false, the constitution does not hold electors to any standard. The states are free to place any standard on them that they chose (and many have essentially none at all other than they are selected by the party that wins).

You made it sound in the post I responded to like Electors can vote any way they want. If you're saying that's not what you meant then fine, I accept you at your word

Under federal rules they can. Under many state rules they can as well. Only those states that actually have laws against faithless electors is that not kosher and if I am not mistaken most of those electors can vote how they want as well. They just have consequences when they cast that vote.

29 States have laws. BTW, a common consequence of a faithless elector is they are removed and replaced

I believe it's 25 actually. And it's not commonly enforced beyond something like a simple fine.

No, it's 29. Google is your friend.

And some are a fine, some remove and replace the faithless elector. Your post responding to my post saying what some States do doesn't contradict me, I said some States.

All of them are pretty much ending their career in their party.

All of the declared faithless electors on this election are not voting for Hillary as a protest against Trump. You are a member of the wacko party

I am a member of no "party", specifically because "parties" are wacko. But I understand summa y'all can only cope through a richly populated fantasy life.

I was thinking of the Wiki map, which I've already posted in the past and which actually for whatever reason shows 26:

​

The number matters little, as no such laws have ever been enforced and Constitutional attorneys are confident that any attempt to would face a serious court challenge on the basis that such laws circumvent the deliberative nature of the EC intended by the Constitution.

And that makes perfect sense --- if you're going to install "pledged" electors whose vote is already predetermined by law, then what's the point of having a human write down the names at all?

A history of "faithless" electing here

All of the declared faithless electors on this election are not voting for Hillary as a protest against Trump.

Once you've rearranged that sentence into coherent English, bring a link to whatever it means.

 

[kaz]

You made it sound in the post I responded to like Electors can vote any way they want. If you're saying that's not what you meant then fine, I accept you at your word

Under federal rules they can. Under many state rules they can as well. Only those states that actually have laws against faithless electors is that not kosher and if I am not mistaken most of those electors can vote how they want as well. They just have consequences when they cast that vote.

29 States have laws. BTW, a common consequence of a faithless elector is they are removed and replaced

I believe it's 25 actually. And it's not commonly enforced beyond something like a simple fine.

No, it's 29. Google is your friend.

And some are a fine, some remove and replace the faithless elector. Your post responding to my post saying what some States do doesn't contradict me, I said some States.

All of them are pretty much ending their career in their party.

All of the declared faithless electors on this election are not voting for Hillary as a protest against Trump. You are a member of the wacko party

I am a member of no "party", specifically because "parties" are wacko. But I understand summa y'all can only cope through a richly populated fantasy life.

I was thinking of the Wiki map, which I've already posted in the past and which actually for whatever reason shows 26:

​

The number matters little, as no such laws have ever been enforced and Constitutional attorneys are confident that any attempt to would face a serious court challenge on the basis that such laws circumvent the deliberative nature of the EC intended by the Constitution.

And that makes perfect sense --- if you're going to install "pledged" electors whose vote is already predetermined by law, then what's the point of having a human write down the names at all?

A history of "faithless" electing here

All of the declared faithless electors on this election are not voting for Hillary as a protest against Trump.

Once you've rearranged that sentence into coherent Engish, bring a link to whatever it means.

You never were a strong reader. So far, no one who has said they plan to be a faithless elector is committed to Trump. They have so far all been committed to Hillary. They aren't voting for Hillary to protest Trump. Yet the media portrays that as somehow a threat to Trump. Liberals are strange creatures indeed

 

[Pogo]

Under federal rules they can. Under many state rules they can as well. Only those states that actually have laws against faithless electors is that not kosher and if I am not mistaken most of those electors can vote how they want as well. They just have consequences when they cast that vote.

29 States have laws. BTW, a common consequence of a faithless elector is they are removed and replaced

I believe it's 25 actually. And it's not commonly enforced beyond something like a simple fine.

No, it's 29. Google is your friend.

And some are a fine, some remove and replace the faithless elector. Your post responding to my post saying what some States do doesn't contradict me, I said some States.

All of them are pretty much ending their career in their party.

All of the declared faithless electors on this election are not voting for Hillary as a protest against Trump. You are a member of the wacko party

I am a member of no "party", specifically because "parties" are wacko. But I understand summa y'all can only cope through a richly populated fantasy life.

I was thinking of the Wiki map, which I've already posted in the past and which actually for whatever reason shows 26:

​

The number matters little, as no such laws have ever been enforced and Constitutional attorneys are confident that any attempt to would face a serious court challenge on the basis that such laws circumvent the deliberative nature of the EC intended by the Constitution.

And that makes perfect sense --- if you're going to install "pledged" electors whose vote is already predetermined by law, then what's the point of having a human write down the names at all?

A history of "faithless" electing here

All of the declared faithless electors on this election are not voting for Hillary as a protest against Trump.

Once you've rearranged that sentence into coherent English, bring a link to whatever it means.

You never were a strong reader. So far, no one who has said they plan to be a faithless elector is committed to Trump. They have so far all been committed to Hillary. They aren't voting for Hillary to protest Trump. Yet the media portrays that as somehow a threat to Trump. Liberals are strange creatures indeed

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? Writers like you are why editors are necessary. Next time you're getting a bill. And btw "They aren't voting for Hillary to protest Trump" is equally ambiguous so I suspect the lesson was lost on you.

And your link?

Now what I've read is that there's an underground movement to cast votes for somebody like Kasich, whether those votes are coming from Rump or Clinton voters was unclear. But there was only one elector who actually committed to 'faithless' electing --- not that that means anything before the fact.

 

[SavannahMann]

Well, that was the whole point of the recount. To push the election to Congress so that the entire Trump administration could be denounced as Illegitimate by the mainstream news. This has never had anything to do with uncovering fraud.

It can't do that anyway. Recounts are irrelevant to EC voting, just as the entire Election Day charade is. Neither Wisconsin nor any other state Constitutionally needs to know how their population voted, or if they voted at all. That premise of the OP was shot down wid a quickness.

The only purpose of this recount is to thwart the will of the many states that elected Trump. The only result will be in the public becoming even more disgusted with the elites and professional politicians. Perhaps the Democrats are praying that Congress can be pressured into selecting Hillary. If that is the idea, then you better stock up on canned food and shotgun shells before that happens, because there will be the second American Civil War as a result.

That's at least the second time I've heard that dystopian prediction. The first guy I asked why it would mean that. He ran away. So let's hear your explanation --- why the fuck would it mean a "second American Civil War"? Because Rump hath decreed it? Do you know anything about the actual Civil War?

Several POTUSes have been elected with even less popular support than Rump's 46%. Some even while losing the popular vote None of them resulted in civil war --- not as a result of an election.

Ok, let's begin with the first Civil War. Technically it wasn't a civil war. A Civil War is where two or more factions are fighting for control of the nation as a whole. The incorrectly named Civil War was a war of independence, which was lost by the Confederate states.

Why I think it will lead to a Civil War if the election is stolen? Easy. Why did the South secede from the Union? Because even though they had voted as a block for Douglas to be President, they lost. They had no power in Congress as long as the northern states stood together. They believed they were little more than a vassal state. So they rebelled, and tried for independence.

Now, what will the American Public do if Hillary is elected by either faithless electors or Congressional action under the 12th Amendment? They won the election according to the rules, and had that victory stolen from them. The argument that we are a nation of, by, and for the people will lose all validity. Those people will be furious, and will feel that the system is so rigged against them that there is no recourse within the system.

Angry people take action. It won't be the American Revolution, or even the ill fated Southern Seccession. It will be the French Revolution. Nobody will agree on what they want to replace the current system, but they will all agree that they don't want what is in place now. It will rapidly devolve into a mirror image of Libya, where factions control territory and battle amongst themselves for dominance.

I know the arguments against. The US Military. Mighty and proud. And small. Very very small. Check the numbers. Even including every active duty person, including the Navy and Air Force, you can't come up with more than a million people. Add in the National Guard and Reserves, and you can almost reach two million. Hell let's pretend that the troops in Korea, Okinawa, Germany, and all the other places are going to be some sort of help, which they won't. You are still outnumbered dramatically. I'll toss in local cops and state cops with the Federal Agents, and you can't reach four million. How many of them will walk away instead of fighting for a corrupt system that denied the people their choice?

California would stay loyal, but Texas would break away early. There goes a lot of national guard troops. Worse, that pretty awesome military is now in real trouble. Because tanks, planes, and all that other awesome equipment requires fuel in great amounts. During Napolean's time, an Army marched on its stomach. Today it floats on a sea of fuel. Tanks are getting perhaps four miles per gallon. Oh, don't drive them you'll say, get the truckers to carry them. How many truckers are going to? If you say half I think you would be dreaming. You would be lucky to get a quarter of the truckers carrying fuel and tanks here and there. And you would be burning tons of fuel to protect those vulnerable convoys. Fuel you couldn't spare.

Why would the people revolt? Because the person who won by the rules was cheated out of the victory by the very elites that the people rebelled against with a vote. Do you think that they would accept the same elites telling the people this is the best thing for them? At first a few would act, and the Government would stomp them down, and then the people would slide into the rebellion camp.

The only way to stop it is to act before it gets started. Knock off the nonsense about turning the electors. After all the threats even if you got enough to sway the election to switch, people would believe that they changed their votes not on conscience but because of people holding guns to their families heads. It would go violent, and there wouldn't be anything Hillary could do to stop it.

Where would the Government win? California which wants to secede and the other costal states. But all the states that produce fuel would go against, starting with Texas. If Texas goes that's about twenty percent of your fuel production gone. While you need more to get the military helicopters and planes flying constantly, you'll have less. Oh, and those pretty planes need hundreds of hours of maintenance for every flight. You can put it off for a while, but eventually you will have to bow to the laws of physics and deal with the aircraft repairs.

Food into the cities would require tons of organization, and federalize get the same truckers who aren't going to willingly drive for you now.

A rough estimate would put it at about a quarter of the military would just refuse to fight. You could make examples of some of them, but then they would leave in the dark of the night, and you would burn up a lot of loyalists guarding the less reliable that you have to have.

Cities riot when injustice is seen. Communities riot when one person is killed by an authority figure. How do you figure that the people won't fight when an even greater injustice is seen?

I told people who voted against Obama to calm the hell down, the nation would be here afterwards. I'll tell you the same thing. The nation will be here in four, or eight years. The nation will only be destroyed if the thin veneer of political power being in the hands of the people is shattered once and for all. That is the day the nation takes its last gasping breath.

 

[kaz]

29 States have laws. BTW, a common consequence of a faithless elector is they are removed and replaced

I believe it's 25 actually. And it's not commonly enforced beyond something like a simple fine.

No, it's 29. Google is your friend.

And some are a fine, some remove and replace the faithless elector. Your post responding to my post saying what some States do doesn't contradict me, I said some States.

All of them are pretty much ending their career in their party.

All of the declared faithless electors on this election are not voting for Hillary as a protest against Trump. You are a member of the wacko party

I am a member of no "party", specifically because "parties" are wacko. But I understand summa y'all can only cope through a richly populated fantasy life.

I was thinking of the Wiki map, which I've already posted in the past and which actually for whatever reason shows 26:

​

The number matters little, as no such laws have ever been enforced and Constitutional attorneys are confident that any attempt to would face a serious court challenge on the basis that such laws circumvent the deliberative nature of the EC intended by the Constitution.

And that makes perfect sense --- if you're going to install "pledged" electors whose vote is already predetermined by law, then what's the point of having a human write down the names at all?

A history of "faithless" electing here

All of the declared faithless electors on this election are not voting for Hillary as a protest against Trump.

Once you've rearranged that sentence into coherent English, bring a link to whatever it means.

You never were a strong reader. So far, no one who has said they plan to be a faithless elector is committed to Trump. They have so far all been committed to Hillary. They aren't voting for Hillary to protest Trump. Yet the media portrays that as somehow a threat to Trump. Liberals are strange creatures indeed

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? Writers like you are why editors are necessary. Next time you're getting a bill.

And your link?

Now what I've read is that there's an underground movement to cast votes for somebody like Kasich, whether those votes are coming from Rump or Clinton voters was unclear. But there was only one elector who actually committed to 'faithless' electing --- not that that means anything before the fact.

I said the same thing both times.

And I don't provide links of factual data to liberals too lazy to Google it for yourselves. If I am making some sort of subjective statement or if I claim something they try and can't verify then I will look it up. But this is so easy to verify, obviously you didn't try.

As of this morning, seven Democrat electors were planning to vote for a moderate generic Republican. One Republican who could not vote for Trump has resigned and been replaced by a Republican who will.

That's the general rule, but you are also on my "doesn't provide links to my questions so you can't ask for them from me" list

 

[Pogo]

I believe it's 25 actually. And it's not commonly enforced beyond something like a simple fine.

No, it's 29. Google is your friend.

And some are a fine, some remove and replace the faithless elector. Your post responding to my post saying what some States do doesn't contradict me, I said some States.

All of them are pretty much ending their career in their party.

All of the declared faithless electors on this election are not voting for Hillary as a protest against Trump. You are a member of the wacko party

I am a member of no "party", specifically because "parties" are wacko. But I understand summa y'all can only cope through a richly populated fantasy life.

I was thinking of the Wiki map, which I've already posted in the past and which actually for whatever reason shows 26:

​

The number matters little, as no such laws have ever been enforced and Constitutional attorneys are confident that any attempt to would face a serious court challenge on the basis that such laws circumvent the deliberative nature of the EC intended by the Constitution.

And that makes perfect sense --- if you're going to install "pledged" electors whose vote is already predetermined by law, then what's the point of having a human write down the names at all?

A history of "faithless" electing here

All of the declared faithless electors on this election are not voting for Hillary as a protest against Trump.

Once you've rearranged that sentence into coherent English, bring a link to whatever it means.

You never were a strong reader. So far, no one who has said they plan to be a faithless elector is committed to Trump. They have so far all been committed to Hillary. They aren't voting for Hillary to protest Trump. Yet the media portrays that as somehow a threat to Trump. Liberals are strange creatures indeed

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? Writers like you are why editors are necessary. Next time you're getting a bill.

And your link?

Now what I've read is that there's an underground movement to cast votes for somebody like Kasich, whether those votes are coming from Rump or Clinton voters was unclear. But there was only one elector who actually committed to 'faithless' electing --- not that that means anything before the fact.

I said the same thing both times.

Watch and learn, son. Or daughter --not sure if you ever figured out your own gender:

"All of the declared faithless electors on this election are not voting for Hillary as a protest against Trump"

Could mean:

"Not all of the ____ s are declining to vote for X as a protest against Y" (some are, some are not)
or
"Every one of the _____s are declining to vote for X as a protest against Y" (all are doing so in unison)
or
"Every one of the ______ s are not voting for X as a protest against Y" (all are voting X for another reason)
or
"Every one of the _____ s are declining to vote for X. They do this as a protest against Y".
or
"Not all of the ______s are voting for X. The reason some are not doing so is as a protest against Y".

Work on those dangling qualifiers and try to pin them down to something.

And I don't provide links of factual data to liberals too lazy to Google it for yourselves.

I'm afraid you have to. It's your assertion so it's your job. Ain't other people's job to do your research for you. I understand you have a lot on your plate with the English lessons and all but them's the rules. Catch up when you can. We can be patient.

So you don't have a link. For now your point is dismissed.

 

[EverCurious]

I suspect Alaska (also heavy military) would break away if our voices were subjugated by the lower 48 again. Certainly I'd be out protesting against my voice being silenced by what amounts to dirty politics.

 

[kaz]

And I don't provide links of factual data to liberals too lazy to Google it for yourselves.

I'm afraid you have to. It's your assertion so it's your job. Ain't other people's job to do your research for you. I understand you have a lot on your plate with the English lessons and all but them's the rules. Catch up when you can. We can be patient.

So you don't have a link. For now your point is dismissed.

Based on what is it my job to Google factual information for you just because you don't know it yourself? You don't do that. And I do what I say, I constantly have a tab open to Google claims before I ask for them to be backed up

 

[Pogo]

This is way too long so I'm just gonna nibble on the setup for now ----

Ok, let's begin with the first Civil War. Technically it wasn't a civil war. A Civil War is where two or more factions are fighting for control of the nation as a whole. The incorrectly named Civil War was a war of independence, which was lost by the Confederate states.

Fair point, agreed.

Why I think it will lead to a Civil War if the election is stolen? Easy. Why did the South secede from the Union? Because even though they had voted as a block for Douglas to be President, they lost. They had no power in Congress as long as the northern states stood together. They believed they were little more than a vassal state. So they rebelled, and tried for independence.

So you don't understand the history after all.
The South absolutely did NOT vote for Douglas as a bloc. Douglas the Democrat got exactly the same number of electoral votes from the South as Lincoln did --- zero. And Lincoln wasn't even on ballots in the South. Douglas won one state (which was Missouri, narrowly over Bell) and a split EV in New Jersey, that was it. He came in fourth. The South split its votes between their own guy Breckinridge, and the Constitutional Union former Whig, Bell.

Douglas by the way, to his credit, called for the country to unite behind Lincoln and worked to preserve the union in the short time he lived after that election.

And the seeds of that split had been festering for decades, going back at least to the Quincy Adams administration and the "Tariff of Abominations" (see Nullification Crisis). Interestingly that came up after Adams had interrupted an unbroken string of Presidents from the South (specifically from Virginia, which had stacked the Electoral College in its favor) --- Adams and his father were the only two POTUSes to interrupt that string to that point, both for one term; every other President was from Virginia -- and that's another hint at creeping polarization.

It's not a stretch to say that the Electoral College as instituted helped sow the seeds for the Civil War. Point to ponder.

South Carolina --- first state to secede and site of the first battle --- was threatening to secede as far back as 1828 (over the same North-South economic rivalry that always existed). There is no way this happened overnight. Interestingly even as late as 1860 SC wasn't even running a popular vote anyway.

Now, what will the American Public do if Hillary is elected by either faithless electors or Congressional action under the 12th Amendment? They won the election according to the rules, and had that victory stolen from them.
The argument that we are a nation of, by, and for the people will lose all validity. Those people will be furious, and will feel that the system is so rigged against them that there is no recourse within the system.

Actually nobody won the election according to the rules yet. That doesn't happen until December 19. And the rules say anything can happen.

Now, the masses may not be aware of all the possible conclusions, that under the Constitution the EC is not at all bound by any popular vote, in state units or national units, and that in fact nobody's required to hold an Election Day at all. THAT revelation could result in an action of some kind, granted, but I very much doubt anyone would go to "war" over it. Who would be the sides? Most likely it would result in another push for a Constitutional Amendment to abolish or modify the Electoral College system so that the People would have a voice. That's how it's designed to work.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You also did not provide the federal law that states electorates are not bound to what the vote reveals,

OH FOR SHIT'S SAKE USE YOUR HEAD. You don't write a Constitution with negative statements -- it doesn't codify what IS NOT.

That segment was not part of the Constitution dumbass, note the large gap between the article II Section 1 of the Constitution, and my request to provide HIS specific source of a certain federal law which is supportive in his argument. Seriously, are you that much of an idiot?