Electors (R) TX, NOT Voting for Trump - Fox News

[Uncensored2008]

[

Such butthurt.

A conscientious elector is by definition being honest. Hey if you don't like the way the Constitution is set up --- change it.

You will be crying tomorrow, as 300+ electors cast for Trump. Your coup is a complete failure.

 

[emilynghiem]

Trump wins Electoral College vote; a few electors break ranks


'FAITHLESS ELECTORS'

The "faithless electors" as they are known represent a rare break from the tradition of casting an Electoral College ballot as directed by the outcome of that state's popular election.

The most recent instance of a "faithless elector" was in 2004, according to the Congressional Research Service. The practice has been very rare in modern times, with only eight such electors since 1900, each in a different election.

The two Republican breaks on Monday came from Texas, where the voting is by secret ballot. One Republican elector voted for Ron Paul, a favorite among Libertarians and former Republican congressman, and another for Ohio Governor John Kasich, who challenged Trump in the race for the Republican nomination.

Republican elector Christopher Suprun from Texas had said he would not vote for Trump, explaining in an op-ed in the New York Times that he had concerns about Trump's foreign policy experience and business conflicts.

On the Democratic side, it appeared to be the largest number of electors not supporting their party's nominee since 1872, when 63 Democratic electors did not vote for party nominee Horace Greeley, who had died after the election but before the Electoral College convened, according to Fairvote.org. Republican Ulysses S. Grant had won re-election in a landslide.

Four of the 12 Democratic electors in Washington state broke ranks, with three voting for Colin Powell, a former Republican secretary of state, and one for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American elder who has protested oil pipeline projects in the Dakotas.

Bret Chiafalo, 38, of Everett, Washington, was one of three votes for Powell. He said he knew Clinton would not win but believed Powell was better suited for the job than Trump.

The founding fathers "said the electoral college was not to elect a demagogue, was not to elect someone influenced by foreign powers, was not to elect someone who is unfit for office. Trump fails on all three counts, unlike any candidate we’ve ever seen in American history," Chiafalo said in an interview.

 

[emilynghiem]

[

Such butthurt.

A conscientious elector is by definition being honest. Hey if you don't like the way the Constitution is set up --- change it.

You will be crying tomorrow, as 300+ electors cast for Trump. Your coup is a complete failure.

No, it's not just for a "coup" and it's not a failure.
The point is to represent dissension in public media through the democratic process.
And these statements have been made and publicized on both counts, effectively.
This is exactly the goal. To exert public influence and pressure to check Trump
against problems with him that don't represent all taxpaying citizens and voters.

Though I do believe the COST of millions in resources
would be better invested in direct democracy and solutions created that way.
For that part, I would scold the advocates who should be investing those efforts and resources directly
in educational and health care reforms instead of lobbying without producing direct change.

 

[boedicca]

HAHAHA!!!! All the Dems accomplished by their attempt to rig the EC was to WIDEN TRUMP's Margin of Victory.

hiLIARy ended up with more faithless electors than did The Donald.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, it's not just for a "coup" and it's not a failure.

The coup failed, it was an absurd attempt by the butthurt brigade, more of a temper tantrum by the snowflakes.

The point is to represent dissension in public media through the democratic process.
And these statements have been made and publicized on both counts, effectively.
This is exactly the goal. To exert public influence and pressure to check Trump
against problems with him that don't represent all taxpaying citizens and voters.

The attempt to subvert the EC is not, nor ever was a matter of dissent, it was the attempt to use illegal means to alter the results of an election that the left refuses to accept.

{Naturally, Democrats have pounced on that “refusal” to accept the results as un-American. Democrat Hillary Clinton responded by calling Trump’s statements “horrifying,” adding that as a nation of free and fair elections, “we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them.”}

Media OUTRAGED at Trump 'Not Conceding,' but They Forgot Democrats Always Do This

Of course that's a lie, the Communists have NOT accepted the election results, they rioted and then attempted a coup.

Though I do believe the COST of millions in resources
would be better invested in direct democracy and solutions created that way.
For that part, I would scold the advocates who should be investing those efforts and resources directly
in educational and health care reforms instead of lobbying without producing direct change.

Direct democracy?

Where 51% can vote the rights away for the other 49%?

 

[Pogo]

The attempt to subvert the EC is not, nor ever was a matter of dissent, it was the attempt to use illegal means to alter the results of an election that the left refuses to accept.

There was no "attempt to subvert". Only one ignorant of how the process works could possibly reach that bogus conclusion.

I told you ass clowns all along that Electors could vote for whoever they wanted regardless of what their state vote was including people who were not even running for the office. And there it is:

• Colin Powell
• Ron Paul
• John Kasich
• Faith Spotted Eagle

---- ALL got votes. NONE will be charged. I was right, you were wrong.

Plus I believe there was at least another elector in Minnesota who tried to vote on his own and got replaced by another elector. That guy has a lawsuit against the state if he wants to pursue it.

I suspect Faith Spotted Eagle would be the best choice among everybody too. THERE's your "swamp drain". I guarantee you we wouldn't have Goldman Sachs renewing their lease on the ******* White House.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
There was no "attempt to subvert". Only one ignorant of how the process works could possibly reach that bogus conclusion.

What a retard you are, Huffer.

Shade: Missouri Elector Rips Liberals Bombarding Her With Demands to Switch Her Vote

I told you ass clowns all along that Electors could vote for whoever they wanted regardless of what their state vote was including people who were not even running for the office. And there it is:

And as with most of what you post, that is false.

Further, electors are creatures of their respective party, so no only was your coup attempt, how did Hillary put it, "an affront to democracy," but it was ******* stupid. Par for you and the other dims.

• Colin Powell
  [*]Ron Paul
  [*]John Kasich
  [*]Faith Spotted Eagle

---- ALL got votes. NONE will be charged. I was right, you were wrong.

Plus I believe there was at least another elector in Minnesota who tried to vote on his own and got replaced by another elector. That guy has a lawsuit against the state if he wants to pursue it.

I suspect Faith Spotted Eagle would be the best choice among everybody too. THERE's your "swamp drain". I guarantee you we wouldn't have Goldman Sachs renewing their lease on the ******* White House.

Actually, regardless of the butthurt you and the other Communist have, MORE electors were faithless to Hillary, adding delicious irony to your failed coup.

Now you can go back to attacking the Constitution with equal success.

Oh, and Trump will be appointing SCOTUS justices, no doubt you will pontificate on why he is required to select the choice of George Soros. But as with now, you will again be an impotent clown emoting your frustration...

 

[Pogo]

[
There was no "attempt to subvert". Only one ignorant of how the process works could possibly reach that bogus conclusion.

What a retard you are, Huffer.

Shade: Missouri Elector Rips Liberals Bombarding Her With Demands to Switch Her Vote

I told you ass clowns all along that Electors could vote for whoever they wanted regardless of what their state vote was including people who were not even running for the office. And there it is:

And as with most of what you post, that is false.

Further, electors are creatures of their respective party, so no only was your coup attempt, how did Hillary put it, "an affront to democracy," but it was ******* stupid. Par for you and the other dims.

• Colin Powell
  [*]Ron Paul
  [*]John Kasich
  [*]Faith Spotted Eagle

---- ALL got votes. NONE will be charged. I was right, you were wrong.

Plus I believe there was at least another elector in Minnesota who tried to vote on his own and got replaced by another elector. That guy has a lawsuit against the state if he wants to pursue it.

I suspect Faith Spotted Eagle would be the best choice among everybody too. THERE's your "swamp drain". I guarantee you we wouldn't have Goldman Sachs renewing their lease on the ******* White House.

Actually, regardless of the butthurt you and the other Communist have, MORE electors were faithless to Hillary, adding delicious irony to your failed coup.

Now you can go back to attacking the Constitution with equal success.

Oh, and Trump will be appointing SCOTUS justices, no doubt you will pontificate on why he is required to select the choice of George Soros. But as with now, you will again be an impotent clown emoting your frustration...

The Constitution, Pothead, makes it possible for conscientious electors to exercise due deliberation. That's how the Founders envisioned it. That's on the ******* record. Founders who include James Madison, who called for an Amendment to make this "winner take all" perversion illegal. And Madison was one of those who designed the system; he could see as soon as it started that it was perversion.

The more Electors that bolt from the robot mentality --- the better. That's poking a finger in the eye of the states that try to steamroll the process. **** them. Those CEs in Texas, Washington and Minnesota and I think Maine, they are the patriots exercising civil disobedience against overbearing states. THEY understand the Constitution and the EC process far better than you do.

So no Pothead, I'm actually the party here that understands the Constitution and the process, which is why I've been telling you all along that Electors can and will do this, and again I was right, you were wrong. So **** you too.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Constitution, Pothead, makes it possible for conscientious electors to exercise due deliberation.

State law, huffer, dictates how electors may act. You have been reminded of this dozens of times.

AS YOU HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY SHOWN, but dishonestly ignore;

{
Delaware — (15 Del C §4303) provides “electors chosen or appointed in this State for the election of a President and Vice-President of the United States shall meet and give their votes at Dover on the day determined by Congress for that purpose.” — Dec.19, 2016

Furthermore, Delaware law requires in all cases that “electors chosen or appointed in this State for the election of a President and Vice-President of the United States under this chapter shall be required to cast their individual votes in accordance with the plurality vote of the voters in this State.”}


Our Complete List of States With Laws That Bind Votes of Presidential Electors

That is but one example.

That's how the Founders envisioned it. That's on the ******* record. Founders who include James Madison, who called for an Amendment to make this "winner take all" perversion illegal. And Madison was one of those who designed the system; he could see as soon as it started that it was perversion.

That is how the Federalists envisioned it. However, the actual law is left to the states.

The more Electors that bolt from the robot mentality --- the better. That's poking a finger in the eye of the states that try to steamroll the process. **** them. Those CEs in Texas, Washington and Minnesota and I think Maine, they are the patriots exercising civil disobedience against overbearing states. THEY understand the Constitution and the EC process far better than you do.

So no Pothead, I'm actually the party here that understands the Constitution and the process, which is why I've been telling you all along that Electors can and will do this, and again I was right, you were wrong. So **** you too.

The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution, Huffer. Nor is DailyKOS.

As always, you are shortsighted and believe that you can alter the rules to benefit your party, and again if backfired.

Trump in fact NETTED 3 electors as a result of your parties attempted coup.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Clinton Camp has responded to the ButtHurt Brigade, including Paint Huffer, Pogo;

{
Top advisers to Clinton, including campaign communications adviser Jennifer Palmieri, did not respond to repeated requests for comment prior to Monday’s vote. After it was clear the effort had failed, former Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon had a tough assessment of the organizers – calling their effort a “coup” attempt. "

“These Democratic electors' hearts were in the right place in trying to oppose Donald Trump all the way until the end, but their plan for mounting some kind of coup through the electoral college was never serious,” he said. “Their idea seems to have amounted to wanting Hillary Clinton to publicly surrender her electors in the hope that doing so would entice defections from 37 theoretical Republicans who were never identified -- presumably because they never existed. This was just a recipe for subtracting more from Hillary Clinton's electoral vote count than Donald Trump's, and sure enough that is exactly what happened. “

[…]

Supporters of the anti-Trump effort were dismayed by Podesta's appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," when Podesta said Democrats who cast a vote for someone other than Clinton would do nothing to affect the outcome of the election.

"The question is, are there 37 Republicans?" he said, in response to a question about the strategy of voting for an alternative GOP candidate. "It's not really what the Democrats are going to do."

[…]

Democrats were clearly divided on the issue heading into Monday. David Axelrod, a longtime top adviser to President Barack Obama, argued against efforts to vote against Clinton or Trump.

"Look, Alexander Hamilton conceived of the Electoral College and the Founding Fathers as a buffer against democracy run amok, as a safeguard against someone who was unsuited for the office to take the office. But it's never been used in the history of our republic,” Axelrod said Monday morning on CNN’s “New Day.” “To have it happen now, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and all that's swirling around with Russia and so on, I believe would split the country apart in a really destructive way, and it would set this mad cycle in which every election the Electoral College vote would be in question.”}


Team Clinton: This Effort To Block Trump Through The Electoral College Was Just A Shoddy Coup Attempt

 

[emilynghiem]

Direct democracy?

Where 51% can vote the rights away for the other 49%?

^ No, Uncensored2008 ^
Where Democrats and liberals who believe in right to health care can set that up
for their members who believe in promoting that on a statewide and national level,
pay for it and manage it THEMSELVES.

While Republicans and conservatives can set up programs that respect right to life and
charitable free market choices for health care. And give Taxpayers a CHOICE which
track to fund with taxes and opt INTO.

And quit imposing beliefs of "50% of the people" who believe in one thing
on the "other 50% who don't."

 

[emilynghiem]

The Constitution, Pothead, makes it possible for conscientious electors to exercise due deliberation.

State law, huffer, dictates how electors may act. You have been reminded of this dozens of times.

AS YOU HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY SHOWN, but dishonestly ignore;

{
Delaware — (15 Del C §4303) provides “electors chosen or appointed in this State for the election of a President and Vice-President of the United States shall meet and give their votes at Dover on the day determined by Congress for that purpose.” — Dec.19, 2016

Furthermore, Delaware law requires in all cases that “electors chosen or appointed in this State for the election of a President and Vice-President of the United States under this chapter shall be required to cast their individual votes in accordance with the plurality vote of the voters in this State.”}


Our Complete List of States With Laws That Bind Votes of Presidential Electors

That is but one example.

That's how the Founders envisioned it. That's on the ******* record. Founders who include James Madison, who called for an Amendment to make this "winner take all" perversion illegal. And Madison was one of those who designed the system; he could see as soon as it started that it was perversion.

That is how the Federalists envisioned it. However, the actual law is left to the states.

The more Electors that bolt from the robot mentality --- the better. That's poking a finger in the eye of the states that try to steamroll the process. **** them. Those CEs in Texas, Washington and Minnesota and I think Maine, they are the patriots exercising civil disobedience against overbearing states. THEY understand the Constitution and the EC process far better than you do.

So no Pothead, I'm actually the party here that understands the Constitution and the process, which is why I've been telling you all along that Electors can and will do this, and again I was right, you were wrong. So **** you too.

The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution, Huffer. Nor is DailyKOS.

As always, you are shortsighted and believe that you can alter the rules to benefit your party, and again if backfired.

Trump in fact NETTED 3 electors as a result of your parties attempted coup.

Dear Uncensored2008
I'd say you are mostly right, that anyone with hopes of really blocking Trump only achieved the opposite effect.

However, Pogo is NOT one of those people, but is truly talking about the process apart from any political preference.

With others, yes, you would be right, but Pogo is not really the best representative and it's more like barking AT the wrong tree.

Aside from that, overall I would agree more with Pogo that the purpose of Electors is to serve as a final check on the process. The spirit of the laws were followed, with exceptions like issuing "death threats" against Electors which is never legal even as a political statement. Threatening to boycott is legal, as well as lobbying to take back govt programs where leadership is not being recognized, etc. but death threats remain criminal.

As for arguing back and forth whether voting outside the state protocol is within/in keeping with, or against/in conflict with the Intended democratic process, I'd say there was mostly legitimate will to represent the voting public, but this was clouded in the media by people fueled emotionally to extort or distort for manipulation, whose intent is not Constitutionally about equal inclusion and "greater good for all."


This reminds me of people arguing if the vote for war in Iraq was legit or not.
For everyone who argues
1a. The intent by most people involved WAS legitimate, but yes there were corrupt people "taking advantage" and using this to push added agenda outside the agreements of Constitutional authority of government
And
2a. All proper legitimate steps were used to make that legal;
THERE are those who argue
1b. The whole thing was illegitimate, although people got involved who were sincerely acting for defense
2b. So that the process was Abused and not truly authorized Constitutionally by the people through Congress.

Here, there were people with lawful intent as well as subversive. But most people were not supporting subversion and certainly not Pogo.

For those who were, sure, they deserve your criticisms and corrections!

 

[Rustic]

The attempt to subvert the EC is not, nor ever was a matter of dissent, it was the attempt to use illegal means to alter the results of an election that the left refuses to accept.

There was no "attempt to subvert". Only one ignorant of how the process works could possibly reach that bogus conclusion.

I told you ass clowns all along that Electors could vote for whoever they wanted regardless of what their state vote was including people who were not even running for the office. And there it is:

• Colin Powell
• Ron Paul
• John Kasich
• Faith Spotted Eagle

---- ALL got votes. NONE will be charged. I was right, you were wrong.

Plus I believe there was at least another elector in Minnesota who tried to vote on his own and got replaced by another elector. That guy has a lawsuit against the state if he wants to pursue it.

I suspect Faith Spotted Eagle would be the best choice among everybody too. THERE's your "swamp drain". I guarantee you we wouldn't have Goldman Sachs renewing their lease on the ******* White House.

 

[emilynghiem]

The attempt to subvert the EC is not, nor ever was a matter of dissent, it was the attempt to use illegal means to alter the results of an election that the left refuses to accept.

There was no "attempt to subvert". Only one ignorant of how the process works could possibly reach that bogus conclusion.

Dear Pogo and Uncensored2008
To be fair, I also argue with you on this "absolute" stance there was 0% attempt to subvert.
What do you call DEATH THREATS sent to Electors? that is not civilized democratic discourse.
THAT is clearly an attempt to abuse illegal force and extortion type threats to "subvert" the normal process.

So are you saying that "no such threats were real but all made up?"

Or are you just speaking for YOURSELF that YOU and YOUR colleagues of YOUR position
aren't involved or promoting any such "attempts to subvert" because these WERE OUT THERE.

As for owebo
Sorry you think it's funny, but we lose a lot when people like Pogo who ARE reasonable
get thrown under the bus along with those who aren't. Because people either can't tell the difference
or don't have time to find out.

That's allowing voters and voices to get hijacked by collectively disregarding entire parties,
instead of working with people who are reasonable
and end up making the best allies across political lines.

Watch the DIFFERENCE in how Pogo responds to rebuke and criticisms.
If I confront Pogo and say YES there WERE unlawful attempts to subvert the process,
using DEATH THREATS as the means, watch if Pogo blasts back or posts a REASONABLE response.
THAT'S the difference.

 

[Pogo]

The Constitution, Pothead, makes it possible for conscientious electors to exercise due deliberation.

State law, huffer, dictates how electors may act. You have been reminded of this dozens of times.

AS YOU HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY SHOWN, but dishonestly ignore;

{
Delaware — (15 Del C §4303) provides “electors chosen or appointed in this State for the election of a President and Vice-President of the United States shall meet and give their votes at Dover on the day determined by Congress for that purpose.” — Dec.19, 2016

Furthermore, Delaware law requires in all cases that “electors chosen or appointed in this State for the election of a President and Vice-President of the United States under this chapter shall be required to cast their individual votes in accordance with the plurality vote of the voters in this State.”}


Our Complete List of States With Laws That Bind Votes of Presidential Electors

That is but one example.

That's how the Founders envisioned it. That's on the ******* record. Founders who include James Madison, who called for an Amendment to make this "winner take all" perversion illegal. And Madison was one of those who designed the system; he could see as soon as it started that it was perversion.

That is how the Federalists envisioned it. However, the actual law is left to the states.

The more Electors that bolt from the robot mentality --- the better. That's poking a finger in the eye of the states that try to steamroll the process. **** them. Those CEs in Texas, Washington and Minnesota and I think Maine, they are the patriots exercising civil disobedience against overbearing states. THEY understand the Constitution and the EC process far better than you do.

So no Pothead, I'm actually the party here that understands the Constitution and the process, which is why I've been telling you all along that Electors can and will do this, and again I was right, you were wrong. So **** you too.

The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution, Huffer. Nor is DailyKOS.

As always, you are shortsighted and believe that you can alter the rules to benefit your party, and again if backfired.

Trump in fact NETTED 3 electors as a result of your parties attempted coup.

Once again Pothead I have no "party" and you know this. But it's revealing that you find it necessary to continue lying, since honesty is so elusive for you. I suspect it's that binary-bot system you ordered from the back of a comic book and are now stuck with, that world where all matter is either A or B and whatever is not A must be B. I understand that's all the complexity some are capable of. Better let the adults handle this.

And no, Rump actually lost a couple of electors. Didn't "net" jack squat.

And no, James Madison was not a Federalist.

As already noted, I understand the EC and you don't. Just let the adults handle this one; you're way outta your league.

 

[Pogo]

The attempt to subvert the EC is not, nor ever was a matter of dissent, it was the attempt to use illegal means to alter the results of an election that the left refuses to accept.

There was no "attempt to subvert". Only one ignorant of how the process works could possibly reach that bogus conclusion.

Dear Pogo and Uncensored2008
To be fair, I also argue with you on this "absolute" stance there was 0% attempt to subvert.
What do you call DEATH THREATS sent to Electors? that is not civilized democratic discourse.
THAT is clearly an attempt to abuse illegal force and extortion type threats to "subvert" the normal process.

So are you saying that "no such threats were real but all made up?"

Or are you just speaking for YOURSELF that YOU and YOUR colleagues of YOUR position
aren't involved or promoting any such "attempts to subvert" because these WERE OUT THERE.

As for owebo
Sorry you think it's funny, but we lose a lot when people like Pogo who ARE reasonable
get thrown under the bus along with those who aren't. Because people either can't tell the difference
or don't have time to find out.

That's allowing voters and voices to get hijacked by collectively disregarding entire parties,
instead of working with people who are reasonable
and end up making the best allies across political lines.

Watch the DIFFERENCE in how Pogo responds to rebuke and criticisms.
If I confront Pogo and say YES there WERE unlawful attempts to subvert the process,
using DEATH THREATS as the means, watch if Pogo blasts back or posts a REASONABLE response.
THAT'S the difference.

I don't know anything about these "death threats". I've seen them posted here but I took them about as seriously as "Yoko's affair with Hillary" and "Three million Amish march to polls to vote for Rump". There's a lot of that going around. But when Pothead posted about "attempts to subvert" he's talking about Electors voting outside the binary winner-take-all system. That practice that I've been telling him for weeks can happen, has happened, and this week --- DID happen. He never mentioned death threats.

What I've been posting about (for months) is how the Electoral College works and its detrimental effects as practiced.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Once again Pothead I have no "party" and you know this.

I know this is a flat out lie, as does everyone else on the board. You are an extremely partisan democrat, of the rdean type.

But it's revealing that you find it necessary to continue lying, since honesty is so elusive for you. I suspect it's that binary-bot system you ordered from the back of a comic book and are now stuck with, that world where all matter is either A or B and whatever is not A must be B. I understand that's all the complexity some are capable of. Better let the adults handle this.

And no, Rump actually lost a couple of electors. Didn't "net" jack squat.

And no, James Madison was not a Federalist.

As already noted, I understand the EC and you don't. Just let the adults handle this one; you're way outta your league.

As always, you again show yourself an ignorant hack, spewing leftist bullshit with no knowledge of the facts.

{Along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison penned The Federalist Papers.}

Federalists [ushistory.org]

 

[emilynghiem]

Once again Pothead I have no "party" and you know this.

I know this is a flat out lie, as does everyone else on the board. You are an extremely partisan democrat, of the rdean type.

But it's revealing that you find it necessary to continue lying, since honesty is so elusive for you. I suspect it's that binary-bot system you ordered from the back of a comic book and are now stuck with, that world where all matter is either A or B and whatever is not A must be B. I understand that's all the complexity some are capable of. Better let the adults handle this.

And no, Rump actually lost a couple of electors. Didn't "net" jack squat.

And no, James Madison was not a Federalist.

As already noted, I understand the EC and you don't. Just let the adults handle this one; you're way outta your league.

As always, you again show yourself an ignorant hack, spewing leftist bullshit with no knowledge of the facts.

{Along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison penned The Federalist Papers.}

Federalists [ushistory.org]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

Honestly Emily, I have no desire to shut down Franco Hater Dupe Bot. No one pays any heed to what he says.

Pogo attempts to portray himself as rational. He isn't, he is a hack. But I try and make sure to remind everyone that he IS a hack so no one makes the mistake of lending any credence to his posts.

And let's be fair, when a person spews "James Madison wasn't a Federalist," then they are either too ignorant to bother with, or flat out lying.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Uncensored2008
Again, barking at the wrong tree.

If you want to target one of these REAL dogmatic demagogue Democrats who don't think for themselves
Why don't you help me dress down --> francoHFW <---
who is still trying to defend ACA by NOT answering to the core issues with it!
Just spouting "beliefs" which is unconstitutional for federal govt to establish
(much less mandate under penalty of law AGAINST the beliefs of citizens discirminated against by creed).

I have a Bullring thread just to try to get Franco to take responsibility for
"beliefs" that ACA depends on and imposes,
instead of franco taking the Fifth (and making other people pay who don't believe
it's constitutional much less the only solution that had to be passed to do something)!

At least Pogo has the sense and stance
to be OPPOSED to the ACA mandates which you won't find among
deadhead Democrats following their leaders like francoHFW

So is it okay to use that as Proof that Pogo is
arguing as an independent here?

I'm a Democrat against the ACA mandates as unconstitutional
and Pogo is the only progressive on here I've found so far who has
also taken exception in opposition to that.

Can you find any others?

If you can find other "Democrats" or "progressives" arguing against
the ACA mandates besides me and Pogo, I'll believe you that Pogo
is just another Democrat lemming blindly following the pack mentality.

Is that a fair way to show a distinction?

Honestly Emily, I have no desire to shut down Franco Hater Dupe Bot. No one pays any heed to what he says.

Pogo attempts to portray himself as rational. He isn't, he is is a hack. But I makes sure to remind everyone that he IS a hack so no one makes the mistake of lending any credence to his posts.

And let's be fair, when a person spews "James Madison wasn't a Federalist," then they are either too ignorant to bother with, or flat out lying.

Okay another point:
Pogo I understand Jefferson was more anti-federalist
and most historical sources peg Madison as a Federalist.

Where are you getting that Madison was not a Federalist?
Is it that Madison was a plantation slave owner? So did he use State Rights
type politics to justify slave ownership? Was he more balanced
in his Federalist advocacy? Did he promote both
Federal centralism AND state sovereignty equally or closer to equal?

[I think this is like arguing if Jefferson was a secular naturalist
about God, or Christian. You could argue both ways, and I think
both are true. I do believe he was Christian in spirit but ALSO that
he was primarily secular gentile in his mindset and philosophy,
and invoked God's authority through natural laws.
So this includes principles written into Constitutional language and history,
and explains why he focused on the natural teachings of Jesus in the Bible
that speak to secular gentiles.]

Uncensored2008 I'm probably more of a hack when it comes
to the Constitution. My take on principles and the spirit of the law
is so open and loose, I don't get into the legalistic procedural arguments
as Libertarians and others do who read, study and apply it more literally.

I can argue in spirit and principle, and get most issues addressed that way
without having to require all the details that follow from the spirit of the argument.

So if Pogo makes more effort than I do to cite and apply history,
that's a more sincere attempt than I can do when I can't even get
past the spirit of the arguments yet. Pogo is ahead on me on that note!

Neither of us is perfect, but our intent is sincere.
Neither of us is trying to abuse anything to manipulate or hack.