Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And then the state legislature says the election results are tainted so we are throwing them out and choosing electors who are not bound by those results. Easy peasy. And since Trump is already telling his followers the election is rigged, they will nod and applaud this wise and necessary move.
They're essentially arguing, however, that if Republicans ever win in blue or swing states, the state can ignore those results and vote for the Democrat anyway, ignoring the will of the electorate. They don't seem to realize that such a blatant move wouldn't just always benefit Republicans. We've never had a political party or president attempt to get state legislatures to change laws specifically to ignore the electorate's vote. What they're proposing here is the end of the democratic system in the US entirely and rule by partisan authority. And of course, if Trump grabs power this way, there won't be another opportunity to vote.
its the Republicans turn to have a Coup, the Democrats already had their chance...and blew it.
I must've missed the Democratic coup attempt. If you're talking about impeachment, perhaps you need to brush on your definitions. Or do you consider Clinton's impeachment to be a coup attempt by Republicans?
Also, you do realize that had Trump been removed... Pence would've been president and therefore ensuring a Republican maintained the office?
I feel like a civics class just for Republican voters is desperately needed these days. You all really seem to have no idea how our system of government works. Perhaps that is why it's so easy for you to agree to its destruction.
"The justices unanimously rejected the idea that electors, who act on behalf of a state in the Electoral College vote that occurs weeks after voters go the polls, can exercise discretion in the candidate they back. The decision erased a potential complicating factor in the Electoral College as President Donald Trump seeks re-election on Nov. 3 against Democratic challenger Joe Biden."
What it actually did was affirm that states can force electors by law to vote for the winner of the state, eliminating any actual ability to go against the popular vote. You're 0-2 on claims today.
No, you're wrong. I didn't read the opinion (it wasn't linked from the article), but the article says states can punish electors who break their pledge or invalidate their votes. It doesn't say their votes are automatically counted for the candidate they are pledged to.
They've been burning, rioting, looting, violently protesting, taking over city blocks, trying to defund law enforcement starting right after the failed impeachment scam. And from 2016 up to the start of the impeachment scam, it's been one attempt after the other.
That's all the "documentation" needed.
That's not "documentation", that's you making a bunch of claims with absolutely nothing to back it up.
When I say documentation, I mean actual facts, not suppositions.
Getting really disturbing just how many Trumpers are getting comfortable with the idea of letting Trump do this.
Do unto others. Now, its our turn Is it possible to do 2 at the same time? If so, the Pubs should double down. I think the Pubs should also use the FBI and DOJ to frame all the people around the Biden-Harris campaign, and wiretap them to death. Spy spy spy until the Pubs find some dirt on them.
Or are you just talking about switching from Clinton to Trump or vice versa?
this of course.
Seriously, if trump took office this way how could you not expect a armed insurrection? Or some low key non stop civil war. This sort of thing happens and even I might think its time to go and retire elsewhere for a bit.
No, you're wrong. I didn't read the opinion (it wasn't linked from the article), but the article says states can punish electors who break their pledge or invalidate their votes. It doesn't say their votes are automatically counted for the candidate they are pledged to.
States can force them to vote for the winner of the popular vote. That's the point. The decision confirmed that electors that are banned by law can't go against the popular vote. 48 states and DC are already winner-take-all states by law. Only 2- Maine and Nebraska, are not. In 32 states, there are existing laws that bind electoral votes to the popular vote winner. This includes the present-day swing states of Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.
In 58 elections, electors have made different votes than to those they were pledged to in 165 instances. 43% of those, or 71, were because their candidates died. 1 abstained and 93 were changed due to personal preferences. However, in no election were there enough of them to change the election's ultimate outcome. In 2016, there were 10 faithless electors, the most since 1896, but not a single one changed FOR Hillary Clinton. Most were for 3rd party candidates.
Now, what Trump is proposing to do is to get Republican-led legislatures to either change the laws or simply ignore the vote of their states altogether. Meaning we are not talking about a handful of individual electors going against their pledges, but rigging it so that *all* of the electors are forced to vote for Trump regardless of the voting outcome. There has never been any attempt like this in American history, as it would effectively end American democracy and certainly all faith in democratic voting.
Do unto others. Now, its our turn Is it possible to do 2 at the same time? If so, the Pubs should double down. I think the Pubs should also use the FBI and DOJ to frame all the people around the Biden-Harris campaign, and wiretap them to death. Spy spy spy until the Pubs find some dirt on them.
And then next, maybe gassing millions because they can't be trusted to fulfill the vision of Trump's America, huh?
Also, "do unto others" was not about revenge. It was specifically against doing anything you wouldn't want done to you. Your morality is screwed.
Attack the source because you can't defend the content.
So let's hear it... even if you believe the source is fake news, if something like that happened, would you defend it? Would you be party to the end our of democracy just because you hate your political opponents?
The policies the Democrats are pushing for will be the end of our democracy. No other action necessary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it possible to do 2 at the same time? If so, the Pubs should double down. I think the Pubs should also use the FBI and DOJ to frame all the people around the Biden-Harris campaign, and wiretap them to death. Spy spy spy until the Pubs find some dirt on them.
