Defies logic. How is doing something that's legal "corrupt?"

 

If they are trying to get electors that are bound by law to vote in a way that reflects there state's results aren't they encouraging breaking the law? Isn't that illegal?

Are they breaking the law or not following rules?

 

Only because they can't. "IF" anything happens tomorrow that is not on the level. We'll just say the however many million "snowflakes" who voted for the Hill and are now protesting, haven't seen anything, like the 63 million voters who voted for President Elect Trump. Who would then protest as loudly as they silent majority voted on 11/8/2016.

Edited December 18, 20169 yr by Sportsaholic Mamaw

If they are trying to get electors that are bound by law to vote in a way that reflects there state's results aren't they encouraging breaking the law? Isn't that illegal?

 

Its corrupt, just like I called it. I think its only illegal if another politician does it. But its corrupt when Podesta and Hillarys camp along with the DNC is behind it. See the videos. Thats why I posted them to lay out a case of the corruption we are dealing with here. Anyone thinks the DNC and left dont have their hands all over this, just watch the videos. Then see what you think.

Key word in all of this "IF". Electors are bound by the voting will of the people in states won by President Elect Trump. Your "IF" is the same as an old sayin from my Mother, " IF wishes were horses, beggars could fly." "IF" Electors could change their vote legally, would I support that vote?" "IF" NASA could legally guarantee I would survive a trip to Mars and back, would I go? Answer to both questions is NO, because both are based on an "IF" that is impossible.

 

21 states do not have laws compelling electors to vote for a pledged candidate, and thus it would not be illegal for electors to vote for a different candidate. The other 29 states have laws to penalize faithless electors, but those laws have never been enforced. It is NOT impossible for electors to flip, and the system was designed for electors to choose who they thought was best for the job.

If they are trying to get electors that are bound by law to vote in a way that reflects there state's results aren't they encouraging breaking the law? Isn't that illegal?

 

Yes. Are they bound by law? If so then we are having a discussion that is moot.

If the electors change the vote tomorrow you will see something you have never seen. 63 Million in a way you have never seen before.

Only because they can't. "IF" anything happens tomorrow that is not on the level. We'll just say the however many million "snowflakes" who voted for the Hill and are now protesting, haven't seen anything, like the 6 million voters who voted for President Elect Trump. Who would then protest as loudly as they silent majority voted on 11/8/2016.

 

Head spinning faster

Yes. Are they bound by law? If so then we are having a discussion that is moot.

 

Some are.

Its corrupt, just like I called it. I think its only illegal if another politician does it. But its corrupt when Podesta and Hillarys camp along with the DNC is behind it. See the videos. Thats why I posted them to lay out a case of the corruption we are dealing with here. Anyone thinks the DNC and left dont have their hands all over this, just watch the videos. Then see what you think.

 

You keep saying its corrupt without saying why doing something legal is corrupt. Are you ever going to explain the inconsistency?

In last-shot bid, thousands urge electoral college to block Trump at Monday vote - The Washington Post

 

You talk about Hypocrites. Just saying.

 

Agree 100%. Move on people. You lost.

 

My only addendum ... would Trump people have behaved any differently? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer)

You keep saying its corrupt without saying why doing something legal is corrupt. Are you ever going to explain the inconsistency?

 

Are you telling me the DNC and Clinton campaign have not been corrupt this election? Yes or No. What do the facts say. I posted these videos and emails above Clyde for all to see. You can split hairs all you want, but the bottom line is your party got caught up in the biggest political fraud and scam in history. Watergate is kiddy stuff compared to the crooks you guys support and STILL support. Its not surprising given the moral shape our country is in though.

Some are.

 

And some aren't

Head spinning faster

 

Its not stopped since the night of November 8th.

Are you telling me the DNC and Clinton campaign have not been corrupt this election? Yes or No. What do the facts say. I posted these videos and emails above Clyde for all to see. You can split hairs all you want, but the bottom line is your party got caught up in the biggest political fraud and scam in history. Watergate is kiddy stuff compared to the crooks you guys support and STILL support. Its not surprising given the moral shape our country is in though.

 

 

Now you're doing what you always do. Change the debate.

 

You said they were corrupt for possibly doing something that appears to be legal. Let's stick to the des ate YOU started.

There is nothing in the constitution tying electors to voters in their states. If you read what the "Founders" had to say about it, it was clearly meant for the "wise" people of the country to elect (or really nominate) the president. Read Federalist 68.

 

That electors have ended up being faithful to their states' votes since universal white male suffrage was achieved around the time of Jackson's presidency was simply a byproduct of a democratizing country. The constitution was never amended to change this system and tie electors to states' popular votes. Under the original constitution only the House would be elected via popular vote.

 

That's why I don't understand how people can both support this system and be bothered that electors are being lobbied to vote differently. That's exactly how it was designed.

 

And I don't support this movement, but it's exactly why I also don't support the EC.