|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing
That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it.
|
On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it.
Except that he's not because bernie is not in the race.
|
On November 07 2016 15:17 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Except that he's not because bernie is not in the race.
What does that have to do with it?
|
|
|
United States44393 Posts
On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it.
The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy.
If 270 people can just make whoever the fuck they want President, regardless of the voters, democracy will not survive. They have to adhere to the will of the voters. I'm aware there have been cases in the past of them accidentally miscasting their votes in ways in which it doesn't matter but that isn't a precedent, nobody seized upon that to insist that the result of the election be altered because everyone understands that the electoral college members voting themselves is a formality and that it is the winner of the state who gets the votes.
|
On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose
That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention).
On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy.
You know this has happened before right?
EDIT: So did you have any document you could point at where they would force him to vote for Hillary (great optics btw) or something, or is this just your interpretation of why more wasn't done before?
|
United States44393 Posts
On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention). Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy. You know this has happened before right?
Not in a way that sets a precedent.
|
United States44393 Posts
On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention). Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy. You know this has happened before right? EDIT: So did you have any document you could point at where they would force him to vote for Hillary (great optics btw) or something, or is this just your interpretation of why more wasn't done before?
Dude, this is common fucking sense. If the people of Washington vote for Hillary as president and their electoral college representative delivers a Trump presidency in a tie-breaker the Supreme Court is not going to allow that. I know you're completely off the sane-train ever since Bernie endorsed Clinton but at some point you need to come back to earth. The electoral college is a formality, they're allowed to show up drunk and vote for the wrong guy by accident but nobody is going to change the election result because of it.
|
On November 07 2016 15:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention). On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy. You know this has happened before right? Not in a way that sets a precedent.
I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control).
The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL
Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with.
EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is (and adding in a friendly personal insult) without knowing it to be true?
|
United States44393 Posts
On November 07 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:27 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention). On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy. You know this has happened before right? Not in a way that sets a precedent. I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control). The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with. EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is without knowing it to be true?
They wouldn't threaten him with shit. They would just take away his vote and give it to Hillary.
You're not getting this. It's no different than it Queen Elizabeth decided we were going back to absolute monarchy. They'd just abdicate her and find someone who would play the part. Sure, on paper she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants but we all know how the fuck the system is meant to work and wouldn't tolerate someone fucking it up because tradition.
Seriously, you've lost the plot at this point if you think the election is going to be decided by rogue electoral college voters. They're a tradition that continues to exist because they don't invoke their power in a way that makes it obvious that they're outdated and need to be abolished. The moment they do, they'll be fixed. I don't need to cite a law that says "the electoral college can't go rogue and make whoever the fuck they want president regardless of the voters". I just need a bare minimum of intelligence to identify that them doing so would be correctly viewed as a malfunction in the system and not upheld. You are not as stupid as you are pretending to be GH. Hell, nobody is. Stop it.
|
On November 07 2016 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 05:45 JW_DTLA wrote:On November 07 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 05:32 Plansix wrote:
And nothing, as expected. Well I wouldn't exactly say "nothing", could be more "accidents", just that they don't change their mind that they were accidents. Is there any amount of vindications and clearings of wrongdoing that would cause you to mark your biases to market? FBI just cleared HRC again. Yet you hold out for more unknown, undiscovered evidence of the criminality you so wish for. Why not just come out and say you have pre-judged HRC and don't need evidence? I think my relationship with the justice system gives me much less confidence that what they pronounce is automatically closer to the truth than "what it looks like". Clinton looks like an addict (to money and power) to me, so yes, that is the lens through which I look at her actions. I don't doubt that she probably managed to not break the law (or at least to a point where she would be likely enough to lose in court for someone to risk bringing charges[which was my position way back in 2015]), but that's not my problem. Much like xDaunt was trying to point out, it's that we're approving and promoting what she's done from the left. Too many people on the left have adopted what used to be a Republican mantra in their defense of Clinton: "If it's profitable and legal, it must be moral and ethical".
I thought it was the right who believed that evidence isn't needed to decide someone is guilty.
|
The electoral college is a terrible outdated institution that only exists because it has not yet fucked up significantly enough to generate the political action to remove it.
It made sense in 1800. Like many other institutions that are no longer with us.
|
On November 07 2016 15:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:27 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention). On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy. You know this has happened before right? Not in a way that sets a precedent. I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control). The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with. EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is without knowing it to be true? They wouldn't threaten him with shit. They would just take away his vote and give it to Hillary. You're not getting this. It's no different than it Queen Elizabeth decided we were going back to absolute monarchy. They'd just abdicate her and find someone who would play the part. Sure, on paper she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants but we all know how the fuck the system is meant to work and wouldn't tolerate someone fucking it up because tradition. Seriously, you've lost the plot at this point if you think the election is going to be decided by rogue electoral college voters. They're a tradition that continues to exist because they don't invoke their power in a way that makes it obvious that they're outdated and need to be abolished. The moment they do, they'll be fixed.
lol I literally said in the post you quoted I don't think it could be decided by him. So your saying there's some way for them to take away his ability to cast his vote and they can just replace it with the vote they want? The state party, and other dems that have looked into said that wasn't true, which is why I keep asking for you to cite something backing up your opinion.
At this point I have to just presume you're talking out of your ass.
On November 07 2016 15:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 05:45 JW_DTLA wrote:On November 07 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Well I wouldn't exactly say "nothing", could be more "accidents", just that they don't change their mind that they were accidents. Is there any amount of vindications and clearings of wrongdoing that would cause you to mark your biases to market? FBI just cleared HRC again. Yet you hold out for more unknown, undiscovered evidence of the criminality you so wish for. Why not just come out and say you have pre-judged HRC and don't need evidence? I think my relationship with the justice system gives me much less confidence that what they pronounce is automatically closer to the truth than "what it looks like". Clinton looks like an addict (to money and power) to me, so yes, that is the lens through which I look at her actions. I don't doubt that she probably managed to not break the law (or at least to a point where she would be likely enough to lose in court for someone to risk bringing charges[which was my position way back in 2015]), but that's not my problem. Much like xDaunt was trying to point out, it's that we're approving and promoting what she's done from the left. Too many people on the left have adopted what used to be a Republican mantra in their defense of Clinton: "If it's profitable and legal, it must be moral and ethical". I thought it was the right who believed that evidence isn't needed to decide someone is guilty.
I'm not convicting her of a crime lol. Nice try though.
User was warned for this post
|
Nobody would care if he is native american. Deciding to invalidate the votes of the citizens you represent is an obnoxious power trip.
|
United States44393 Posts
On November 07 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:38 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:27 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention). On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy. You know this has happened before right? Not in a way that sets a precedent. I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control). The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with. EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is without knowing it to be true? They wouldn't threaten him with shit. They would just take away his vote and give it to Hillary. You're not getting this. It's no different than it Queen Elizabeth decided we were going back to absolute monarchy. They'd just abdicate her and find someone who would play the part. Sure, on paper she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants but we all know how the fuck the system is meant to work and wouldn't tolerate someone fucking it up because tradition. Seriously, you've lost the plot at this point if you think the election is going to be decided by rogue electoral college voters. They're a tradition that continues to exist because they don't invoke their power in a way that makes it obvious that they're outdated and need to be abolished. The moment they do, they'll be fixed. lol I literally said in the post you quoted I don't think it could be decided by him. So your saying there's some way for them to take away his ability to cast his vote and they can just replace it with the vote they want? The state party, and other dems that have looked into said that wasn't true, which is why I keep asking for you to cite something backing up your opinion. At this point I have to just presume you're talking out of your ass.
I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place.
|
On November 07 2016 15:41 CobaltBlu wrote:
Nobody would care if he is native american. Deciding to invalidate the votes of the citizens you represent is an obnoxious power trip.
Again, the people who put him there knew this was a possibility. If the citizens had a problem with it, they shouldn't have elected him.
|
You're talking about what the state of washington will do if they don't vote for Hillary.
Kwark is talking about what the supreme court will do if he doesn't vote for Hillary. god forbid such a loon might decide the election he is chosen to sit in an archaic institution that only exists out of respect and tradition for the early days of the nation. He is not elected to chose who he wants to be president.
Not to mention the citizens didn't even fucking vote for him. Hes chosen by the private institution that is the democratic party. they vote for a canidate and the canidate supplies the elector. thats how the election works.
|
On November 07 2016 15:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention). On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy. You know this has happened before right? EDIT: So did you have any document you could point at where they would force him to vote for Hillary (great optics btw) or something, or is this just your interpretation of why more wasn't done before? Dude, this is common fucking sense. If the people of Washington vote for Hillary as president and their electoral college representative delivers a Trump presidency in a tie-breaker the Supreme Court is not going to allow that. I know you're completely off the sane-train ever since Bernie endorsed Clinton but at some point you need to come back to earth. The electoral college is a formality, they're allowed to show up drunk and vote for the wrong guy by accident but nobody is going to change the election result because of it.
Just so we're clear:
1) The US is not a Democracy, we're a Constitutional Republic
2) The 12th Amendment does not specify a EC elector has to vote for whoever their state voted for on a popular basis
3) Not all States utilize the same EC voting system - Maine and Nebraska utilize district representation for instance
4) The SCOTUS all ready has way too much power and if anything is going to implode our political system it'll be the SCOTUS effectively abolishing the EC and swinging the election themselves (Again, there is no law mandating an elector give their vote to whoever their state voted for on a popular basis)
|
On November 07 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:38 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:27 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention). On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy. You know this has happened before right? Not in a way that sets a precedent. I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control). The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with. EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is without knowing it to be true? They wouldn't threaten him with shit. They would just take away his vote and give it to Hillary. You're not getting this. It's no different than it Queen Elizabeth decided we were going back to absolute monarchy. They'd just abdicate her and find someone who would play the part. Sure, on paper she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants but we all know how the fuck the system is meant to work and wouldn't tolerate someone fucking it up because tradition. Seriously, you've lost the plot at this point if you think the election is going to be decided by rogue electoral college voters. They're a tradition that continues to exist because they don't invoke their power in a way that makes it obvious that they're outdated and need to be abolished. The moment they do, they'll be fixed. lol I literally said in the post you quoted I don't think it could be decided by him. So your saying there's some way for them to take away his ability to cast his vote and they can just replace it with the vote they want? The state party, and other dems that have looked into said that wasn't true, which is why I keep asking for you to cite something backing up your opinion. At this point I have to just presume you're talking out of your ass. Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 07 2016 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 05:45 JW_DTLA wrote:On November 07 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Well I wouldn't exactly say "nothing", could be more "accidents", just that they don't change their mind that they were accidents. Is there any amount of vindications and clearings of wrongdoing that would cause you to mark your biases to market? FBI just cleared HRC again. Yet you hold out for more unknown, undiscovered evidence of the criminality you so wish for. Why not just come out and say you have pre-judged HRC and don't need evidence? I think my relationship with the justice system gives me much less confidence that what they pronounce is automatically closer to the truth than "what it looks like". Clinton looks like an addict (to money and power) to me, so yes, that is the lens through which I look at her actions. I don't doubt that she probably managed to not break the law (or at least to a point where she would be likely enough to lose in court for someone to risk bringing charges[which was my position way back in 2015]), but that's not my problem. Much like xDaunt was trying to point out, it's that we're approving and promoting what she's done from the left. Too many people on the left have adopted what used to be a Republican mantra in their defense of Clinton: "If it's profitable and legal, it must be moral and ethical". I thought it was the right who believed that evidence isn't needed to decide someone is guilty. I'm not convicting her of a crime lol. Nice try though.
So you believe she's innocent of all accusations and that she beat Bernie fair and square? Excellent. Glad to see you've changed.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 07 2016 15:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:38 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:27 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention). On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy. You know this has happened before right? Not in a way that sets a precedent. I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control). The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with. EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is without knowing it to be true? They wouldn't threaten him with shit. They would just take away his vote and give it to Hillary. You're not getting this. It's no different than it Queen Elizabeth decided we were going back to absolute monarchy. They'd just abdicate her and find someone who would play the part. Sure, on paper she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants but we all know how the fuck the system is meant to work and wouldn't tolerate someone fucking it up because tradition. Seriously, you've lost the plot at this point if you think the election is going to be decided by rogue electoral college voters. They're a tradition that continues to exist because they don't invoke their power in a way that makes it obvious that they're outdated and need to be abolished. The moment they do, they'll be fixed. lol I literally said in the post you quoted I don't think it could be decided by him. So your saying there's some way for them to take away his ability to cast his vote and they can just replace it with the vote they want? The state party, and other dems that have looked into said that wasn't true, which is why I keep asking for you to cite something backing up your opinion. At this point I have to just presume you're talking out of your ass. I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place.
So basically you're saying that they still won't do anything because it won't change the election (which is what I said already), so you're arguing about what exactly?
On November 07 2016 15:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:38 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:27 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention). On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy. You know this has happened before right? Not in a way that sets a precedent. I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control). The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with. EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is without knowing it to be true? They wouldn't threaten him with shit. They would just take away his vote and give it to Hillary. You're not getting this. It's no different than it Queen Elizabeth decided we were going back to absolute monarchy. They'd just abdicate her and find someone who would play the part. Sure, on paper she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants but we all know how the fuck the system is meant to work and wouldn't tolerate someone fucking it up because tradition. Seriously, you've lost the plot at this point if you think the election is going to be decided by rogue electoral college voters. They're a tradition that continues to exist because they don't invoke their power in a way that makes it obvious that they're outdated and need to be abolished. The moment they do, they'll be fixed. lol I literally said in the post you quoted I don't think it could be decided by him. So your saying there's some way for them to take away his ability to cast his vote and they can just replace it with the vote they want? The state party, and other dems that have looked into said that wasn't true, which is why I keep asking for you to cite something backing up your opinion. At this point I have to just presume you're talking out of your ass. On November 07 2016 15:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 07 2016 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 05:45 JW_DTLA wrote:On November 07 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Well I wouldn't exactly say "nothing", could be more "accidents", just that they don't change their mind that they were accidents. Is there any amount of vindications and clearings of wrongdoing that would cause you to mark your biases to market? FBI just cleared HRC again. Yet you hold out for more unknown, undiscovered evidence of the criminality you so wish for. Why not just come out and say you have pre-judged HRC and don't need evidence? I think my relationship with the justice system gives me much less confidence that what they pronounce is automatically closer to the truth than "what it looks like". Clinton looks like an addict (to money and power) to me, so yes, that is the lens through which I look at her actions. I don't doubt that she probably managed to not break the law (or at least to a point where she would be likely enough to lose in court for someone to risk bringing charges[which was my position way back in 2015]), but that's not my problem. Much like xDaunt was trying to point out, it's that we're approving and promoting what she's done from the left. Too many people on the left have adopted what used to be a Republican mantra in their defense of Clinton: "If it's profitable and legal, it must be moral and ethical". I thought it was the right who believed that evidence isn't needed to decide someone is guilty. I'm not convicting her of a crime lol. Nice try though. So you believe she's innocent of all accusations and that she beat Bernie fair and square? Excellent. Glad to see you've changed.
No. But you knew that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bL30150.png)
