Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
The Rioters, the Anarchist, MSN, AOL, The Main Stream Media, and the Soros Crowd are floating this out there, pretending we live in some Bannana Republic where the Mob rules.
It's kinda like the old adage, " if you repeat the lie often enough, people will start believing it".
True, it's not a lie, but so far fetched that it reeks of desperation.
Seriously? I would like to see a link for that. As much as I loathe George Soros, I doubt if he would be that stupid. During the campaign, the libtards screamed that the Russians were trying to manipulate our election by leaking DNC and Podesta emails via wikileaks (although no one denied their authenticity, and blaming the Russians was a nice way to deflect from the content of those emails). In terms of meddling with our election results, this would be much, much worse. Again, please show me your source where Soros urged anyone to bribe electors into changing their votes.
I posted the link prior to the election. guess you thought it was foo fra..
The only way that could be legal is if tonight Trump passed away or sustained an abrupt illness or injury that would render him unable to serve as president. Other than that not going to happen.
Jim
did you read my post? It does not matter what you think.
your assertion on the electors is wrong.
Supreme court on state laws on faithless electors:
"However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional (emphasis added)."
"On 22 occasions, 179 electors have not cast their votes for President or Vice President as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot (1872, 1912). Two electors chose to abstain from voting for any candidate (1812, 2000).[2] The remaining 106 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was the 1836 election, in which all 23 Virginia electors acted together.
The 1836 election was the only occasion when faithless electors altered the outcome of the electoral college vote. The Democrat ticket won states with 170 of the 294 electoral votes, but the 23 Virginia electors abstained in the vote for Vice President, so the Democrat candidate, Richard Mentor Johnson, got only 147 (exactly half), and was not elected. However, Johnson was elected Vice President by the U.S. Senate."
under the right circumstance, faithless electors can throw the election to Congress as happened in the 1836 election on the selection of the vice president.
Sorry, but I still don't see it. Your PJ Media article mentions a lot of things Soros is funding, but nothing about bribing the Electoral College to reverse a Presidential vote. That's way over the top.
Can you fucking read hillbilly? One more time boy, from the link:
Q: Can the Electoral College elect Hillary Clinton on Dec. 19? A: Yes, it may be constitutionally possible;
you fucking retard. 6 people have already told you along with me that it's simply not gonna happen. why? first, in any state with faithless elector laws their votes by definition can't be constitutional if they vote against their pledged candidate. in this case Donald Trump, u got that idiot boy? that's real important 'cause we're gonna have a pop quiz later .. bahaha
second you are counting on something that by definition is unconstitutional, in that the intend and spirit of the electoral college was never to overturn an election idiot
you and your libtard ilk, especially up against your drag queen, Hilary, can't make any solid argument that Trump is somehow unfit and therefore bloviate for something that has never happened in mass in US electoral history .. an electoral college revolt. nice try.
and it's still a failed gambit you idiot. who controls both houses? the Repubs ... do they have the constitutional power to override the electoral college? you bet your presidency on that!!! bahahaha
don't bother to list the many Repubs who either condemned or just didn't back Trump ... they all are scrambling to kiss his soon to be presidential ass and not a one will cross him now. bahhaaaa
so .. what was the lame ass point u were trying to make u idiot?
did you read my post? It does not matter what you think.
your assertion on the electors is wrong.
Supreme court on state laws on faithless electors:
"However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional (emphasis added)."
"On 22 occasions, 179 electors have not cast their votes for President or Vice President as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot (1872, 1912). Two electors chose to abstain from voting for any candidate (1812, 2000).[2] The remaining 106 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was the 1836 election, in which all 23 Virginia electors acted together.
The 1836 election was the only occasion when faithless electors altered the outcome of the electoral college vote. The Democrat ticket won states with 170 of the 294 electoral votes, but the 23 Virginia electors abstained in the vote for Vice President, so the Democrat candidate, Richard Mentor Johnson, got only 147 (exactly half), and was not elected. However, Johnson was elected Vice President by the U.S. Senate."
under the right circumstance, faithless electors can throw the election to Congress as happened in the 1836 election on the selection of the vice president.
Can you fucking read hillbilly? One more time boy, from the link:
Q: Can the Electoral College elect Hillary Clinton on Dec. 19? A: Yes, it may be constitutionally possible;
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
you fucking retard. 6 people have already told you along with me that it's simply not gonna happen. why? first, in any state with faithless elector laws their votes by definition can't be constitutional if they vote against their pledged candidate. in this case Donald Trump, u got that idiot boy? that's real important 'cause we're gonna have a pop quiz later .. bahaha
second you are counting on something that by definition is unconstitutional, in that the intend and spirit of the electoral college was never to overturn an election idiot
you and your libtard ilk, especially up against your drag queen, Hilary, can't make any solid argument that Trump is somehow unfit and therefore bloviate for something that has never happened in mass in US electoral history .. an electoral college revolt. nice try.
and it's still a failed gambit you idiot. who controls both houses? the Repubs ... do they have the constitutional power to override the electoral college? you bet your presidency on that!!! bahahaha
don't bother to list the many Repubs who either condemned or just didn't back Trump ... they all are scrambling to kiss his soon to be presidential ass and not a one will cross him now. bahhaaaa
so .. what was the lame ass point u were trying to make u idiot?
does it matter before or after the combined Senate and Congress anoint Emperor Donald the First, Ruler of the New American Hegemony?
bahahahaaaaaaa
u wrong, and so was fagger65. let me sum this up ....
these are the the "real" Clintons. bahhaaaaaaaa
as for the states laws on faithless electors. I do believe they are unconstitutional but that particular question was not asked by supreme court.
theres nothing in the constitution that binds the electors to the states votes.
article 2 section 1 of the u.s. constitution
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
I posted one incident that occurred with the vice president in the 1836 election which threw the election to the Senate. (see post 20)
The Electors do have the power to over turn the result but they have to show reason for it and Congress accepts or rejects that reason.
It really didn't matter too much on what the electors do. Congress, House (president) & Senate (vice president) votes on the candidate if they are short of the required 270 votes.
