Could the Electoral College Elect Clinton?

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
It would lead to civil war, don't ya think?

Or it would lead to a whole lot of new Corrections Officers jobs, as fomenting Civil War is illegal.

Then why advocate for the very thing that would cause one?

Well, we do need more jobs in this country.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Now what kind of motivation is going to induce them to change their minds and vote for Hillary?

The fear of being suicided of course.

a reply to: IAMTAT
Doesn't an amendment to the constitution require the consent of the very states she would be trying to disenfranchise? I think a minute's thought would have told her that the idea wouldn't work.

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
It would lead to civil war, don't ya think?

Or it would lead to a whole lot of new Corrections Officers jobs, as fomenting Civil War is illegal.

It's also illegal to riot because you don't like who got elected.

But basically, the process is that the EC vote is supposed to be more or less ceremonial, and it is pretty clear from the EC results that the majority of states have spoken and rejected the establishment. Don't you think a move like what you suggest would signal that the establishment is acting in clear contravention of the people?

And what then do you think? The election of Trump was a peaceful revolution already.

Yes they can elect Hillary but they won't.

ETA: Nor should they. I hate Trump... despise him so much I don't even want to look at any news but he won.

It would start a revolution and I have already sharpened my pitchfork and prepaired my torches.

a reply to: ketsuko

It's illegal to riot period. It's perfectly legal to protest... period.

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
It would lead to civil war, don't ya think?

Or it would lead to a whole lot of new Corrections Officers jobs, as fomenting Civil War is illegal.

Then why advocate for the very thing that would cause one?

Well, we do need more jobs in this country.

Boxer is Pandering.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: IAMTAT
Doesn't an amendment to the constitution require the consent of the very states she would be trying to disenfranchise? I think a minute's thought would have told her that the idea wouldn't work.

Yes...but she was fully expecting to win in a landslide which gave her (at least 2/3) control of the House and Senate.

Fortunately, she failed miserably.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
It would lead to civil war, don't ya think?

Or it would lead to a whole lot of new Corrections Officers jobs, as fomenting Civil War is illegal.

Then why advocate for the very thing that would cause one?

Well, we do need more jobs in this country.

Boxer is Pandering.

The hilarity ensues.

a reply to: Kali74

I see. So let me guess ... leftists always protest, even with Molotov cocktails and the breaking of windows and the right always riots even when the riot is composed of angry grannies waving signs who destroy nothing and pick up all their trash before they leave?

Did I get that right?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Yes...but she was fully expecting to win in a landslide which gave her (at least 2/3) control of the House and Senate.

But would not the amendment then have to get the consent of most of the individual states? I would foresee the operation falling down at that stage, even if it got that far.

I agree! My husband was a Hillary supporter and really believed she would win due to the DNC and media proproganda that she had majority of the electorates in her pocket! He didn't want to waste any time standing in line since she was going to be the President anyways!

He is not out protesting or rioting. He realized that he did not vote. He woke me up cursing the media out when he read that she conceded the election. I just snorted and told him to go back to bed. I voted for Trump.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: IAMTAT
Doesn't an amendment to the constitution require the consent of the very states she would be trying to disenfranchise? I think a minute's thought would have told her that the idea wouldn't work.

We are talking about a Democrat. Since when did logic ever come over one of them?

a reply to: spirit_horse
If the Democrats are anything like the Labour Party, then I can see your point.

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: reldra

A democrat, that wants to change a democratic election. Ladies and gentleman, i give you a hypocrite.

Who are you calling a hypocrite? Who wanted to change anything? The OP asked a question, I answered with how the process works.

The electoral college has not yet voted. I stated that causing that vote to even tie is not probable.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

It's illegal to riot period. It's perfectly legal to protest... period.

I protest periods every chance I get. I despise sentence fragments

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Yes...but she was fully expecting to win in a landslide which gave her (at least 2/3) control of the House and Senate.

But would not the amendment then have to get the consent of most of the individual states? I would foresee the operation falling down at that stage, even if it got that far.

Yes it would. And it also would have to be a 2/3 majority of the states - and the states have up to 7 years to vote on it, I think.

It was a non-starter before she even dreamed it up. She knows that, but she's pandering to her CA constituents in the most disgraceful way possible.

As previously pointed out in a gazillion threads . . .

HILLARY CLINTON CONCEDED.

GAME. OVER.

a reply to: CryHavoc

Another thread that there are plenty of, thisvwill make like ten on this topic.