TV ads trying to sway the Electoral College

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: imjack

Its a democracy with checks and balance, fairness and equity in representation. Not a pure democracy.......pure democracy is the goal of tyrants.

Our educational system, which many have said for years was ate up with libs and being directed in that direction, is to blame and no wonder, for the confusion and all the questions folks are having. Folks scratching the head......YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED by a system that lived off your parents property taxes while they messed up your minds. Parasitic.

IMO, you're the one that's been duped. Hating Democracy is un-American. Democracy and Republic aren't mutually exclusive. The EC itself is only 'small' changes away from being a Pure Democracy. Goal of tyrants? You must not know what Tyranny is, fun fact a literal antonym of tyranny is "Democracy".
www.merriam-webster.com...

Maybe get back to that education system and work on words.

a reply to: imjack

So you want a democracy without any checks and balances? The Bill or Rights is one of those. It prevents the majority from stepping on those who aren't in the majority.

Can you imagine what would have happened if we did that back in the 40s? No civil rights, No LGBT rights, I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea.

a reply to: imjack

You want two wolves and one sheep voting for what's on the dinner menu.

a reply to: xuenchen

I don't think they're trying to get Hillary in, they're trying to engineer things so that the House can pick a third option.

I don't think it's particularly realistic though. Trump has the Republicans united right now, and no one in their right mind who could get the position would want it. Lets say the #NeverTrumpers got Kasich in, would Kasich even want the job? The Democrats wouldn't be his friends for the next 4 years, and there would be a substantial portion of the Republican party that would oppose him too. It would be 4 years of impeachment attempts to throw out the unelected President and a Congress so uncooperative it would make the current situation look great.

Trump will be President. This EC manipulation attempt is just a coping mechanism by people who don't want to accept reality.

originally posted by: SgtEsquire
a reply to: imjack

So you want a democracy without any checks and balances? The Bill or Rights is one of those. It prevents the majority from stepping on those who aren't in the majority.

Can you imagine what would have happened if we did that back in the 40s? No civil rights, No LGBT rights, I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea.

The way you people interpret my argument is insane. My point is if you drew names out of a goddamned hat, the President would still have Presidential checks and balances. Your opinion none of that would happen is equally wrong, because the 'representatives' hardly ever represent real people for both sides.

Thirdly wrong because said checks and balances don't allow something like the President to bottleneck progress. Congress is better at that, but still the point of checks and balances is that an idiot cannot mess everything up alone in the first place. NOT that all are perfectly required to operate smoothly.



Yes, a Republic is not a Democracy and a Democracy is not a Republic specifically, but it's pretty easy to imagine the United States as both under their ideologies. Saying it's not a Democracy, it's a Republic is a false dichotomy. Easily both. That standpoint is like trying to say a Bee isn't Yellow, it's Black, because it's mostly Black. Yes it's mostly Black, that's not the point, it's also significantly Yellow.

a reply to: imjack

I'm going to skip the top two paragraphs because I think we are talking about two different things.

Your last paragraph is of course correct. But I don't think anyone was arguing that we are not a democratic republic were they? Did you think I was saying that?

originally posted by: SgtEsquire
a reply to: imjack

I'm going to skip the top two paragraphs because I think we are talking about two different things.

Your last paragraph is of course correct. But I don't think anyone was arguing that we are not a democratic republic were they? Did you think I was saying that?

on Pg1.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

The problem with that is we would no longer be a Republic, is that what you want?

I don't specifically agree with this notion, and it's a really popular one.

The way the President is picked doesn't change the fact there are checks and balances. A Pure Democracy Election can still result a Republic Office Official.

I'll try to more simply phrase my last comment,

'checks and balances' isn't an intricate systems that fails if a specific piece is missing. That's how it's presented in these scenarios to fit narrative. It's actually largely redundant to prevent single pieces from mattering 'too much'.

originally posted by: paradoxious
So, let me see if I have this straight:

Russia trying to influence election results == bad.

Media trying to influence election results == good.

Correct?

Just remember, that Russia offered to send "observers" to the US voting places for this specific election, to help the USA to ensure a free and fair election.

The US rejected that offer. Since, the US feels that it is the only nation on earth that has the right to send such observers to other nations to check on, and verify, their polls.

But, clearly, since the Russians made the offer, they were interested in seeing that the US election was free and fair from any corruption.

The fact that Russia obtained and released factual information that helped the American Public make up their minds, is just in keeping with the same spirit of openess and forthright help the Russians showed in offering to send those election observers.

The US is just not yet used to a former "Communist Nation," trying to help them stay on the path of free and fair democracy, when they "Russia" only just learned how to be and act democratic themselves. Russia is a quick learner, however, as we can see in their adopting completely the USA's procedures and methods.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: 4N0M4LY

I do but it's a silly and very undemocratic installation. The people who bother to go voting should count more than some artificial "balancing" which may or may not work.

Funny, Obama had no problem with the EC in 2008 and 2012. Now all of a sudden, when his legacy's in trouble, he criticizes it.

All should watch this. Obama seems like he is waking up to the reality of how well thought out this is by the founders. However everything he says is a demonstration of the constitution just flat bumming him out. Like how does Utah get the same amount of senators as Cali. WOW THOSE GUYS COULDNT HAVE BEEN THAT SMART! The left is looking SQUARELY at someone that saw them coming years ago and cant get their mind around it.

originally posted by: Logarock Like how does Utah get the same amount of senators as Cali. WOW THOSE GUYS COULDNT HAVE BEEN THAT SMART! The left is looking SQUARELY at someone that saw them coming years ago and cant get their mind around it.

Bingo.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Logarock Like how does Utah get the same amount of senators as Cali. WOW THOSE GUYS COULDNT HAVE BEEN THAT SMART! The left is looking SQUARELY at someone that saw them coming years ago and cant get their mind around it.

Bingo.

The fact every state has equal senators is an example of the checks and balances that make the 2 default electorate seats that they're confused for redundant. Embracing Equal Representation isn't the same as Embracing Voter Suppression.

if even the electors choose hillary.... it will than be up to the senate? to choose.. and from my understanding repubs run things now... and i dont see them taking a dem and losing majority control

a reply to: Perjury
The next formal stage is that Congress (joint session, I believe) counts the votes that are sent to them. This was a very big issue in the Election crisis of 1877.

Objections

Since 1887, 3 U.S.C. 15 sets the method for objections to electoral votes. During the Joint Session, Members of Congress may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by at least one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the Joint Session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately in a session which cannot last more than two hours with each Member speaking for no more than five minutes. After each house votes on whether or not to accept the objection, the Joint Session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If they agree to the objection, the votes in question are not counted. If either chamber does not agree with the objection, the votes are counted.

Electoral College Fast Facts

a reply to: xuenchen

I always hated those types of videos where people say a few words each and try to be all emotion.

Just imagine if this was Russia and Putin lost to anyone else under the established rules of the election. What would we say if the people that were to cast the vote against him were being threatened, if commercials were run saying they should change their vote. How loud would the outcry from Washington be? If this exact scenario happened anywhere else we would deem that countries elections corrupt.

I don't think people fully realize how bad for our country it would be if the electors did not carry out their responsibility as expected. Lets hope for the sake of all Americans we do not find out.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Trump will be President. This EC manipulation attempt is just a coping mechanism by people who don't want to accept reality.

A new mental health disorder has been identified in liberal regressive supporters. We will have special treatment for those infected with this illness.

T.A.R.D is a disease that is infecting liberals wherever they are found. It is also causing the government corruption seen across the board.

Trump Acceptance Reality Disorder has been included in the newest DSM-V.

Psychiatrists across the country are reporting it in epidemic numbers. It is especially bad on university campuses.

Exposure to facts has been known to exacerbate their symptoms.

Use extreme caution if you find yourself confronted with an infected liberal.

Life threatening temper tantrums have been known to occur. You can temporarily treat the symptoms with crayons, play-dough, and therapy dogs.

Keep the patient in a safe space and play CNN constantly.

The CDC are trying desperately to find a cure.

Donations to research a cure are currently being accepted at Cure4TARD.org

Call your local emergency hotline if you see someone experiencing T.A.R.D. Syndrome.

WARNING: Do not attempt to help or apprehend a T.A.R.D. suspect!


These individuals are very dangerous, especially when confronted by facts and reasoning skills.

Thank you your attention. You may resume your normal political debate.

This has been a Public Service Announcement.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: paradoxious
So, let me see if I have this straight:

Russia trying to influence election results == bad.

Media trying to influence election results == good.

Correct?

America trying to influence election results == good.

Ideologies that don't reflect the majority of States == bad.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: paradoxious
So, let me see if I have this straight:

Russia trying to influence election results == bad.

Media trying to influence election results == good.

Correct?

Just remember, that Russia offered to send "observers" to the US voting places for this specific election, to help the USA to ensure a free and fair election.

The US rejected that offer. Since, the US feels that it is the only nation on earth that has the right to send such observers to other nations to check on, and verify, their polls.

But, clearly, since the Russians made the offer, they were interested in seeing that the US election was free and fair from any corruption.

The fact that Russia obtained and released factual information that helped the American Public make up their minds, is just in keeping with the same spirit of openess and forthright help the Russians showed in offering to send those election observers.

The US is just not yet used to a former "Communist Nation," trying to help them stay on the path of free and fair democracy, when they "Russia" only just learned how to be and act democratic themselves. Russia is a quick learner, however, as we can see in their adopting completely the USA's procedures and methods.

Please go back through and review your claims, then return and cite your proof. Only after you have completed that task will I address your claims... and there's just a small little slice of me that thinks I'll have much of anything to reply to....

a reply to: paradoxious

monitors, but that's pretty much the same.