2016 US Presidential election thread

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Still, I have to admire the irony in a President-Elect who first claimed the election was rigged, then claimed he won in a "very open and successful presidential election", who was upset when people protested it, then got upset when Jill Stein suggested and got support for a recount in one state, and then claims that the election was rigged again, but whilst still protesting against an audit of it.

You left out the fact that Trump was protesting even before the election started that the election was rigged, plus said the fuzzy logic that the US Border Patrol was going to let the illegals in on election day so that they could vote (presumably for the democrat's).

I want to love this man Donald Trump as the next POTUS, but he keeps throwing these unreasonable suggestions out there, like the one that says that Hillary didn't win the popular vote due the election was rigged with 8 million voters being dead.

Now I think the election is going to be rigged due to the EC being told to vote for Hillary instead of Trump. I think they call them faithless electoral voters or something like that.

It sounds impossible to everyone on here and everywhere I go that Trump could have 38 EC votes taken away with these faithless EC voters and given over to Hillary by writing her name instead of Trumps, right?

With me so far, but what if they do get that many or even more to cross over from faithful Republican voters to faithless voters?

Sooner or later the Supreme Court will have to fast track and decide if these 38 or more EC voters have that right ... according to all of the records I have read they do have that right to vote for anyone they want to except in the some 16 states that say you can't.

With me so far?

What if the US Supreme Court rules that these voters were convinced (conned) that they were doing the right thing and the people urging them to do this offered to pay their fines?

That's bribery and the 38 or more EC cross over votes would then be considered to be null and void.

Now the US Congress gets to decide who the next POTUS is ...

I think I'm on to something here ... the US Congress would not be able to decide who gets these EC votes, because they are now void leaving neither side with the necessary 270 EC votes to win.

You can make a list, but no one knows who they would select

[August]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

So, if Trump supporters are claiming that the election is rigged, they should

All I was addressing is Oberons claim that Trump got his information from that guy in the video clip. Maybe he did maybe he didn't but the information seems to have come from someone else originally. In any case I really don't care what you think about the validity of the information.

[Oberon]

That's come up a few times before about the faithless voters, we'll see when it comes down to the vote but I have my doubts that it'll go that way, I don't think it'd be worth the hassle and harrassment the electors would get if they voted against the EV. A couple might, but not enough to swing it completely for Hillary.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

That's come up a few times before about the faithless voters, we'll see when it comes down to the vote but I have my doubts that it'll go that way, I don't think it'd be worth the hassle and harrassment the electors would get if they voted against the EV. A couple might, but not enough to swing it completely for Hillary.

These Republican nominated electors would not only have to decide to change their vote but change it to Clinton and that's just not going to happen.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by mapuc

"Media Silent as House passes resolution for Syrian No-fly zone - Provoking war with Russia"

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...bill/5732/text

Section 303 of that states:

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—
(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;
(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and
(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;
(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and
(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

In no part of that is there an authorisation for the creation of a No-Fly Zone in Syria, nor even a recommendation of one. It's essentially a proposal for research into the pros and cons of implementing one in the future.

Here's a wikipedia article on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar...Protection_Act

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

These Republican nominated electors would not only have to decide to change their vote but change it to Clinton and that's just not going to happen.

Yeah, my thoughts too. I mean, you can pay the fines and that, but would you really want to be remembered as the Republican nomination who voted for Clinton?

[August]

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by August

These Republican nominated electors would not only have to decide to change their vote but change it to Clinton and that's just not going to happen.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Yeah, my thoughts too. I mean, you can pay the fines and that, but would you really want to be remembered as the Republican nomination who voted for Clinton?

What if 38 or more EC voters resign:http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...b7Kz&ocid=iehp

Texas Elector Art Sisneros to Resign Instead of Voting for Donald Trump

A Republican elector from Texas says he is resigning his position instead of casting his vote for Donald Trump, calling the Electoral College "corrupted from its original intent" and saying voting for the president-elect would "bring dishonor to God."

Art Sisneros was considering in August the possibility of becoming a so-called faithless elector, meaning he would refuse to vote for Trump if the GOP candidate won the Lone Star State and its 38 electoral votes in November.
In a Saturday blog post on his website, Sisneros said he had decided he was not comfortable defying his pledge to vote for his party's nominee, but neither could he cast his vote for Trump.

You know what's odd? Texas has 38 EC votes

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Oberon

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...did-not-vote-/



Still, I have to admire the irony in a President-Elect who first claimed the election was rigged, then claimed he won in a "very open and successful presidential election", who was upset when people protested it, then got upset when Jill Stein suggested and got support for a recount in one state, and then claims that the election was rigged again, but whilst still protesting against an audit of it.

The reason for the nonsense is that while Trump's exterior is of a 70 year-old man, underneath is a 10 year-old boy. Trump cannot handle loss like a well adjusted adult. Even a nominal loss like we see here is met with the most juvenile ranting. When it appeared that Trump's ship was sinking he was throwing a tantrum about fraud. When he won suddenly the election is fair. With it becoming clear that Clinton won the popular vote he now cries fraud again, despite the fact that said popular vote will not change the outcome of the election.

It's going to be four years of this. Four long years.

[August]

Originally Posted by Two Bears

It's going to be four years of this. Four long years.

They'll be better than what they would have been under Clinton.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

They'll be better than what they would have been under Clinton.

I disagree.

[Oberon]

One would hope at some point someone would take his twitter away from him.

[August]

Originally Posted by Two Bears

I disagree.

That's fine. I can take your disagreement far more easily than I could have taken a Clinton presidency.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

That's fine. I can take your disagreement far more easily than I could have taken a Clinton presidency.

Whether you can take my disagreement or not is irrelevant. Your approval of my politics is neither sought nor required.

[Reece]

Originally Posted by August

They'll be better than what they would have been under Clinton.

+1 to that!!