(R) Elector - "Why I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump"

[Paratus]

What, are you an elector? Do you plan to act in Bad Faith?

Do you hate America?

OR, do you think you know better than its collective gut instinct?

Dude I posted a simple fact. Why this triggered you I don't know.

However the electors may vote how they want in conjunction with the US constitution and applicable state laws. That's the way it is and each candidate, voter and citizen should know that.

Undeserved loyalty is insubstantial. If 37+ EC members abandon ship, that works for me, and IMO the country at large.

That may or may not be the case. I'm simply stating why it's very unlikely the Electoral College will change the outcome of the vote. Partisans have many reasons to vote for their candidate and very few not to.

And he gave his word that he was going to fulfill the votes of his Party. He's a liar and i mean that in the best Texan way.

I'm not making a value judgement here.

While I personally think he's more changing his mind rather than lying, if you have an issue with it and as a Texas republican you have a couple of options.

Complain to the Texas Republican Party that they need to improve their vetting of electors or contact your state representative and ask for legal requirements for electors to follow the vote. As of right now there are no legal rules for Texas electors to vote a certain way.

 

[Commodus]

And?

Ohh, I forgot. Unless it is blessed by zucker or comcast, it isn't "real news" because they would *never* lie.

It isn't ironic that liberals not only want big governments but big news and big brother. As that study says, totalitarianism is a leftist thing.

Straw man. No one is arguing that mainstream sources are perfectly reliable. However, they are arguing for outlets that do things like... you know, provide verified information and make at least a vague pretence of maintaining level-headedness. CNN may have significant problems, for example, but it's still miles above the Breitbart/InfoWars/random-Twitter-account circlejerk.

This reminds me of my teaching assistant days, when I was teaching students about the importance of quality sourcing and grading their papers accordingly. Major news outlets are the students who may only get a B- on their papers, but they drew on sources that are easily double-checked and reasonably trustworthy. You? You're the student who cites nothing but Wikipedia and wonders why he gets a failing grade. It's not enough to have the appearance of plausibility -- it has to be something you can back up if you're ever called out on it.

 

[LegendKiller]

Straw man. No one is arguing that mainstream sources are perfectly reliable. However, they are arguing for outlets that do things like... you know, provide verified information and make at least a vague pretence of maintaining level-headedness. CNN may have significant problems, for example, but it's still miles above the Breitbart/InfoWars/random-Twitter-account circlejerk.

This reminds me of my teaching assistant days, when I was teaching students about the importance of quality sourcing and grading their papers accordingly. Major news outlets are the students who may only get a B- on their papers, but they drew on sources that are easily double-checked and reasonably trustworthy. You? You're the student who cites nothing but Wikipedia and wonders why he gets a failing grade. It's not enough to have the appearance of plausibility -- it has to be something you can back up if you're ever called out on it.

Not only are they utterly imperfect, but it is laughable to imagine that cnn would report that this shithead is directly connected to their own shithead, van Jones.

But it's funny to see the liberals defend big corporations.

 

[Commodus]

Not only are they utterly imperfect, but it is laughable to imagine that cnn would report that this shithead is directly connected to their own shithead, van Jones.

But it's funny to see the liberals defend big corporations.

Says the guy cheerleading for a president who runs an ostensibly large corporation, is taking on people from big banks...

 

[fskimospy]

Says the guy cheerleading for a president who runs an ostensibly large corporation, is taking on people from big banks...

The thing is that he should be impreched almost immmediately but the republicans lack the courage to do so

 

[LegendKiller]

The thing is that he should be impreched almost immmediately but the republicans lack the courage to do so

On what grounds?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

On what grounds?

He's a Republican, that's grounds enough for fskimo.

 

[Paratus]

On what grounds?

The real answer is probably only if he becomes a political liability to congress. In my opinion.

If that happened they would probably go for an official investigation based on his business dealings running afoul of:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the constitution states that no American officeholder shall, “without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

Then impeachment based on those findings or based on lying under oath. If you remember they managed to get impeachment hearings on Clinton because he lied ( by drawing a distinction between sex and a BJ) under oath.

A hostile congress could find enough evidence of lying from any official testimony the president made.

Obviously this is highly unlikely for a number of reasons, not the least of which being a friendly congress.

 

[agent00f]

Not only are they utterly imperfect, but it is laughable to imagine that cnn would report that this shithead is directly connected to their own shithead, van Jones.

But it's funny to see the liberals defend big corporations.

What's really funny here is how use Van Jones here as an epithet, mostly 1. he's one of those uppity ones and 2. because those big corps you're beholden to hate paying for environmental damage.

Here's a guy who actually worked to make the world a cleaner better place. Now compare that to your fuhrer's latest appointment in a self-promoting opportunist who takes advantage of the poor through MLM's in his spare time. Perfect fit for the new admin.

But I get it, for your sorts this isn't about competence or responsibility at the professional job of governing, it's about getting yours while the getting's still good, and doing whatever it takes to milk it for all it's worth. Eg white america for white americans before too many brownies start climbing that ladder, and kicking them off whenever possible. That's bannon's ideology, another perfect fit as strategist for the admin.

If the faithful had any self-respect they'd own their ideals instead of trying to weasel ineffectively about how it's not really about taking care of their own.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

And?

Ohh, I forgot. Unless it is blessed by zucker or comcast, it isn't "real news" because they would *never* lie.

It isn't ironic that liberals not only want big governments but big news and big brother. As that study says, totalitarianism is a leftist thing.

right, twitter is a substantial news source, so an idiot sitting on a toilet spewing ideas is much, much more credible than pbs, bbc news, etc.
you're a sad little troll.

 

[fskimospy]

The real answer is probably only if he becomes a political liability to congress. In my opinion.

If that happened they would probably go for an official investigation based on his business dealings running afoul of:

Then impeachment based on those findings or based on lying under oath. If you remember they managed to get impeachment hearings on Clinton because he lied ( by drawing a distinction between sex and a BJ) under oath.

A hostile congress could find enough evidence of lying from any official testimony the president made.

Obviously this is highly unlikely for a number of reasons, not the least of which being a friendly congress.

Yes, impeachment is much more a political act than a legal one, but any congress interested in finding impeachable offenses for Trump would not have difficulty doing so.

The Trump University scam alone is likely an impeachable offense. (Fraud and racketeering)

 

[Puffnstuff]

As much as I don't want Trump to be president I do want our Constitutional laws to be respected and under the doctrine of the separation of powers Article II: Executive branch established the electoral college clearly stating that it will be done in lieu of the popular vote. Those sworn to uphold our laws should abide by their deontological duty to cast their constituents votes as representatives of their respective states.

 

[Brainonska511]

As much as I don't want Trump to be president I do want our Constitutional laws to be respected and under the doctrine of the separation of powers Article II: Executive branch established the electoral college clearly stating that it will be done in lieu of the popular vote. Those sworn to uphold our laws should abide by their deontological duty to cast their constituents votes as representatives of their respective states.

Constitutionally speaking, and how the founding fathers envisioned the EC, electors can vote their mind of they want.

 

[LegendKiller]

right, twitter is a substantial news source, so an idiot sitting on a toilet spewing ideas is much, much more credible than pbs, bbc news, etc.
you're a sad little troll.

And what is a substantial news source?

 

[LegendKiller]

What's really funny here is how use Van Jones here as an epithet, mostly 1. he's one of those uppity ones and 2. because those big corps you're beholden to hate paying for environmental damage.

Here's a guy who actually worked to make the world a cleaner better place. Now compare that to your fuhrer's latest appointment in a self-promoting opportunist who takes advantage of the poor through MLM's in his spare time. Perfect fit for the new admin.

But I get it, for your sorts this isn't about competence or responsibility at the professional job of governing, it's about getting yours while the getting's still good, and doing whatever it takes to milk it for all it's worth. Eg white america for white americans before too many brownies start climbing that ladder, and kicking them off whenever possible. That's bannon's ideology, another perfect fit as strategist for the admin.

If the faithful had any self-respect they'd own their ideals instead of trying to weasel ineffectively about how it's not really about taking care of their own.

Yeah, like that uppity Ben Carson who strayed off the plantation and was ripped on for days for not being qualified to do anything.

Van "whitelash" Jones is not a reporter and he clearly has a progessive agenda. Any conservative that uses his pr firm isn't a conservative.

 

[LegendKiller]

Yes, impeachment is much more a political act than a legal one, but any congress interested in finding impeachable offenses for Trump would not have difficulty doing so.

The Trump University scam alone is likely an impeachable offense. (Fraud and racketeering)

How is that an impeachable offense? It is a personal business matter before he was president. It was hardly treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors while serving.

I am sure you'd defend hillary from impeachment if she had won. Even though she's the one who actually mishandled classified info and exposed our government to hacks. Not to mention bribery from the clinton foundation.

Get over yourself.

 

[LegendKiller]

Constitutionally speaking, and how the founding fathers envisioned the EC, electors can vote their mind of they want.

But from that perspective, hillary would have to be rejected also. The problem is this, electors were thought to be high minded, not partisan and solely focused on qualifications. They would fairly balance both sides. In this case, I highly doubt the electors as originally considered, would elect either.

 

[agent00f]

Yeah, like that uppity Ben Carson who strayed off the plantation and was ripped on for days for not being qualified to do anything.

Van "whitelash" Jones is not a reporter and he clearly has a progessive agenda. Any conservative that uses his pr firm isn't a conservative.

I think you of all people can tell the difference between uppity and house slave.

 

[repoman0]

But from that perspective, hillary would have to be rejected also. The problem is this, electors were thought to be high minded, not partisan and solely focused on qualifications. They would fairly balance both sides. In this case, I highly doubt the electors as originally considered, would elect either.

They should reject both Trump and Hillary at this point. Reject Trump because despite winning the EC, he's an incompetent buffoon who clearly doesn't have and has never had the best interests of the country on his mind. Reject Hillary because though she would be a fine competent choice, it would look like stealing the election and would plunge the country further into conspiracy theory land.

I like to think that the country, both R and D, could get behind someone like Kasich who was pointed out in the article. I don't agree with most of his positions but at this point all I am asking for is somewhat honest, competent, and doesn't speak like a special needs third grader, constantly embarrassing and degrading the US and its people.

 

[fskimospy]

How is that an impeachable offense? It is a personal business matter before he was president. It was hardly treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors while serving.

Fraud and racketeering are felonies, which easily meets the standard of 'high crimes or misdemeanors' and it doesn't matter if it was a personal business matter or not. It also doesn't matter if it happened before he was president as the Constitution has no such requirement.

If you'd like some more thorough analysis of how this is an impeachable offense you can read it here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2841306

I am sure you'd defend hillary from impeachment if she had won. Even though she's the one who actually mishandled classified info and exposed our government to hacks. Not to mention bribery from the clinton foundation.

Get over yourself.

There's no need to defend her from made up accusations like 'bribery'.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

And what is a substantial news source?

um.... pbs, bbc news, etc.
sorry it's not breitbart or infowars, but what the hey.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

How is that an impeachable offense? It is a personal business matter before he was president. It was hardly treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors while serving.

I am sure you'd defend hillary from impeachment if she had won. Even though she's the one who actually mishandled classified info and exposed our government to hacks. Not to mention bribery from the clinton foundation.

Get over yourself.

I am 100000000000% sure he will be a scandal free president, how could cheeto jesus not be?
For he is the anointed one.

 

[fskimospy]

I am 100000000000% sure he will be a scandal free president, how could cheeto jesus not be?
For he is the anointed one.

The one silver lining about a Trump presidency is you KNOW there are going to entertaining scandals coming out of it left and right. I mean the guy is basically bragging about his corruption at this point.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

The one silver lining about a Trump presidency is you KNOW there are going to entertaining scandals coming out of it left and right. I mean the guy is basically bragging about his corruption at this point.

Yup

 

[LegendKiller]

Fraud and racketeering are felonies, which easily meets the standard of 'high crimes or misdemeanors' and it doesn't matter if it was a personal business matter or not. It also doesn't matter if it happened before he was president as the Constitution has no such requirement.

If you'd like some more thorough analysis of how this is an impeachable offense you can read it here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2841306



There's no need to defend her from made up accusations like 'bribery'.

And he wasn't convicted of those, so it doesn't matter. He also wasn't a sitting president.

Yeah, that's why all of these countries are stopping donations. Because it wasn't bribery.