US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[blastula]

Who could have guessed the electors would not be distracted by the beautiful celebrities.

Obama never won?

 

[KeepTalking]

I like the opening day guitar player. Did they actually find a rock band to play? I'm hoping for Pussy Riot, because Trump would like a band with that name.

First he would have to convince Putin to thaw them out and remove them from their gulags vacation homes in Siberia, and we all know who calls the shots in that relationship.

Of course there are other bands that I am sure he would enjoy because of their name:
Alabama Thunderpussy
Black Pussy
Faster Pussycat
Josie and the Pussycats

That last one may be a fictional cartoon band, but I doubt Trump would realize it.

 

[Elixir]

I like the opening day guitar player. Did they actually find a rock band to play? I'm hoping for Pussy Riot, because Trump would like a band with that name.

First he would have to convince Putin to thaw them out and remove them from their gulags vacation homes in Siberia, and we all know who calls the shots in that relationship.

Of course there are other bands that I am sure he would enjoy because of their name:
Alabama Thunderpussy
Black Pussy
Faster Pussycat
Josie and the Pussycats

That last one may be a fictional cartoon band, but I doubt Trump would realize it.

Why should he hire a band? Waste of money, when he can simply TELL his devotees that they heard a great concert, and they'll believe him?

 

[ZiprHead]

Wow! It's like Trump looked at what the Clintons did, scoffed and said he could up the revenue by a lot more. How is that even remotely legal?

I like the opening day guitar player. Did they actually find a rock band to play? I'm hoping for Pussy Riot, because Trump would like a band with that name.

Pussy Riot member: Assange ‘openly works with’ Russia

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/303172-pussy-riot-member-assange-openly-works-with-russia

 

[Trausti]

Who could have guessed the electors would not be distracted by the beautiful celebrities.

So beautiful!

 

[dismal]

Who could have guessed the electors would not be distracted by the beautiful celebrities.

So beautiful!

It would have been tough to get Garry Shandling.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's so fucking sad.

I saw a complaint today, "this is what happens when you ignore states!" As if, somehow, he's trying to say, "if only Clinton had visited us, we wouldn't have become ignorant stupid racist fucks!"

And in the department of brazen fucking hypocrisy abetted by stupid deluded voters,

Are Trump's Sons Already on the Take?

Donald Trump's sons have co-founded a new nonprofit organization in Texas (aka, not their home state). Now, under the auspices of that nonprofit, they are offering million-dollar donors a 2017 Inauguration Day package. The individuals who pony up seven figures will attend "a private reception and photo opportunity for 16 guests with President Donald J. Trump," will enjoy a "multi-day hunting and/or fishing excursion for 4 guests with Donald Trump, Jr. and/or Eric Trump, and team," and will get tickets to other events and "autographed guitars by an Opening Day 2017 performer."

In theory, the money will go to "conservation charities," though the name of those charities has not been specified, nor has the manner in which the money will be distributed. Meanwhile, in contrast to the rules for PACs, the names of donors to nonprofits are not a matter of public record. So, at worst, this is an end-run around the rules that allows well-heeled donors to give money directly to the Trumps without scrutiny. At best, it demonstrates hypocrisy and a lack of transparency from a family that savaged Hillary Clinton for selling access to wealthy donors. (Z)

They are laughing all the way to the bank knowing that yes, it's true, if they shot someone in the face on Fifth Avenue neither their supporters nor Clinton's detractors would care.

This is exactly that which Trump criticized the Clinton's for doing, calling Hillary corrupt.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, but Clinton is a career politician, which makes that a corrupt example of of pay-to-play. For a Trump, this is just good business sense. You can't compare the two.

 

[angelo]

Ya, but Clinton is a career politician, which makes that a corrupt example of of pay-to-play. For a Trump, this is just good business sense. You can't compare the two.

Agreed for a change!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The story of the faithless electors is just getting weirder.

First, Clinton allies try to urge an elector revolt against Trump, and instead most of the faithless electors are those who are supposed to vote for Hillary (otherwise known as adding insult to injury). Now this.

Colorado secretary of State recommends charges for 'faithless' elector

Colorado's secretary of State has referred a "faithless" elector to the state attorney general for investigation.

Instead of voting for Colorado winner Hillary Clinton when electors met Monday, elector Michael Baca wrote in Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s name. A Denver judge replaced Baca with an alternate elector who backed Clinton.

Baca was a member of the "Hamilton Electors," a group of mostly Democratic electors who hoped to spoil President-elect Trump's chances at the Electoral College. The group considered Kasich as a compromise pick that would satisfy GOP electors, although Kasich rejected the offer.

Colorado's deputy secretary of State Suzanne Staiert said in a Wednesday statement that Baca was in “violation” of the an oath he had taken to vote for the candidate who won the state, according to a statement released Wednesday.

Clinton won Colorado with more than 48 percent of the vote. All nine of the state’s electors eventually cast a vote for the Democratic nominee after the rogue elector was replaced.

According to the statement, electors had been warned that breaking with Clinton could subject them to misdemeanor charges.

 

[ZiprHead]

They should not be fined for something they are constitutionally allowed to do.

The EC concept is stupid too.

 

[The Colourful Jester]

But when can anyone hope to see a change to it though?

 

[repoman]

They should not be fined for something they are constitutionally allowed to do.

The EC concept is stupid too.

If we bring back slavery and the three fifths compromise the Electoral College will make more sense.

 

[skepticalbip]

They should not be fined for something they are constitutionally allowed to do.
.

The laws concerning the electors are Constitutionally left to the States like many, many other laws. For instance, there was an elector in Maine that voted for Sanders rather than Clinton as he was selected to do. The law in Maine allowed the State to replace him with a faithful elector. Apparently the remedy by some State laws is to fine an unfaithful elector rather than replacement and some States have no recourse specified in their laws, trusting that the electors will do what they were selected to do.

 

[blastula]

It's not settled whether states can require an elector to vote for a specific candidate.

 

[skepticalbip]

It's not settled whether states can require an elector to vote for a specific candidate.

Not settled by who? Those who don't understand federalism?

You do understand that murder, robbery, rape, etc. etc. are not federal crimes don't you?

 

[blastula]

It's not settled whether states can require an elector to vote for a specific candidate.

Not settled by who? Those who don't understand federalism?

By the courts.

You do understand that murder, robbery, rape, etc. etc. are not federal crimes don't you?

?????

1. Some of those are both federal crimes and state crimes.
2. Regardless, federal crimes exist outside of that set.
3. There are constitutional protections that states can't violate.
4. And in this case, we are talking about the rights of constitutionally created electors.

 

[skepticalbip]

Not settled by who? Those who don't understand federalism?

By the courts.
.

Interesting. I'll accept that if, and only if, you can cite a case that has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court that affirmed electors' right to vote however they want. You must know that it is easy to shop for and find a judge in the lower courts that will rule any way someone wants them to.

1. Some of those are both federal crimes and state crimes.

No they aren't. Those crimes in conjunction with very specific circumstances can also be a federal crime though.

2. Regardless, federal crimes exist outside of that set.

No shit? Counterfeiting, and treason would be examples.

3. There are constitutional protections that states can't violate.

Again, no shit? That is part of federalism.

4. And in this case, we are talking about the rights of constitutionally created electors.

Just as Governors are allowed by the Constitution. But that doesn't mean that the States don't determine the specific powers granted to that office.

 

[blastula]

By the courts.
.

Interesting. I'll accept that if, and only if, you can cite a case that has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court that affirmed electors' right to vote however they want. You must know that it is easy to shop for and find a judge in the lower courts that will rule any way someone wants them to.

?????

It hasn't be decided either way. Do you not understand what "not settled" means?

1. Some of those are both federal crimes and state crimes.

No they aren't. Those crimes in conjunction with very specific circumstances can also be a federal crime though.

2. Regardless, federal crimes exist outside of that set.

No shit? Counterfeiting, and treason would be examples.

3. There are constitutional protections that states can't violate.

Again, no shit? That is part of federalism.

4. And in this case, we are talking about the rights of constitutionally created electors.

Just as Governors are allowed by the Constitution. But that doesn't mean that the States don't determine the specific powers granted to that office.

If it's all "no shit" to you, then it should have been obvious to you that it was pointless to bring it up. Yet you did. All of it is irrelevant to the question of whether it's been settled. You are very confused.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Let's say that the constitution of, say, California (or Texas, or any other state), is amended (or alternatively, the Texas legislature passes a law), stipulating the following procedure:

1. The legislature, or 10% of the US citizens living in the state, or the governor, may call for a referendum on any bill B under discussion in the federal Congress.
2. If most of the voters in California vote in support of B, then any senator for Texas is under an obligation to vote in support of B.
3. If a senator for California fails to vote in support of B, then he or she is removed, is liable to imprisonment for up to 1 year; moreover, the governor of California shall appoint a replacement who will vote in support of B, and only that latter vote will be valid in the federal Senate.

I'm pretty sure the Californian disposition (whether a law or a Constitutional Amendment) would be unconstitutional under the US constitution, and a vote against B - for example - would remain valid. Why not the vote of an unfaithful elector?