Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Says the guy who has posted links to crackpot websites....
GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread
- Thread starter Big-Foot
- Start date
- Status
Says the guy who has posted links to crackpot websites....
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I think what they may be referring to is that President Obama had not:
1. Admitted on tape to sexually abusing women;
2. Had a dozen other women come forward to debunk his statement that he had never abused women;
3. Called immigrants from one nation rapists and thieves;
4. Adopted immigration and other policies that earned him the support of the KKK;
5. Advocated absolutely silly ideas like border walls (paid for by Mexico!) and starting trade wars with China;
6. Stated on the record that he would consider using nuclear weapons in Europe;
7. Believes in nuclear PROLIFERATION;
8. Acts like a three year old on twitter.
And so on.
Of course, that's not even turning to President Obama's actual qualfications for public service, which older middle age white guys routinely put down for reasons unknown, or maybe not so unknown?
1. Editor of law review at Harvard, first African American to do so
2. Turned down big firm jobs to work at a smaller firm focused on social justice
3. constitutional scholar and professor at the University of Chicago Law School
4. State Senator
5. US Senator
9. Rosie O'Donnell, Carly Fiorina, Alicia Machado, etc.
10. Mocking reporter's disability.
11. Admitted to his foundation's self dealing.
12. Telling someone in the crowd that he'd pay their legal bills, if they were sued for beating up a protester at one of his rallies.
Seriously, you could go on forever.
According to Nate Silver, education not income predicted who would vote for Trump:
Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump | FiveThirtyEight
The less-educated came out in higher numbers and voted for Trump.
Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump | FiveThirtyEight
The less-educated came out in higher numbers and voted for Trump.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Latest estimate is a 2.5-3 million vote win and 2% percentage victory.
Recount, Hillary seems to have forgotten this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGbLOthmwD0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGbLOthmwD0
She's "winning" like Charlie Sheen.
Once again; both candidates' campaigns focused on winning the Electoral College vote, not the popular vote...as has been the focus/goal of every other presidential campaign since the country was founded. Trump won that contest.
To keep insisting Billary's popular vote total somehow means something and 'ought to change the outcome of the presidential race is similar to a NASCAR driver trying to claim he's this year's national champ because HE won the final race of the season ahead of the actual champ who placed second in that race.
It dunna work that way...
Last edited:
While Hillary winning by 2,000,000+ votes doesn't mean anything in this election cycle, but it will give impetus to the National Popular Vote campaign. I actually met someone who's involved in this campaign over the holidays and it's picking up steam. The person mentioned that states like OK, GA and TX, states that haven't yet passed the legislation at the state level, are tired of being ignored. States that total 165 electoral votes have already passed it and they only need 105 votes to get to 270. And they think they'll have it by 2020.
As I've stated before, the Clinton's and Trump's popular vote count wouldn't haven't changed. Trump wasn't welcome in the big cities and Clinton wasn't welcome in the rural areas. They were both well-known figures with opinions already formed for each. IMO not much would have changed.
As I've stated before, the Clinton's and Trump's popular vote count wouldn't haven't changed. Trump wasn't welcome in the big cities and Clinton wasn't welcome in the rural areas. They were both well-known figures with opinions already formed for each. IMO not much would have changed.
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
Amazing but nobody mentioned Cuba and the passing of Castro.
Ian
Ian
He's dead, that's a good thing! There really has to be a hell for people like that.
It's a safe bet that you'll see both the Moon going 'round the Earth in a North/South orbit - clockwise to boot - and the Sun rising in the West and setting in the East before you'll see 2/3rds of the states voting to drop the 'College (pass the constitutional amendment necessary to do that).
Last edited:
You're either not understanding the process of nationalpopularvote.com or haven't read it. NO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY. The US Congress is not involved. Each state individually passes a state bill that says whatever the result of the popular vote turns out to be, so every state that passed this bill would mandate/force their electors to vote for the popular vote winner. Many states already have passed the bill and the total amount of the electoral votes committed is 165. They only need states with 105 (a total of 270) more electoral votes for this new process start.
Again, no constitutional amendment necessary. And Congress is not involved. The process has momentum and I happen to know one of the people behind it.
But you can keep thinking it'll never happen.
The National Popular Vote bill (the way I understand it) amounts to nothing less than an end run around both the 'College and the congress...much like so many of Obama's illegal/unconstitutional exec orders were an "end run" as well...and as such it isn't going to fly from a legal standpoint either.
The 12th Amend to the Constitution as written by The Founders would have to be amended in order to bring about the changes to the way the 'College works as advocated in the NPV bill. In the end, all the spin, smoke and mirrors and 'creative legalese' launched in support of the NPV won't change that...at least not during Trump's Admin. (And given the fact SCOTUS stands a good chance of being solidly conservative by the end of Trumps 1st term [certainly by the end of his 2nd], it's not at all likely the NPV would pass muster there for decades to come...if ever.)
Thank you for your legal opinions.
These are individual state statutes. If state legislatures pass bills that mandate how their electors vote, which many of them already do now, then there's something called "states rights." I'm not a legal expert, but the US Congress cannot legislate how the states pledge their electoral votes, assuming there's nothing illegal about it.
The National Popular Vote law has been enacted into law by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes. The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 105 electoral votes.
These states already have passed it:
District of Columbia – 3 electoral votes
Hawaii – 4 electoral votes
Illinois – 20 electoral votes
Maryland – 10 electoral votes
Massachusetts – 11 electoral votes
New Jersey – 14 electoral votes
Washington – 12 electoral votes
Vermont – 3 electoral votes
California – 55 electoral votes
Rhode Island – 4 electoral votes
New York – 29 electoral votes
And from what I heard, TX, OK and GA should be on board reasonably soon.
Bottom line: You can bet your last dime the NPV will end up in the supreme court.
Larry, I believe that the way our EC system is working is already NOT as designed by the Founding Fathers. It is my understanding, after having read all of the various sources of information posted, that the way the process was set up by the founding fathers is for the EC to choose a POTUS ONLY if the popular vote is NOT definitive.
With HC now being ahead by 2M+ popular votes, the EC should not even be involved.
That's how I understand what I read, and I've read almost everything anyone posted. I've read the 12th multiple times...sure, it says the EC will act under certain conditions, but none of them were similar to what happened with the popular vote/electoral college discrepancies this year.
So...it dawns on me that perhaps this year's election will be decided in a manner that was NOT anyone's first choice...the states with the most electoral college votes will determine the winner of this election and that would (by virtue of the manner in which the EC's representation is set) appear to be the states with the highest populations. Many have said that was the reason the EC was developed...to keep the more populous states from running over the less populous states in electing our POTUS. It sure seems to me that is exactly what is happening.
Well, this is a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into this time, isn't it?
Cheers!
Doug
I can only assume that after 11 states have already passed the legislation that someone has look at the legality of it all. Why waste the effort?
The theory goes that Article II of the U.S. Constitution establishes the power of the states to appoint their electors in any manner they see fit. And the bill's supporters argue that the compact never encroach upon federal power since the Constitution explicitly gives the power of casting electoral votes to the states, not the federal government.
Hey, I'd be happy with the whole thing ending up in the Supreme Court, one way or another, because it might settle the argument of one person, one vote and why does where you live matter in terms of the Presidency? We keep moving around to where the jobs are or where we we feel comfortable and that's not going to change.
- Status
