Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

RALPHEY BOY · 12-20-2016, 10:24 AM

Quit yalls pissing and moaning. You fuking lost!!! Now grow the fuk up!!! From the words of yalls soon to be Dear ex-leader. "Go out and win an Election"

Do you dumb asses actually think any Senator or Congressperson would vote to have their State lose Electoral Votes?? If so, god I feel sorry for you!!!

Also do you think that 38 States would ratify this??? NO FUKING WAY!!!

LexusLover · 12-20-2016, 10:44 AM

They can't see your post. Their eyes are full of tears, they are trying to focus on their coloring books, and their comfort pet is humping their asses!

RALPHEY BOY · 12-20-2016, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

They can't see your post. Their eyes are full of tears, they are trying to focus on their coloring books, and their comfort pet is humping their asses!

fuking awesome!!!

gary5912 · 12-20-2016, 01:34 PM

Someone needs to tell the libtards on yahoo they lost bahaaaaa

LexusLover · 12-20-2016, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gary5912

Someone needs to tell the libtards on yahoo they lost bahaaaaa

You know better than that ... you can't tell a Liberal shit.

Now if you want to get their attention ..

.. threaten to take away their "comfort" pets ....

.. if that doesn't work threaten to take the coloring books ...

.. last resort: confiscate all Kleenex.

.. Well, actually, the last resort are the pacifiers.

Pitfall · 12-20-2016, 02:05 PM

A constitutional amendment isn't needed. 105 more EVs in the NPVIC and the electoral college becomes irrelevant. 49 EVs worth are currently in committee and there are still some blue holdouts like Colorado, Connecticut, New Mexico, Oregon, and Minnesota, where it seems realistic that this year's results could influence state houses to either pass it or be bypassed by ballot initiatives.

It can't be done without a few red states, but it won't require anywhere near 38 of them.

Rey Lengua · 12-20-2016, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You know better than that ... you can't take a Liberal shit.

Now if you want to get their attention ..

.. threaten to take away their "comfort" pets ....

.. if that doesn't work threaten to take the coloring books ...

.. last resort: confiscate all Kleenex.

.. Well, actually, the last resort are the pacifiers.

Don't forget about taking away their Depends too !

DSK · 12-20-2016, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitfall

A constitutional amendment isn't needed. 105 more EVs in the NPVIC and the electoral college becomes irrelevant. 49 EVs worth are currently in committee and there are still some blue holdouts like Colorado, Connecticut, New Mexico, Oregon, and Minnesota, where it seems realistic that this year's results could influence state houses to either pass it or be bypassed by ballot initiatives.

It can't be done without a few red states, but it won't require anywhere near 38 of them.

Really, they don't know how it will turn out, so they should be careful. California should lead the way and let electors do what they want!

LexusLover · 12-20-2016, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Don't forget about taking away their Depends too !

"You know better than that ... you can't tell a Liberal shit."

(I can't stand autocorrect!)

LexusLover · 12-20-2016, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSK

Really, they don't know how it will turn out, so they should be careful. California should lead the way and let electors do what they want!

If the pendulum swings it will in the other direction.

Look also for some redefinition of terms and penal statutes for intimidation, threatening, enticement, bribery, and influencing of Electors to change their mandated voting task. Not only State, but Federal. If not there will be this SHIT every Presidential election.

I've seen some folks in the media claiming the Constitution says that Electors can vote for whomever they wish to vote. Not true! In fact the Constitution would have to be amended.

gnadfly · 12-21-2016, 02:25 AM

You are preaching to choir Ralphey. Most of the progtards that were here, including the Austin Reacharound Crew, have been banned or left as result of lost bet.

REFRESHING!

LexusLover · 12-21-2016, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnadfly

You are preaching to choir Ralphey. Most of the progtards that were here, including the Austin Reacharound Crew, have been banned or left as result of lost bet.

REFRESHING!

It will become even more refreshing as the years wear on ....

... they will reveal their petty, criminal, and violent character.

We occasionally experience it at the grocery checkout when a turd throws a shit fit, crying, screaming, and stomping, because "Momma" didn't by the turd a candy bar .....

.. that's all we are seeing ... a bunch of loudmouthed spoiled brats!

Look at them on here! Just a sample of what's out there. Here it is:

Pitfall · 12-21-2016, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I've seen some folks in the media claiming the Constitution says that Electors can vote for whomever they wish to vote. Not true! In fact the Constitution would have to be amended.

We must be reading a different constitution. The one I'm familiar with sets up the electoral college, says how many electors each state gets, and says it's up to the states to decide how they choose their electors.

It doesn't say anything about how electors should vote. And why would it? From the constitution's perspective, it's still the electors who decide who the President will be.

There wasn't originally a popular election for President. Originally electors were elected by each state. People didn't vote for the President directly. And that's still how the constitution is written.

Don't believe me? Read it yourself.

Quote:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[Note 1]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.[1]

Quote:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

There's not a single word about a popular vote or state governments compelling their electors to vote a certain way.

LexusLover · 12-21-2016, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitfall

We must be reading a different constitution.

No. "We" just read it differently. Like a lot of other shit.

Tea leaves for instance! Polls is another area in which we differ.

Give it up.

Or do you think the Russians also threw the "Electoral College" vote?

LexusLover · 12-21-2016, 11:18 AM

It would seem "easier" for the Democrats to select someone as a candidate who had a "dog's chance in Hell" winning the final race ... without playing a "racist" or "misogynist" card in order to intimidate voters into supporting the candidate out of fear of being labeled an offensive name.

In other words .. someone with some sort of qualifications as an executive and/or manager of people in a crisis environment who was interested in focusing on ALL the citizens of the United States as opposed to a narrow group of contributors and ass-kissers.... and who isn't interested in selling their influence in the U.S. Government.

Driving a sub, removing (without replacing) insulation in public housing, and stuffing one's charitable slush fund are not the kinds of qualifications suitable for the job.