He Hasn't Won The Election Yet

BobTheCoward said:
It may not be a good idea, but supporting democracy means adhering to the rules. The college is the rules.
Click to expand...

That's sophistry.

You'd create a civil war.

(In which pro democracy citizens would back trump) (think about it. .. making trump the good side) (#don't be that guy, #moveon)
 
It's OK to indulge in fantasy as a defense against the impending reality of the Trump administration. But if you truly believe it's possible that the electoral college electors are going to elect Clinton, then at a minimum you're bound for disappointment.

Far better to devise strategies to presure and limit Trump and to possibly harness what's happening in the streets into a political movement.

From within the system, the US Senate will be the chief barrier to Trump.
 
Giz said:
That's sophistry.

You'd create a civil war.

(In which pro democracy citizens would back trump) (think about it. .. making trump the good side) (#don't be that guy, #moveon)
Click to expand...

The Trump side would be anti Constitution. Every soldier. Officer, and even oath keeper swore an oath to fight against such an enemy.

They are not the pro democracy side. The pro democracy side would be the one that says popular vote should be the winner. I don't know what you would call them.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The Trump side would be anti Constitution. Every soldier. Officer, and even oath keeper swore an oath to fight against such an enemy.

They are not the pro democracy side. The pro democracy side would be the one that says popular vote should be the winner. I don't know what you would call them.
Click to expand...

Good luck selling that.
 
Giz said:
It's hard to believe that there are people intelligent enough to use a computer who think this is a good idea.

Supporting democracy includes accepting that you will lose some elections.
Click to expand...

Of course, I agree. I'm sure Trump and his true believers would have accepted the exact reverse results without complaint, especially after incessantly repeating the elites would steal the election at the ballot box.
 
trustbutverify said:
Of course, I agree. I'm sure Trump and his true believers would have accepted the exact reverse results without complaint, especially after incessantly repeating the elites would steal the election at the ballot box.
Click to expand...


That's beside the point. The fact that Trump and some of his followers claimed they wouldn't accept the result if he lost doesn't make it acceptable for others to refuse to accept the result when he won.
 
trustbutverify said:
Of course, I agree. I'm sure Trump and his true believers would have accepted the exact reverse results without complaint, especially after incessantly repeating the elites would steal the election at the ballot box.
Click to expand...

Of course Trump and his supporters would have had a white riot over a Clinton victory but Hillary would still have become president.

The voting season is over. Now opponents of Trump must devise strategies to ammend or stop his more egrgious proposals for the next 2 years.

At the federal level, that means the US Senate and a judcious use of the filibuster and exploring options for useful political deals.

It was taken on faith that Clinton woud win. It was hoped that the US Senate wouold flip.

It's Plan B time.
 
Last edited:
trustbutverify said:
Of course, I agree. I'm sure Trump and his true believers would have accepted the exact reverse results without complaint, especially after incessantly repeating the elites would steal the election at the ballot box.
Click to expand...

That some folks have said the wrong thing is not a good reason for others to do the wrong thing.
 
SpitfireIX said:
That's beside the point. The fact that Trump and some of his followers claimed they wouldn't accept the result if he lost doesn't make it acceptable for others to refuse to accept the result when he won.
Click to expand...

I never said it did. At all.

But if, after the statements made by camp Dump, he had lost the election while winning the popular vote, all hell would have broken loose. "Not My President" would be everywhere.
 
The big protests. The being sore losers. It only serves to increase the odds of a 2nd Trump term, which right now would seem very low. These protests only appeal to about the 40% of die hards on the left. Everyone else is does nothing or pushes them the other way. The other thing that could help make it possible for Trump to win in 4 years. If by some groundswell of the far left, you nominate a Dennis Kucinich like candidate.
 
Trumps re-election will mostly depend on his performance in the next couple years.

It could go either way- best of, or worst of presidents.
 
Caper said:
The big protests. The being sore losers. It only serves to increase the odds of a 2nd Trump term, which right now would seem very low. These protests only appeal to about the 40% of die hards on the left. Everyone else is does nothing or pushes them the other way. The other thing that could help make it possible for Trump to win in 4 years. If by some groundswell of the far left, you nominate a Dennis Kucinich like candidate.
Click to expand...

Why very low?
 
Giz said:
It's hard to believe that there are people intelligent enough to use a computer who think this is a good idea.

Supporting democracy includes accepting that you will lose some elections.
Click to expand...
As the right constantly reminds us, this is not a Democracy. It is a Republic.
 
Every side of the political spectrum has used every technicality they can possibly find in the Constitution to justify all sorts of abuse of the rules. This is how the Constitution evolves, and the rules of order. Every Article, Clause and Amendment has been pored over multiple times to find language that supports or denies one side over the other.

You will find all pertinent language in the US Constitution and the US Code here, and there is not one shred of language I can find prescribing how the Electors vote. Such a maneuver seems entirely supported by law.
 
Last edited:
grunion said:
Every side of the political spectrum has used every technicality they can possibly find in the Constitution to justify all sorts of abuse of the rules. This is how the Constitution evolves, and the rules of order. Every Article, Clause and Amendment has been pored over multiple times to find language that supports or denies one side over the other.

You will find all pertinent language in the US Constitution and the US Code here, and there is not one shred of language I can find prescribing how the Electors vote. Such a maneuver seems entirely supported by law.
Click to expand...

It also reeks of contempt for the electorate. (Which is part of the reason why hillary lost in the first place).

Don't try and make this into a crisis for American democracy and validate every "rigged" comment that was made.
 
Giz said:
It also reeks of contempt for the electorate. (Which is part of the reason why hillary lost in the first place).

Don't try and make this into a crisis for American democracy and validate every "rigged" comment that was made.
Click to expand...

Contempt is assuming the electorate can't handle Constitutional law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom