Electoral Coupe de Etat, Yes/No?

vaggar99

Alright folks. Its well established that DJT won the electoral college. However, Hillary is now up in the popular vote by close to 2 millions votes. The electoral college was partly established to serve a safeguard against a tainted election and perhaps an unfit candidate. I think there is more than a valid case for ELECTORAL COUPE DE ETAT. Get the ESP out of here!!!!!!!

rgambs

No

As much as I hate Trump, and that's alot, I don't want to see hillbillies taking to the streets with their guns to try to create the fourth reich.

pjalive21

No

Are you Chris Hanson?

PJPOWER

No

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

JC29856

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

I second that!

vaggar99

Yes

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

entitlement will be defeated.

PJPOWER

No

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

entitlement will be defeated.

Entitlement, as in Social Security benefits? Congrats, it's already in shambles.

vaggar99

Yes

JC29856 said:

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

I second that!

the culture of insults will be defeated

PJPOWER

No

vaggar99 said:

JC29856 said:

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

I second that!

the culture of insults will be defeated

The dynasty of Clinton has been defeated.

Jason P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOpjYE-iPnY

Jason P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5epuPMf-7Y

benjs

vaggar99 said:

Alright folks. Its well established that DJT won the electoral college. However, Hillary is now up in the popular vote by close to 2 millions votes. The electoral college was partly established to serve a safeguard against a tainted election and perhaps an unfit candidate. I think there is more than a valid case for ELECTORAL COUPE DE ETAT. Get the ESP out of here!!!!!!!

In what way, shape or form is there a valid case for an electoral coup d'état? An "unfit president" is too subjective a term to be used as grounds for throwing out the Democratic Election Rulebook unless a behaviour is proven to be blatantly unlawful or blatantly unconstitutional, and even then I couldn't tell you the process of having a citizen disqualified for sitting in the Oval Office.

rgambs

No

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

Alright folks. Its well established that DJT won the electoral college. However, Hillary is now up in the popular vote by close to 2 millions votes. The electoral college was partly established to serve a safeguard against a tainted election and perhaps an unfit candidate. I think there is more than a valid case for ELECTORAL COUPE DE ETAT. Get the ESP out of here!!!!!!!

In what way, shape or form is there a valid case for an electoral coup d'état? An "unfit president" is too subjective a term to be used as grounds for throwing out the Democratic Election Rulebook unless a behaviour is proven to be blatantly unlawful or blatantly unconstitutional, and even then I couldn't tell you the process of having a citizen disqualified for sitting in the Oval Office.

2 million more votes for the loser makes a valid case in many people's minds.

vaggar99

Yes

written by a staunch opponent of the Clinton family:

counterpunch.org/2016/11/22/election-data-screams-fraud/

benjs

rgambs said:

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

Alright folks. Its well established that DJT won the electoral college. However, Hillary is now up in the popular vote by close to 2 millions votes. The electoral college was partly established to serve a safeguard against a tainted election and perhaps an unfit candidate. I think there is more than a valid case for ELECTORAL COUPE DE ETAT. Get the ESP out of here!!!!!!!

In what way, shape or form is there a valid case for an electoral coup d'état? An "unfit president" is too subjective a term to be used as grounds for throwing out the Democratic Election Rulebook unless a behaviour is proven to be blatantly unlawful or blatantly unconstitutional, and even then I couldn't tell you the process of having a citizen disqualified for sitting in the Oval Office.

2 million more votes for the loser makes a valid case in many people's minds.

I'm not sure how. Whether the delta is two people or two million, the process has always remained that the Electoral College dictates who becomes President. Not to mention that any reforms to the Electoral College could not be applied retroactively anyways (i.e. wouldn't change who's President-Elect this time around).

vaggar99

Yes

PJPOWER said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

entitlement will be defeated.

Entitlement, as in Social Security benefits? Congrats, it's already in shambles.

Entitlement of those who think that because they are great fans of a band they insult others. Entitlement of celebrities to molest women. I prefer to keep it under 140 characters

PJPOWER

No

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

entitlement will be defeated.

Entitlement, as in Social Security benefits? Congrats, it's already in shambles.

Entitlement of those who think that because they are great fans of a band they insult others. Entitlement of celebrities to molest women. I prefer to keep it under 140 characters

Entitlement of people that think they should make $15/hour for flipping burgers?

JC29856

vaggar99 said:

written by a staunch opponent of the Clinton family:

counterpunch.org/2016/11/22/election-data-screams-fraud/

Nice to see your referencing good material!
Counterpunch is great site with good group of contributors.

ledvedderman

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

entitlement will be defeated.

Entitlement, as in Social Security benefits? Congrats, it's already in shambles.

Entitlement of those who think that because they are great fans of a band they insult others. Entitlement of celebrities to molest women. I prefer to keep it under 140 characters

You're well aware that you throw insults around, right? Like calling people who simply believe in the democratic process "white supremacists". You're aware you do that, right?

benjs

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

Alright folks. Its well established that DJT won the electoral college. However, Hillary is now up in the popular vote by close to 2 millions votes. The electoral college was partly established to serve a safeguard against a tainted election and perhaps an unfit candidate. I think there is more than a valid case for ELECTORAL COUPE DE ETAT. Get the ESP out of here!!!!!!!

In what way, shape or form is there a valid case for an electoral coup d'état? An "unfit president" is too subjective a term to be used as grounds for throwing out the Democratic Election Rulebook unless a behaviour is proven to be blatantly unlawful or blatantly unconstitutional, and even then I couldn't tell you the process of having a citizen disqualified for sitting in the Oval Office.

vaggar99, I'd still appreciate an answer to my question. On what grounds would you call for an electoral coup d'état, and how would you justify a change of process applying retroactively?

Edit: You state that the Electoral College was partly established to safeguard against a tainted election, but it was also partially established so that skeptical individual states would not have to fear having their voices lost in the shuffle of the federal republic. The Electoral College aspires to alleviate that issue by putting a floor and ceiling on how much power one state can possess if the population densities became unequally distributed in the vast land mass of the USA (as they are today). To remove the Electoral College would be to go back on a bond made with each individual state which was necessary to actually unify the States and allow a federal governing body.

Shawshank

Meh, a failed candidate was kept alive by super delegates, when it was clear Sanders should have won. Might as well balance it out by losing to the electoral college.

vaggar99

Yes

ledvedderman said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

entitlement will be defeated.

Entitlement, as in Social Security benefits? Congrats, it's already in shambles.

Entitlement of those who think that because they are great fans of a band they insult others. Entitlement of celebrities to molest women. I prefer to keep it under 140 characters

You're well aware that you throw insults around, right? Like calling people who simply believe in the democratic process "white supremacists". You're aware you do that, right?

If you look through my posts, I avoid direct insults. I do believe there is white supremacist take over if the us occurring right now. I don't have a problem with theses groups. They have a right to a voice like anyone. But allowing a full on takeover? Not good. Unless maybe you are on that side. I am not. I have no firearms. That's scary.

vaggar99

Yes

benjs said:

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

Alright folks. Its well established that DJT won the electoral college. However, Hillary is now up in the popular vote by close to 2 millions votes. The electoral college was partly established to serve a safeguard against a tainted election and perhaps an unfit candidate. I think there is more than a valid case for ELECTORAL COUPE DE ETAT. Get the ESP out of here!!!!!!!

In what way, shape or form is there a valid case for an electoral coup d'état? An "unfit president" is too subjective a term to be used as grounds for throwing out the Democratic Election Rulebook unless a behaviour is proven to be blatantly unlawful or blatantly unconstitutional, and even then I couldn't tell you the process of having a citizen disqualified for sitting in the Oval Office.

vaggar99, I'd still appreciate an answer to my question. On what grounds would you call for an electoral coup d'état, and how would you justify a change of process applying retroactively?

Edit: You state that the Electoral College was partly established to safeguard against a tainted election, but it was also partially established so that skeptical individual states would not have to fear having their voices lost in the shuffle of the federal republic. The Electoral College aspires to alleviate that issue by putting a floor and ceiling on how much power one state can possess if the population densities became unequally distributed in the vast land mass of the USA (as they are today). To remove the Electoral College would be to go back on a bond made with each individual state which was necessary to actually unify the States and allow a federal governing body.

Now you're making me do research. I'll get back to you soon

vaggar99

Yes

PJPOWER said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

entitlement will be defeated.

Entitlement, as in Social Security benefits? Congrats, it's already in shambles.

Entitlement of those who think that because they are great fans of a band they insult others. Entitlement of celebrities to molest women. I prefer to keep it under 140 characters

Entitlement of people that think they should make $15/hour for flipping burgers?

I don't necessarily agree with that either. However, asking for a raise is a lot different at least in my mind then grabbing women by the vagina with zero invite.

PJ_Soul

I would prefer some focus on establishing minimum requirements for being allowed to serve in the cabinet myself. There really should be some standards that the President's choices have to meet, and some restrictions that relate to conflicts of interest and a clear demonstration of the inability to serve all citizens and what not. You know, so that private business affiliates and white supremacists can't be in the cabinet, stuff like that. Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't think that someone who has never held public office should be allowed to run for President. I think support from voters on some level at some point should be a minimum requirement to run.

HughFreakingDillon

No

vaggar99 said:

ledvedderman said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

entitlement will be defeated.

Entitlement, as in Social Security benefits? Congrats, it's already in shambles.

Entitlement of those who think that because they are great fans of a band they insult others. Entitlement of celebrities to molest women. I prefer to keep it under 140 characters

You're well aware that you throw insults around, right? Like calling people who simply believe in the democratic process "white supremacists". You're aware you do that, right?

If you look through my posts, I avoid direct insults. I do believe there is white supremacist take over if the us occurring right now. I don't have a problem with theses groups. They have a right to a voice like anyone. But allowing a full on takeover? Not good. Unless maybe you are on that side. I am not. I have no firearms. That's scary.

cause blanket insults are so much better than direct ones.

vaggar99

Yes

HughFreakingDillon said:

vaggar99 said:

ledvedderman said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

entitlement will be defeated.

Entitlement, as in Social Security benefits? Congrats, it's already in shambles.

Entitlement of those who think that because they are great fans of a band they insult others. Entitlement of celebrities to molest women. I prefer to keep it under 140 characters

You're well aware that you throw insults around, right? Like calling people who simply believe in the democratic process "white supremacists". You're aware you do that, right?

If you look through my posts, I avoid direct insults. I do believe there is white supremacist take over if the us occurring right now. I don't have a problem with theses groups. They have a right to a voice like anyone. But allowing a full on takeover? Not good. Unless maybe you are on that side. I am not. I have no firearms. That's scary.

cause blanket insults are so much better than direct ones.

You can choose to look at it that way. If you are offended by the phrase white supremacist, I'd find that odd. Because, I just consider a politically correct way to describe this group. That's all. That said I have posted some angry posts regarding theses groups. expressing my frsustration and fear. I can tell you the fear level is only growing.

PJ_Soul

vaggar99 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

vaggar99 said:

ledvedderman said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

entitlement will be defeated.

Entitlement, as in Social Security benefits? Congrats, it's already in shambles.

Entitlement of those who think that because they are great fans of a band they insult others. Entitlement of celebrities to molest women. I prefer to keep it under 140 characters

You're well aware that you throw insults around, right? Like calling people who simply believe in the democratic process "white supremacists". You're aware you do that, right?

If you look through my posts, I avoid direct insults. I do believe there is white supremacist take over if the us occurring right now. I don't have a problem with theses groups. They have a right to a voice like anyone. But allowing a full on takeover? Not good. Unless maybe you are on that side. I am not. I have no firearms. That's scary.

cause blanket insults are so much better than direct ones.

You can choose to look at it that way. If you are offended by the phrase white supremacist, I'd find that odd. Because, I just consider a politically correct way to describe this group. That's all. That said I have posted some angry posts regarding theses groups. expressing my frsustration and fear. I can tell you the fear level is only growing.

There is nothing wrong with expressing anger about white supremacists/white nationalists/alt-right.

HughFreakingDillon

No

vaggar99 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

vaggar99 said:

ledvedderman said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

entitlement will be defeated.

Entitlement, as in Social Security benefits? Congrats, it's already in shambles.

Entitlement of those who think that because they are great fans of a band they insult others. Entitlement of celebrities to molest women. I prefer to keep it under 140 characters

You're well aware that you throw insults around, right? Like calling people who simply believe in the democratic process "white supremacists". You're aware you do that, right?

If you look through my posts, I avoid direct insults. I do believe there is white supremacist take over if the us occurring right now. I don't have a problem with theses groups. They have a right to a voice like anyone. But allowing a full on takeover? Not good. Unless maybe you are on that side. I am not. I have no firearms. That's scary.

cause blanket insults are so much better than direct ones.

You can choose to look at it that way. If you are offended by the phrase white supremacist, I'd find that odd. Because, I just consider a politically correct way to describe this group. That's all. That said I have posted some angry posts regarding theses groups. expressing my frsustration and fear. I can tell you the fear level is only growing.

not that phrase specifically, obviously.

vaggar99

Yes

PJ_Soul said:

vaggar99 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

vaggar99 said:

ledvedderman said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

entitlement will be defeated.

Entitlement, as in Social Security benefits? Congrats, it's already in shambles.

Entitlement of those who think that because they are great fans of a band they insult others. Entitlement of celebrities to molest women. I prefer to keep it under 140 characters

You're well aware that you throw insults around, right? Like calling people who simply believe in the democratic process "white supremacists". You're aware you do that, right?

If you look through my posts, I avoid direct insults. I do believe there is white supremacist take over if the us occurring right now. I don't have a problem with theses groups. They have a right to a voice like anyone. But allowing a full on takeover? Not good. Unless maybe you are on that side. I am not. I have no firearms. That's scary.

cause blanket insults are so much better than direct ones.

You can choose to look at it that way. If you are offended by the phrase white supremacist, I'd find that odd. Because, I just consider a politically correct way to describe this group. That's all. That said I have posted some angry posts regarding theses groups. expressing my frsustration and fear. I can tell you the fear level is only growing.

There is nothing wrong with expressing anger about white supremacists/white nationalists/alt-right.

I should say 'I don't have a problem with existence of these groups so long as they operate within the law'

PJ_Soul

vaggar99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

vaggar99 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

vaggar99 said:

ledvedderman said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

vaggar99 said:

PJPOWER said:

No, dumbest shit I've ever read. Congrats.

entitlement will be defeated.

Entitlement, as in Social Security benefits? Congrats, it's already in shambles.

Entitlement of those who think that because they are great fans of a band they insult others. Entitlement of celebrities to molest women. I prefer to keep it under 140 characters

You're well aware that you throw insults around, right? Like calling people who simply believe in the democratic process "white supremacists". You're aware you do that, right?

If you look through my posts, I avoid direct insults. I do believe there is white supremacist take over if the us occurring right now. I don't have a problem with theses groups. They have a right to a voice like anyone. But allowing a full on takeover? Not good. Unless maybe you are on that side. I am not. I have no firearms. That's scary.

cause blanket insults are so much better than direct ones.

You can choose to look at it that way. If you are offended by the phrase white supremacist, I'd find that odd. Because, I just consider a politically correct way to describe this group. That's all. That said I have posted some angry posts regarding theses groups. expressing my frsustration and fear. I can tell you the fear level is only growing.

There is nothing wrong with expressing anger about white supremacists/white nationalists/alt-right.

I should say 'I don't have a problem with existence of these groups so long as they operate within the law'

You don't??? I sure do. You know, you're not obligated to show tolerance for intolerance, no matter what intolerant people try to tell you.