Donald Trump

[swansont]

Well, there is another way to argue it is "overthrowing" the election.

 

For the elector to vote for someone other than for whom they are pledged, they must break the law (in 29 states and D.C.).

 

 

 

It's not clear that those laws are constitutional.

[neutrinosalad]

The biggest problem here is this is BS. Electors have asked for the information, and as the letter from them points out, this is part of the process as planned. Suggesting that providing information about foreign interference is somehow subversive is bollocks.

 

https://extranewsfeed.com/bipartisan-electors-ask-james-clapper-release-facts-on-outside-interference-in-u-s-election-c1a3d11d5b7b#.hwavkwbv5

 

Here's a quote from your linked article:

 

 

We further emphasize Alexander Hamilton’s assertion in Federalist Paper #68 that a core purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent a “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” The United States intelligence community has now concluded with “high confidence” that a foreign power, namely Russia, acted covertly to interfere in the presidential campaign with the intent of promoting Donald Trump’s candidacy. During the campaign Russia actively attempted to influence the election outcome through cyber attacks on our political institutions and a comprehensive propaganda campaign coordinated through Wikileaks and other outlets.

 

The electors are saying that they need the briefing as a justification to become "faithless electors" per Federalist Paper #68.

 

They are saying that this is based on a conclusion from the intelligence community. Yet here is an article that conflicts with that conclusion:

 

 

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

 

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

 

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

 

Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

 

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

 

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said.

 

The ODNI, headed by James Clapper, was established after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the recommendation of the commission that investigated the attacks. The commission, which identified major intelligence failures, recommended the office's creation to improve coordination among U.S. intelligence agencies.

 

In October, the U.S. government formally accused Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against American political organizations ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election. Democratic President Barack Obama has said he warned Russian President Vladimir Putin about consequences for the attacks.

 

Reports of the assessment by the CIA, which has not publicly disclosed its findings, have prompted congressional leaders to call for an investigation.

 

Obama last week ordered intelligence agencies to review the cyber attacks and foreign intervention in the presidential election and to deliver a report before he turns power over to Trump on Jan. 20.

 

The CIA assessed after the election that the attacks on political organizations were aimed at swaying the vote for Trump because the targeting of Republican organizations diminished toward the end of the summer and focused on Democratic groups, a senior U.S. official told Reuters on Friday.

 

Moreover, only materials filched from Democratic groups - such as emails stolen from John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman - were made public via WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy organization, and other outlets, U.S. officials said.

 

"THIN REED"

 

The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday.

 

"(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added.

 

Republican Senator John McCain said on Monday there was "no information" that Russian hacking of American political organizations was aimed at swaying the outcome of the election.

 

"It's obvious that the Russians hacked into our campaigns," McCain said. "But there is no information that they were intending to affect the outcome of our election and that's why we need a congressional investigation," he told Reuters.

 

McCain questioned an assertion made on Sunday by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, tapped by Trump to be his White House chief of staff, that there were no hacks of computers belonging to Republican organizations.

 

"Actually, because Mr. Priebus said that doesn't mean it's true," said McCain. "We need a thorough investigation of it, whether both (Democratic and Republican organizations) were hacked into, what the Russian intentions were. We cannot draw a conclusion yet. That's why we need a thorough investigation."

 

In an angry letter sent to ODNI chief Clapper on Monday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said he was “dismayed” that the top U.S. intelligence official had not informed the panel of the CIA’s analysis and the difference between its judgment and the FBI’s assessment.

 

Noting that Clapper in November testified that intelligence agencies lacked strong evidence linking Russian cyber attacks to the WikiLeaks disclosures, Nunes asked that Clapper, together with CIA and FBI counterparts, brief the panel by Friday on the latest intelligence assessment of Russian hacking during the election campaign.

 

(Editing by Yara Bayoumy and Jonathan Oatis)

 

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E

 

Also, from my previous post, you know that John Podesta with the Hillary Clinton campaign is leading the "faithless elector" campaign by trying to get electoral college voters intelligence briefings.

 

If you cannot see that John Podesta with the Hillary Clinton campaign are trying to point blank lead an anti-democratic coup, then I do not know what to tell you.

 

If you want to be a super strict "by the rules" person, Trump hasn't technically won yet.

 

I mean, he's obviously going to, but you can't say that the popular vote doesn't matter because the rules don't elect people based on the popular vote and then turn around and say that trying to get the electors to vote for someone other than Trump is overthrowing a democratic election because, per the rules, the election hasn't even taken place yet, and legally the electors could still vote for whomever they wanted.

 

So nobody has actually won yet according to the rules, and the only way to argue that they have and that trying to influence the outcome still is "overthrowing" the election is if you conclude that the popular vote in each state is what elects the president.

 

But according to the rules, it isn't. As we've established, the popular vote doesn't matter. Only the electors' votes matter.

 

Funny how that works.

 

Yes, but the electors base their votes on the popular vote of each individual state. If the electors went against the will of the voters in each individual state based on inconclusive evidence, not only does that break public trust in the government, it goes against the very principles of our society.

 

Also, if the electors could vote however they wanted to each presidential election, why even have campaigns where people go out and build coalitions to win states? Why even have a representative democracy built the way it currently is right now?

 

If you guys which to break the principles that this society was founded on that is fine by me, but do not expect breaking the principles of this society to be without consequence.

[iNow]

Also, if the electors could vote however they wanted to each presidential election, why even have campaigns where people go out and build coalitions to win states? Why even have a representative democracy built the way it currently is right now?

Why indeed. Clinton won by nearly 3 million votes. The current electoral college isn't worth preserving.

[swansont]

Also, from my previous post, you know that John Podesta with the Hillary Clinton campaign is leading the "faithless elector" campaign by trying to get electoral college voters intelligence briefings.

 

And, again, electors asked for the frikkin' information. Your quoted tweet says Podesta backs the effort. That's not the same thing as you've been implying, that he's trying to force it on them.

 

Here's a quote from your linked article:

 

 

The electors are saying that they need the briefing as a justification to become "faithless electors" per Federalist Paper #68.

 

They are saying that this is based on a conclusion from the intelligence community.

I said no such thing. I said electors asked for the information, as a rebuttal to your baseless assertion.

 

 

Yet here is an article that conflicts with that conclusion:

No, it doesn't. The article says "ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong"

 

If they aren't saying the CIA is wrong, there is no conflict in the conclusion.

 

If you cannot see that John Podesta with the Hillary Clinton campaign are trying to point blank lead an anti-democratic coup, then I do not know what to tell you.

You could give any scrap of evidence that supports your wild claim. Thus far we have a tweet saying they support the effort to get the electors he information that they asked for.

[Ten oz]

Trump supporters and conservatives broadly are breathtaking in their double standards. For years we have heard about how unfit Hillary Clinton was to be POTUS because she used a server that potentially could have made (no information that it ever did) classified information vulnerable. Meanwhile Trump has considered Gen. Petraeus for cabinet positions and he was found guilt and convicted of leaking classified information. Gen Mattis who is nominated for Sec of Defense is linked via email to Petraeus case and Genn Flynn who Trump nominated for National Security Directory was found to have leaked information as well. Meanwhile Trump himself publicly dismisses and ridicules the intel community at large.

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/sources-mattis-received-anonymous-email-in-petraeus-case

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/12/14/us/politics/ap-us-trump-flynn-intelligence.html?_r=0

 

Hillary Clinton is currently up in the popular vote by 2.8 million people (amount equal to or greater than the population of about 20 inividual states) and conservatives have basically been saying "so what, electoral college decides. Founders in their wisdom made it that way". Now that the Electoral College is considering to vote against Trump the same Conservatives are claiming coup. Yet the same founders who created the electoral college system made it so that it required actual electors to make votes rather than just automatically assigning a states popular vote to a candidate.

 

"Over 22 occasions, a total of 179 electors have not cast their votes for President as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot (1872, 1912). Two electors chose to abstain from voting for any candidate (1812, 2000).The remaining 106 were changed by the elector's personal interest"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

 

Electors have voted against the popular vote of their state many times in the past. More than enough times for the Constitutionality of doing so to have been challanged. The Supreme Court has never made an ruling against it and it has happened throughout our history.

[Delta1212]

 

Here's a quote from your linked article:

 

 

The electors are saying that they need the briefing as a justification to become "faithless electors" per Federalist Paper #68.

 

They are saying that this is based on a conclusion from the intelligence community. Yet here is an article that conflicts with that conclusion:

 

 

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E

 

Also, from my previous post, you know that John Podesta with the Hillary Clinton campaign is leading the "faithless elector" campaign by trying to get electoral college voters intelligence briefings.

 

If you cannot see that John Podesta with the Hillary Clinton campaign are trying to point blank lead an anti-democratic coup, then I do not know what to tell you.

 

 

Yes, but the electors base their votes on the popular vote of each individual state. If the electors went against the will of the voters in each individual state based on inconclusive evidence, not only does that break public trust in the government, it goes against the very principles of our society.

 

Also, if the electors could vote however they wanted to each presidential election, why even have campaigns where people go out and build coalitions to win states? Why even have a representative democracy built the way it currently is right now?

 

If you guys which to break the principles that this society was founded on that is fine by me, but do not expect breaking the principles of this society to be without consequence.

I'm confused, which is more important: Following the democratic principles of society or winning by following the rules?

 

Or do democratic principles coincidentally trump the rules exactly as far out as gives you the result that you want?

 

Also, while we treat the election as being "for President" it isn't really. The reason we do the whole campaign thing and build coalitions to win states is that the people are electing the electors who do the voting.

 

So it is, in fact, still a representative democracy. If you weren't voting for the representative you thought you were voting for, then you should learn how our representative democracy actually works, perhaps.

[Ophiolite]

I just new a vote for Trump would be a vote for real Reality TV.

[waitforufo]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/coming-soon-real-presidential-election-n696556

 

 

While the electors are generating an usual amount of attention, it is unlikely to have much effect. Republican officials say party lawyers have been in contact with the 306 Republican electors and believe only a few may vote for someone other than Donald Trump.

A survey by the Associated Press reached a similar result. After interviewing 330 of the 538 electors, the AP found "widespread Democratic aggravation with the electoral process but little expectation that the hustle of anti-Trump maneuvering can derail him."

 

Well it looks like the death threats made to the electoral college electors isn't working. What's next, threatening there children? Their mothers maybe?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/30/politics/banerian-death-threats-cnntv/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4037850/Now-electoral-college-voters-Trump-sent-DEATH-THREATS-Republican-student-22-reveals-chilling-promise-bullet-mouth.html

http://kxan.com/2016/11/18/texas-electoral-college-member-harassed-for-backing-trump/

[swansont]

Threats are reprehensible, whether in this context or any other, like in response to a Trump tweet smearing a union boss.

[Ten oz]

Trump has nominated Rex Tillerson to be Sec of State. Rex Tillerson works for Exxonn and help sign a deasl with Russia estimated to be worth half a trilion dollars. However sanctions imposed on Russia by the U.S. and EU following Crimea has blocked the deal from moving foward. According to filings earlier this year Rex Tillerson own 218 million in Exxonn stock.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/world/europe/rex-tillersons-company-exxon-has-billions-at-stake-over-russia-sanctions.html

 

Is this a conflict of interest? Does the public have the right to know worth or not Donald Trump owns Exxonn stock?

[iNow]

Well it looks like the death threats made to the electoral college electors isn't working. What's next, threatening there children? Their mothers maybe?

You'd be hard pressed to find many who support death threats against anyone. Their children and family especially. Regardless of ideology or political preference, these types of actions from these few misguided idiots are deplorable and must stop immediately. They also shouldn't be used as fodder or motivation for ignoring the larger question, though.

[Ten oz]

You'd be hard pressed to find many who support death threats against anyone. Their children and family especially. Regardless of ideology or political preference, these types of actions from these few misguided idiots are deplorable and must stop immediately. They also shouldn't be used as fodder or motivation for ignoring the larger question, though.

People on welfare should not drive expensive new cars, people should not sell food stamp for cash to buy drugs, no one should promote violence against police, after Katrina while waiting days for help people shouldn't have looted ad nauseam. Self proclaimed conservatives often use actions of a few as justification to dismiss the many. Why bother arguing the merrits of something when attacking the actions of a few is some much easier.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Ten oz

[waitforufo]

Well the electoral college votes on Monday, so time is getting short. Even NBC news, as show in my last post, says the effort to change electors votes will end in failure. Drastic measures must now be taken. I suggest simply buying the votes of the electors. A million or two per vote should do the trick. You know, a deal deal. They are Republicans.

 

[iNow]

the effort to change electors votes will end in failure.

I agree with this.

 

Drastic measures must now be taken.

Though not with this.

[Delta1212]

I agree with this.

 

Though not with this.

 

He's being facetious in an attempt to mock his idea of what liberals are.

[waitforufo]

No, I'm simply contributing to the group psychosis of liberals still in denial over the election outcome.

[Phi for All]

No, I'm simply contributing to the group psychosis of liberals still in denial over the election outcome.

 

Right, because it was just another POTUS election, after all. Nothing out of the ordinary.

[waitforufo]

 

Right, because it was just another POTUS election, after all. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Yes, I agree, nothing out of the ordinary. Primaries to select candidates, campaigns by candidates in the States to win electors, voting, state vote counting, State electors selected by the vote outcome, electoral college voting on Monday (12/19), and the inauguration on January 20. All according to the Constitution of the United States. Nothing out of the ordinary.

 

Now go wipe your tears, and get on with your life. There will be other elections. Better luck next time.

[Phi for All]

Yes, I agree, nothing out of the ordinary. Primaries to select candidates, campaigns by candidates in the States to win electors, voting, state vote counting, State electors selected by the vote outcome, electoral college voting on Monday (12/19), and the inauguration on January 20. All according to the Constitution of the United States. Nothing out of the ordinary.

 

Now go wipe your tears, and get on with your life. There will be other elections. Better luck next time.

 

The jokes section is in The Lounge, comrade.

[waitforufo]

 

The jokes section is in The Lounge, comrade.

Comrade. Good one. See what I mean. Group psychosis is the only explanation. It's gotten so bad that liberals are running a Red scare.

Have you checked for Russians under your bed yet?

[DrKrettin]

 

Now go wipe your tears, and get on with your life. There will be other elections. Better luck next time.

 

This is really creepy. The amazing US of A chooses to elect an ignorant narcissist as president, and people think this is fine. Somebody who says he doesn't need intelligence briefings because he is smart. Let's just hope there really will be the opportunity for other elections, with this idiot in charge of nuclear weapons and the policy on global warming.

[rangerx]

Now go wipe your tears, and get on with your life. There will be other elections. Better luck next time.

 

I'm not American (thank my luck stars) but if you think a pay-to-play commie loving email hacking turncoat Manhattan liberal is the magic bullet to all things great and won't rob you blind in the meantime, we'll have this chat again in four years, K?

 

Meanwhile, you're just gaslighting. Nothing more.

[Phi for All]

Comrade. Good one. See what I mean. Group psychosis is the only explanation. It's gotten so bad that liberals are running a Red scare.

Have you checked for Russians under your bed yet?

 

2014 GOP: "Putin is evil and must be stopped, period."

 

2015 GOP: "Obama is worthless against Putin; a Republican POTUS would put a stop to this menace who attacked the Ukraine, and shot down a Malaysian jet."

 

2016 GOP: "Hillary can't stand up against Putin. We need a tough Republican in office to stop Russia's predation."

 

Trump 2016: "Actually, I like him. I like the other guy, the North Korean you all hate, I like him too. Japan needs nukes."

 

2016.5 GOP: "We need a nominee who understands foreign policy, someone with experience, but definitely not Hillary, and definitely not Trump."

 

Trump 2016.5: "Russia's going to be our friend now, just like magic. Ain't America great again? I want that in the platform, btw."

 

2016.8 GOP: "Actually, we've always loved the Russians, and we think it's funny that the liberals are afraid of them. Look how handsome Putin is!"

[swansont]

Yes, I agree, nothing out of the ordinary. Primaries to select candidates, campaigns by candidates in the States to win electors, voting, state vote counting, State electors selected by the vote outcome, electoral college voting on Monday (12/19), and the inauguration on January 20. All according to the Constitution of the United States. Nothing out of the ordinary.

 

Now go wipe your tears, and get on with your life. There will be other elections. Better luck next time.

 

Right. Interference by a foreign state and the head of a law enforcement organization. Business conflicts of interest. Just like all of the other elections.

[waitforufo]

 

I'm not American (thank my luck stars) but if you think a pay-to-play commie loving email hacking turncoat Manhattan liberal is the magic bullet to all things great and won't rob you blind in the meantime, we'll have this chat again in four years, K?

 

Meanwhile, you're just gaslighting. Nothing more.

 

 

I'm not American (thank my luck stars) but if you think a pay-to-play commie loving email hacking turncoat Manhattan liberal is the magic bullet to all things great and won't rob you blind in the meantime, we'll have this chat again in four years, K?

 

Meanwhile, you're just gaslighting. Nothing more.

I look forward to having this chat again 4 years from now. Republicans never think politicians, even their own, will solve all things great and small. Not being and American, you must have Republicans confused with Democrats. I just think Trump is better than Ms. Clinton.

 

Gaslighting? Perhaps you should read the previous three pages of this topic.

 

 

2014 GOP: "Putin is evil and must be stopped, period."

 

2015 GOP: "Obama is worthless against Putin; a Republican POTUS would put a stop to this menace who attacked the Ukraine, and shot down a Malaysian jet."

 

2016 GOP: "Hillary can't stand up against Putin. We need a tough Republican in office to stop Russia's predation."

 

Trump 2016: "Actually, I like him. I like the other guy, the North Korean you all hate, I like him too. Japan needs nukes."

 

2016.5 GOP: "We need a nominee who understands foreign policy, someone with experience, but definitely not Hillary, and definitely not Trump."

 

Trump 2016.5: "Russia's going to be our friend now, just like magic. Ain't America great again? I want that in the platform, btw."

 

2016.8 GOP: "Actually, we've always loved the Russians, and we think it's funny that the liberals are afraid of them. Look how handsome Putin is!"

Gee, I tried to search for these exact quotes and I can't find anything. Can you provide your sources?

 

Right. Interference by a foreign state and the head of a law enforcement organization. Business conflicts of interest. Just like all of the other elections.

Foreign states trying to interfere in another countries election. I'm glad the US never does that. I'm sure Netanyahu would agree. Interference by a law enforcement organization? If that is what you want to call transparency be my guest. I personally think that the American people needed to know that the investigation continued particularly after that same law enforcement agency said it had stopped investigating. An investigation that would have never started if Ms. Clinton has simply shipped her server to the National Archives. Finally did the American people not know that Trump had a business empire prior to the election. Is this some revelation you discovered just recently?