Some of my less learned posters need a primer on impeachable offences.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Still hiding up here. You wimpy little short fat midget.
True, but in fact the electors do vote for the popular vote winner in their state meaning the voters decide which candidate gets their state's electoral votes; thus, they indirectly elect the president. That is why the electoral college winner has also won the popular vote nationally with 3 exceptions (4 if we count 1824 when all the states did not yet use popular votes)
Some states have criminal penalties for electors who do not vote to the candidate they are pledged to support. Since each state legislature determines how electors are chosen they are also partially bound by state law/constitution.
For once the electoral college had the chance to prove its usefulness and it failed. They should have voted their slates against Trump, the incompetent traitor fool no matter what the state vote counts./...
For once the electoral college had the chance to prove its usefulness and it failed. They should have voted their slates against Trump, the incompetent traitor fool no matter what the state vote counts./...
Ignorant people like you show exactly why the Electoral College is needed, and why it works so well.
I did not say president. You responded to a post about Federalist #65 and the reasons for impeachment. Those constitutional provisions are not limited to presidents. But there have been about 8 convictions of officials who have been convicted and removed from office--all federal judges. One of those federal judges is not a member of the House from Florida.
your intense level of hate and insults indicate a low level of knowledge and morality.
If the parties still nominate the candidates then wouldn't voters still be stuck with the two choices the parties presented?
For once the electoral college had the chance to prove its usefulness and it failed. They should have voted their slates against Trump, the incompetent traitor fool no matter what the state vote counts./...
Usually the electors are members of the party winning the popular vote in their state (varies by state) and those people vote for that candidate because they support the person or party.
Several electors did vote for other candidates in 2016: Sanders, Kasich, Paul, Powell (3), Faith Spotted Eagle.
The problem was not the electoral college but that electors did not agree with your assessment. They do not vote as slates but each elector casts one vote for president and one for vp (and those two people must be from different states).
OldMercsRule
Verified User
I know all about Alcee Hastings (poster boy for the corrupt dim wit Democrat/Marxist party of slavery, kkk, jim crow). This thread was about impeachment of the POTUS. I guess yer too fucking stupid to realize the context... Oh well... burp...
I don't hate anyone: fuckstick. I'd give up mind readin' if I were you. (If ya can't read the simple mind of a hillbilly with only one brain cell: YA CAN'T READ MINDS). burp...
Into the Night
Contributor
For once the electoral college had the chance to prove its usefulness and it failed. They should have voted their slates against Trump, the incompetent traitor fool no matter what the state vote counts./...
He is not a traitor. You do not get to change the Constitution.
Into the Night
Contributor
Inversion fallacy.
Into the Night
Contributor
No.
Into the Night
Contributor
Usually, but not always.
Like I said.
WRONG. There is no requirement that the President and the Vice President must be from different States. See Amendment 12 and Article II.
gfm7175
Jesus is LORD!
Usually.
Prime example that it's not always the case.
Incorrect. Read Article 2 and the 12th Amendment again. The pertinent language makes reference to the voting actions of the electors, not to the President/Vice President nominees themselves.
Do you not have a large enough vocabulary to put a sentence together without obscenities? Or, do you somehow think it helps you communicate better?
It is not always the case, but there have never been enough faithless electors to affect the outcome.
I said the two people the electors vote for must be from different states--I was referring to the vote of electors and not the individuals.
There was a lawsuit in 2000 claiming electors could not vote for both Bush and Cheney because they were both from Texas, but Cheney claimed WY as his residence and the courts have said that is a rather loose concept.
There is no fallacy in the post saying the constitutional provisions apply to all civil officers and all those impeached and convicted and removed have been federal judges.
No fallacy--just facts.
I said the electors must vote for people from different states.
That was due to the fact that originally electors just voted for two people for president. The person with the most votes (if a majority) became president and the person with the second most votes became VP. Founders assumed the electors would vote for one person from their own state and the other person (not from their state) would become president.