Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ... 13192021222324 LastLast
Results 331 to 345 of 346

Thread: Maine votes out electoral college

  1. #331 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,715
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teflon Don View Post
    Seriously?

    Figgers a Trans Righty like you wouldn’t know
    So you were just making that up or heard Limbaugh (another trans righty) say it. Obviously neither of you know anything about the Constitution.

  2. #332 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Gone to the mattresses
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    1,135
    Thanked 11,622 Times in 8,086 Posts
    Groans
    874
    Groaned 639 Times in 618 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    So you were just making that up or heard Limbaugh (another trans righty) say it. Obviously neither of you know anything about the Constitution.
    Nope. Facts

    I will explain it to you, but first you have to admit you are too stupid to look it up yourself. That is my price

  3. #333 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,715
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teflon Don View Post
    Nope. Facts

    I will explain it to you, but first you have to admit you are too stupid to look it up yourself. That is my price
    There is nothing to look up. No constitutional provision on the electoral college prevent a state from entering into a compact to change the way they choose electors; or, those electors would be free to vote for the national vote winner if they chose.

    If you are trying to claim it has something to do with the guarantee of a republican form of government you have been conned.

  4. #334 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Gone to the mattresses
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    1,135
    Thanked 11,622 Times in 8,086 Posts
    Groans
    874
    Groaned 639 Times in 618 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    There is nothing to look up. No constitutional provision on the electoral college prevent a state from entering into a compact to change the way they choose electors; or, those electors would be free to vote for the national vote winner if they chose.

    If you are trying to claim it has something to do with the guarantee of a republican form of government you have been conned.
    You haven’t paid my price

  5. #335 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Gone to the mattresses
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    1,135
    Thanked 11,622 Times in 8,086 Posts
    Groans
    874
    Groaned 639 Times in 618 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    There is nothing to look up. No constitutional provision on the electoral college prevent a state from entering into a compact to change the way they choose electors; or, those electors would be free to vote for the national vote winner if they chose.

    If you are trying to claim it has something to do with the guarantee of a republican form of government you have been conned.
    P.S.

    It has nothing to do with your last statement. It violates two articles of the Constitution.

    Also even if I told you, your response would be “no it doesn’t”

  6. #336 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,715
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teflon Don View Post
    You haven’t paid my price
    In other words, you cannot name a single constitutional provision that would prohibit any state from giving its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner or prevent the state pact (specifically provided for in the Constitution). I think it is a stupid idea but nothing about it is unconstitutional.

  7. #337 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,715
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teflon Don View Post
    P.S.

    It has nothing to do with your last statement. It violates two articles of the Constitution.

    Also even if I told you, your response would be “no it doesn’t”
    No it doesn't. You are misinterpreting those two provisions because you don't like the proposal. It is simply partisan reaction on your part.

  8. #338 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Gone to the mattresses
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    1,135
    Thanked 11,622 Times in 8,086 Posts
    Groans
    874
    Groaned 639 Times in 618 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    In other words, you cannot name a single constitutional provision that would prohibit any state from giving its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner or prevent the state pact (specifically provided for in the Constitution). I think it is a stupid idea but nothing about it is unconstitutional.
    I can name two

    But until you pay my price I refuse to educate you for free.

  9. #339 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Gone to the mattresses
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    1,135
    Thanked 11,622 Times in 8,086 Posts
    Groans
    874
    Groaned 639 Times in 618 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    No it doesn't. You are misinterpreting those two provisions because you don't like the proposal. It is simply partisan reaction on your part.
    How can you make this claim when you don’t know what Articles I will cite?

    Once you pay the price of admission, I promise to educate you

  10. #340 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,715
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teflon Don View Post
    How can you make this claim when you don’t know what Articles I will cite?

    Once you pay the price of admission, I promise to educate you
    It doesn't matter which articles you cite since none of them prohibit states from distributing electoral votes in the manner they choose as long as it is consistent with the Constitution.

    I am aware of arguments about congressional approval of a pact but most court cases and scholars do not believe it is an issue. Also, Supreme Court rulings give states "wide discretion in selecting the method by which they appoint their electors" (McPherson v. Blacker (1892) and Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015))

    Also, Congress still has many years to approve such a pact in the event enough states join.

  11. #341 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Gone to the mattresses
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    1,135
    Thanked 11,622 Times in 8,086 Posts
    Groans
    874
    Groaned 639 Times in 618 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It doesn't matter which articles you cite since none of them prohibit states from distributing electoral votes in the manner they choose as long as it is consistent with the Constitution.

    I am aware of arguments about congressional approval of a pact but most court cases and scholars do not believe it is an issue. Also, Supreme Court rulings give states "wide discretion in selecting the method by which they appoint their electors" (McPherson v. Blacker (1892) and Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015))

    Also, Congress still has many years to approve such a pact in the event enough states join.

    The Constitution doesn’t need to say they can’t do it for it to be unconstitutional

    You fucking Trans Rightys are as dumb as demalquedacrats

    Also you just proved my point that all you would say is “nuh uh”

  12. #342 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,715
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teflon Don View Post
    The Constitution doesn’t need to say they can’t do it for it to be unconstitutional

    You fucking Trans Rightys are as dumb as demalquedacrats
    Also you just proved my point that all you would say is “nuh uh”
    It has nothing to do with what they can't do, it is about what the Constitution gives the states the power to do without interference from the federal government.

    You trans lefties pretend you favor states' rights and less federal power until a state does something you don't like and then you want to invent some reason for prohibiting it.

  13. #343 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Gone to the mattresses
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    1,135
    Thanked 11,622 Times in 8,086 Posts
    Groans
    874
    Groaned 639 Times in 618 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It has nothing to do with what they can't do, it is about what the Constitution gives the states the power to do without interference from the federal government.

    You trans lefties pretend you favor states' rights and less federal power until a state does something you don't like and then you want to invent some reason for prohibiting it.
    lets try a thought experiment which I know is hard for you Trans Righty's

    Can you name any time in our history that a State has applied its electoral votes based on another state?

    Just one

  14. #344 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,715
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teflon Don View Post
    lets try a thought experiment which I know is hard for you Trans Righty's

    Can you name any time in our history that a State has applied its electoral votes based on another state?

    Just one
    No, I don't think they have never tried to do so. And this pact does not award them based on another state but on the national vote total. Because they have never done something before does not mean they cannot do it as long as it is within their constitutional power to do so.

    It does not abridge anybody's right to vote as some people have claimed about the 14th Amendment.

  15. #345 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Gone to the mattresses
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    1,135
    Thanked 11,622 Times in 8,086 Posts
    Groans
    874
    Groaned 639 Times in 618 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    No, I don't think they have never tried to do so. And this pact does not award them based on another state but on the national vote total. Because they have never done something before does not mean they cannot do it as long as it is within their constitutional power to do so.

    It does not abridge anybody's right to vote as some people have claimed about the 14th Amendment.

    Want to try that again?

    I do think that there is a 14th Amendment argument to make in that it invalidates a persons vote. But, there are still other Constitutional problems you haven't touched on. When you meet my terms, I will explain

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-02-2019, 08:12 AM
  2. Replies: 280
    Last Post: 05-11-2018, 06:08 PM
  3. Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-07-2018, 07:57 PM
  4. Trump wins Arizona's 11 electoral votes
    By Stretch in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-10-2016, 09:58 PM
  5. Make that 365 - Obama won one of Nebraskas electoral votes
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-09-2008, 05:54 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •