Trump Frump

**twonabomber** · 11-02-2016, 07:28 PM

Sure, if you want the DOJ to come knocking on City Hall's door.

**Kristy** · 11-02-2016, 07:32 PM

Nope, my Colorado privilege.

You and Cleveland can go fuck yourselves

**DONNIEP** · 11-02-2016, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by twonabomber

Sure, if you want the DOJ to come knocking on City Hall's door.

Ah, I think all that's about to change just a little bit.

**Seshmeister** · 11-02-2016, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by FORD

Well, one thing is for sure.....

Due to Mitch McTurtle's obstructionism, they won't have the option of 5 BCE tools on the Supreme Court deciding another election.

(ironically enough, they might have voted for Hillary this time anyway, as she herself is BCE endorsed)

I think a funnier one which is not illegal or impossible is that Evan McMullin wins Utah and neither Drumpf or Clinton get their 270 electoral votes.

The House of Representatives could appoint McMullin president as a compromise candidate.

I don't know anything about him but chances are he has to be better than the other 2?

**Seshmeister** · 11-02-2016, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by DONNIEP

Ah, I think all that's about to change just a little bit.

You may be right.

You should bet some cash on it, just looked and here you can still get 2-1 for the Drumpf win.

Brexit was 5-1 when the polls closed.

**twonabomber** · 11-02-2016, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Kristy

So as per usual, no one here has anything original to say.

Boring.

You post a variation of the same five or six posts. You don't have any business bitching.

**FORD** · 11-02-2016, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Seshmeister

I think a funnier one which is not illegal or impossible is that Evan McMullin wins Utah and neither Drumpf or Clinton get their 270 electoral votes.

The House of Representatives could appoint McMullin president as a compromise candidate.

I don't know anything about him but chances are he has to be better than the other 2?

All I know about him is that he's Mormon and "ex" CIA. I'm not comfortable with either one as President, let alone the combination of the two.

**Seshmeister** · 11-02-2016, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by twonabomber

You post a variation of the same five or six posts. You don't have any business bitching.

Over a year maybe, it's been stuck on about two for months now.

**Seshmeister** · 11-02-2016, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by FORD

All I know about him is that he's Mormon and "ex" CIA. I'm not comfortable with either one as President, let alone the combination of the two.

He can protect America with his magical underwear!

**cadaverdog** · 11-02-2016, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Seshmeister

The House of Representatives could appoint McMullin president as a compromise candidate.

I don't think that's how it works here.

**Seshmeister** · 11-02-2016, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by cadaverdog

I don't think that's how it works here.

Look into it.

**Seshmeister** · 11-02-2016, 09:17 PM

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...

Page not found – Politicops

http://politicops.com/hannity-liberals-hire-13yo-girls-seduce-trump-blame-hes-just-man/

Hannity: “Liberals Hire 13yo Girls To Seduce Trump And Then Blame Him For It? He’s Just A Man”

Written by Lea Vat Kens November 2nd 2016

Fox News host Sean Hannity prepared his audience for yet another woman coming forward with accusations of sexual assault against Donald Trump, insisting the newest charge against the Republican presidential candidate is “going nowhere.” “I told you there was going to be some bomb this week,” Hannity said Wednesday on the Sean Hannity Show. “There’s this woman that had claimed that Donald Trump raped her when she was thirteen years old and is going to break her silence on Wednesday afternoon,” Hannity said. “So that’s the one they’ve been holding back on.”

“And here’s the key thing I personally have a problem with here,” he added. “Imagine you’re a Democrat, right. You’re a liberal and your sole objective from the moment you wake up in the morning till the moment you go back to bed at night is figuring out how to take down Donald Trump. And trust me, there are people like that all over the place, it’s incredible. Anyway, that’s all you think about, 24/7. And after you’ve tried every possible trick in the book – and have taken advantage of Trump’s own incidents against him – you realize he’s just too tough of a nut to crack, right. So, what do you do next?”

He continued, “Well, you start thinking outside the box. And since you’ve already exhausted every child molester, serial rapist, misogynist, bigoted and every other angle you could think of, you’re down to one option. You come up with this idea to pay some random 13-year-old girl a handsome amount of money to accuse Donald Trump of raping her. Now, we’re talking here about a guy who’s had so many girls and women in his life he doesn’t remember 99% of them. And naturally, when a cute, little 13-year-old girl asks him if he remembers raping her, he’s going to go with ‘I don’t think so, but I’m not sure.’”

“So, your plan is working like a charm up until this point,” Hannity said. “Now it’s time to get everybody on Trump’s case and take him down once and for all. But, here’s why that won’t work either – you paid an underage girl to lie and accuse an innocent man of rape, and then you want to convince the public that he should be blamed for it? Basically, your goal is to blame a billionaire for raping a 13-year-old girl he never even met? This is Donald Trump we’re talking about here – he could have small girls by the bucket loads waiting for him anytime, anywhere, including importing foreign ones from abroad. They’re much easier to work with because, after all, they don’t fight back as hard as our girls.”

“But, anyway – great plan, genius, it’s really fail-proof. And you know what the best part of it is? You’re putting all your money on the public condemning a man for falling for the spell of a woman, or in this case, young girl. How would you expect him to react? ‘Hey, here’s a young girl who’s DTF, but I think I’ll sit this one out?’ Yeah – said no man ever. No normal male would ever turn down free sex, and yes, dear ladies – that also goes for those snot-nosed, geek types of men you have doing your choirs at home. If it’s a tight hole and it’s attached to two legs, preferably belonging to a female homo sapiens, us guys are good to go. And trust me, Donald Trump is no different in that regard,” Hannity concluded.

**FORD** · 11-02-2016, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by cadaverdog

I don't think that's how it works here.

Actually Sesh is correct. In the event that no candidate has the required electoral votes (270) the election would go to the House of Representatives.

In the case of an Electoral College deadlock or if no candidate receives the majority of votes, a “contingent election” is held. The election of the President goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote for one of the top three contenders to determine a winner.

Only two Presidential elections (1800 and 1824) have been decided in the House.

Though not officially a contingent election, in 1876, South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana submitted certificates of elections for both candidates. A bipartisan commission of Representatives, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices, reviewed the ballots and awarded all three state’s electoral votes to Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio, who won the presidency by a single electoral vote.

See Electoral College and Indecisive Elections for more information on Contingent Elections.

Electoral College Fast Facts | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

http://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/

Established in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the Electoral College is the formal body which elects the President and Vice President of the United States. Each state has as many "electors" in the Electoral College as it has Representatives and Senators in the United States Congress, and the District of Columbia has three electors. When voters go to the polls in a Presidential election, they actually vote for the slate of electors who have vowed to cast their ballots for that ticket in the Electoral College.ElectorsMost states require that all electoral votes go to the candidate who receives the most votes in that state. After state election officials certify the popular vote of each state, the winning slate of electors meet in the state capital and cast two ballots—one for Vice President and one for President. Electors cannot vote for a Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate who both hail from an elector’s home state. For instance, if both candidates come from New York, New York’s electors may vote for one of the candidates, but not both. In this hypothetical scenario, however, Delaware’s electors may vote for both New York candidates. This requirement is a holdover from early American history when one of the country’s major political fault lines divided big states from small states. The founders hoped this rule would prevent the largest states from dominating presidential elections.Maine and Nebraska employ a “district system” in which two at-large electors vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote and one elector votes for the popular winner in each congressional district. Although it is not unconstitutional for electors to vote for someone other than those to whom they pledged their support, many states, as well as the District of Columbia, “bind” electors to their candidate using oaths and fines. During the nineteenth century, “faithless electors”—those who broke their pledge and voted for someone else—were rare, but not uncommon, particularly when it came to Vice Presidents. In the modern era, faithless electors are rarer still, and have never determined the outcome of a presidential election.There has been one faithless elector in each of the following elections: 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1988. A blank ballot was cast in 2000. In 2016, seven electors broke with their state on the presidential ballot and six did so on the vice presidential ballot. ProcedureSince the mid-20th century, Congress has met in a Joint Session every four years on January 6 at 1:00 p.m. to tally votes in the Electoral College. The sitting Vice President presides over the meeting and opens the votes from each state in alphabetical order. He passes the votes to four tellers—two from the House and two from the Senate—who announce the results. House tellers include one Representative from each party and are appointed by the Speaker. At the end of the count, the Vice President then announces the name of the next President.With the ratification of the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution (and starting with the 75th Congress in 1937), the electoral votes are counted before the newly sworn-in Congress, elected the previous November.The date of the count was changed in 1957, 1985, 1989, 1997, 2009, and 2013. Sitting Vice Presidents John C. Breckinridge (1861), Richard Nixon (1961), and Al Gore (2001) all announced that they had lost their own bid for the Presidency. ObjectionsSince 1887, 3 U.S.C. 15 has set the method for objections by Members of Congress to electoral votes. During the Joint Session, lawmakers may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by at least one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the Joint Session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately for no more than two hours; each Member may speak for five minutes or less. After each house votes on whether to accept the objection, the Joint Session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If both chambers agree to the objection, the electoral votes in question are not counted. If either chamber opposes the objection, the votes are counted.Objections to the Electoral College votes were recorded in 1969, 2005, and 2021. In all cases, the House and Senate rejected the objections and the votes in question were counted.Amending the ProcessOriginally, the Electoral College provided the Constitutional Convention with a compromise between two main proposals: the popular election of the President and the election of the President by Congress.Prior to 1804, electors made no distinction between candidates when voting for president and vice president; the candidate with the majority of votes became President and the candidate with the second-most votes became Vice President. The Twelfth Amendment—proposed in 1803 and ratified in 1804—changed that original process, requiring electors to separate their votes and denote who they voted for as President and Vice President. See Electoral College and Indecisive Elections for more information.The District of Columbia has had three electors since the Twenty-third Amendment was ratified in 1961.There have been other attempts to change the system, particularly after cases in which a candidate wins the popular vote, but loses in the Electoral College. Five times a candidate has won the popular vote and lost the election. Andrew Jackson in 1824 (to John Quincy Adams); Samuel Tilden in 1876 (to Rutherford B. Hayes); Grover Cleveland in 1888 (to Benjamin Harrison); Al Gore in 2000 (to George W. Bush); Hillary Clinton in 2016 (to Donald J. Trump).The closest Congress has come to amending the Electoral College since 1804 was during the 91st Congress (1969–1971) when the House passed H.J. Res. 681 which would have eliminated the Electoral College altogether and replaced it with the direct election of a President and Vice President (and a run off if no candidate received more than 40 percent of the vote). The resolution cleared the House 338 to 70, but failed to pass the Senate.Contingent ElectionsIn the case of an Electoral College deadlock or if no candidate receives the majority of votes, a “contingent election” is held. The election of the President goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts a single vote for one of the top three contenders from the initial election to determine a winner.Only two Presidential elections (1800 and 1824) have been decided in the House.Though not officially a contingent election, in 1876, South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana submitted certificates of elections for both candidates. A bipartisan commission of Representatives, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices, reviewed the ballots and awarded all three state’s electoral votes to Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio, who won the presidency by a single electoral vote.See Electoral College and Indecisive Elections for more information on Contingent Elections.

Hillcunt & Drumpf would be expected to be the top two winners of electoral votes. If McMullen won Utah, and neither Jill Stein or Gary Johnson won any states, McMullen would be the third in the mix for the House members to vote on.

Electors - or House members, in this case - are "expected" to vote the way the popular vote in their state did, but there's no legal requirement for them to do so. So Republicans in Congress who hate Trump - and let's face it, that's a lot of them - could vote for McMullen, even though his electoral vote count was far less than the others. Arguably they could even try to get Democrats to dump Hillary for this guy, though I don't see the Progressive Caucus or the Black Caucus going for this guy. Some of the "Blue Dog' DINOs (Republicans pretending to be Democrats) might well do it, as they delusionally believe Hillary is a "liberal"

So it's a big loophole, but very possible.

**Seshmeister** · 11-02-2016, 09:28 PM

It's very unlikely I think...

My bookie has it at 650-1.

**vandeleur** · 11-02-2016, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Seshmeister

It's very unlikely I think...

My bookie has it at 650-1.

You have a weird bookie

Trump Frump

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment