Republicans, do you really want Trump to win the ‘popular vote’?

[Pogo]

Don't

States cannot institute laws that overrun and individual's federal constitutional rights. You're out of your mind.

Once AGAIN there is no "federal Constitutional right" to vpte for a President. Never has been. And I already explained this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, which you can't do because I already know what's in the Constitution.

If there was, those nine states I mentioned, and a lot of others in other years, would have had their electoral votes tossed.

Once again, for those who must be new to this country, CITIZENS don't vote for President.
ELECTORS do.

You're playing games with semantics and trying to whittle the argument down to the system in which we vote caries out that task. But, you are conflating that technicality.
If you truly believe this then why vote at all. Just let the electors take care of it. That's essentially the case you are making.

He's basically telling the population of each state that they have no right to choose a President....yeah let's see how that works.

Jo

Once AGAIN ----- Article II, Section 1. Find it in there, bring it here, win a prize.

Don't need to find it.

Jo

NOT ABLE to find it.

Tends to happen with things that do not exist.

 

[justoffal]

Don't

Once AGAIN there is no "federal Constitutional right" to vpte for a President. Never has been. And I already explained this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, which you can't do because I already know what's in the Constitution.

If there was, those nine states I mentioned, and a lot of others in other years, would have had their electoral votes tossed.

Once again, for those who must be new to this country, CITIZENS don't vote for President.
ELECTORS do.

You're playing games with semantics and trying to whittle the argument down to the system in which we vote caries out that task. But, you are conflating that technicality.
If you truly believe this then why vote at all. Just let the electors take care of it. That's essentially the case you are making.

He's basically telling the population of each state that they have no right to choose a President....yeah let's see how that works.

Jo

Once AGAIN ----- Article II, Section 1. Find it in there, bring it here, win a prize.

Don't need to find it.

Jo

NOT ABLE to find it.

Tends to happen with things that do not exist.

Doesn't matter....
The Apollo moon mission isn't mentioned there either....doesn't need to be.

Jo

 

[Pogo]

Don't

You're playing games with semantics and trying to whittle the argument down to the system in which we vote caries out that task. But, you are conflating that technicality.
If you truly believe this then why vote at all. Just let the electors take care of it. That's essentially the case you are making.

He's basically telling the population of each state that they have no right to choose a President....yeah let's see how that works.

Jo

Once AGAIN ----- Article II, Section 1. Find it in there, bring it here, win a prize.

Don't need to find it.

Jo

NOT ABLE to find it.

Tends to happen with things that do not exist.

Doesn't matter....
The Apollo moon mission isn't mentioned there either....doesn't need to be.

Jo

Nobody claimed that citizens have a Constitutional "right" to the Apollo moon mission.

Did they.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Please let go of that tired played out “POPULAR VOTE” shit.
NOBODY I know who will vote for Trump would encourage him to tailor his form of governance to appeal to the populous of Mexifornia and Loon York.
We are a nation divided and we want it to stay that way.....Welcome to the Democrat designed, LefTist built Divided States Of America.

I hope he loses the popular vote in name of TDS.

 

[justoffal]

Don't

He's basically telling the population of each state that they have no right to choose a President....yeah let's see how that works.

Jo

Once AGAIN ----- Article II, Section 1. Find it in there, bring it here, win a prize.

Don't need to find it.

Jo

NOT ABLE to find it.

Tends to happen with things that do not exist.

Doesn't matter....
The Apollo moon mission isn't mentioned there either....doesn't need to be.

Jo

Nobody claimed that citizens have a Constitutional "right" to the Apollo moon mission.

Did they.

But they do have a constitutional right to select a President....even if it's not in there word for word. No one will succeed using your argument. SCOTUS will always prevail
Toward the individual....until 2/3 of elected officials tell them otherwise and I'm not talking commonwealth officials. A state cannot misrepresent it's voters. Never happen. Federal officials will not vote to weaken the federal system.

Jo

 

[Pogo]

Don't

Once AGAIN ----- Article II, Section 1. Find it in there, bring it here, win a prize.

Don't need to find it.

Jo

NOT ABLE to find it.

Tends to happen with things that do not exist.

Doesn't matter....
The Apollo moon mission isn't mentioned there either....doesn't need to be.

Jo

Nobody claimed that citizens have a Constitutional "right" to the Apollo moon mission.

Did they.

But they do have a constitutional right to select a President....even if it's not in there word for word. No one will succeed using your argument. SCOTUS will always prevail
Toward the individual....until 2/3 of elected officials tell them otherwise and I'm not talking commonwealth officials. A state cannot misrepresent it's voters. Never happen. Federal officials will not vote to weaken the federal system.

Jo

You're completely wrong on every count.

There is *NO* --- ZERO --- Constitutional right for any citizen, or citizens collectively, to select a President. Never has been.
AGAIN, the Constitution has no requirement --- ZERO --- at all that there even be an election day for the ordinary citizen AT ALL. Does not exist. What the COTUS does say is that the individual states will select Electors --- HOWEVER THEY WANT TO DO THAT --- to vote for the President. It does *NOT* say, anywhere, that any state has to hold an election, or if it does, that those electors have to IN ANY WAY reflect the results of it. That's what you're not going to find, because it doesn't exist.

Again, I rattled off the names of several states that provably did not reflect their own election results. Actually the way the system works that can apply to AT LEAST 48 states who follow that moronic "winner take all" scheme.

SCOTUS has no bearing on any of that, and NO, there is no Constitutional citizen's right to select a President. Not in there, does not exist, NEVER DID exist. That's why I keep challenging you to find it --- it ain't in there.

 

[justoffal]

Don't
Don't need to find it.

Jo

NOT ABLE to find it.

Tends to happen with things that do not exist.

Doesn't matter....
The Apollo moon mission isn't mentioned there either....doesn't need to be.

Jo

Nobody claimed that citizens have a Constitutional "right" to the Apollo moon mission.

Did they.

But they do have a constitutional right to select a President....even if it's not in there word for word. No one will succeed using your argument. SCOTUS will always prevail
Toward the individual....until 2/3 of elected officials tell them otherwise and I'm not talking commonwealth officials. A state cannot misrepresent it's voters. Never happen. Federal officials will not vote to weaken the federal system.

Jo

You're completely wrong on every count.

There is *NO* --- ZERO --- Constitutional right for any citizen, or citizens collectively, to select a President. Never has been.
AGAIN, the Constitution has no requirement --- ZERO --- at all that there even be an election day for the ordinary citizen AT ALL. Does not exist. What the COTUS does say is that the individual states will select Electors --- HOWEVER THEY WANT TO DO THAT --- to vote for the President. It does *NOT* say, anywhere, that any state has to hold an election, or if it does, that those electors have to IN ANY WAY reflect the results of it. That's what you're not going to find, because it doesn't exist.

Again, I rattled off the names of several states that provably did not reflect their own election results. Actually the way the system works that can apply to AT LEAST 48 states who follow that moronic "winner take all" scheme.

SCOTUS has no bearing on any of that, and NO, there is no Constitutional citizen's right to select a President. Not in there, does not exist, NEVER DID exist. That's why I keep challenging you to find it --- it ain't in there.

You are delusional....200 years of court decisions makes you a confirmation bias idiot.

The Scotus will always champion the individual vote....you're just totally wrong.
This is as basic as the 2/3 vote bullshit.

Go for it dude! Trust me it will be struck down.

Jo

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, but there is a thing called precedent. There has never been a time in which the electorates voted against the will of the people of the state they represent. The SCOTUS would shoo this shit down in a heartbeat.

The SCOTUS doesn't even enter into it. If the Legislature of State X directs that its electors are awarded to Peewee Herman,. then that's it. All Constitutional.

As for "never been a time in which the electorates [sic] [you mean Electors] voted against the will of the people of the state they represent", I already cited nine states that did just that in 2016 alone, and I didn't even name all of them.

States cannot institute laws that overrun and individual's federal constitutional rights. You're out of your mind.

Once AGAIN there is no "federal Constitutional right" to vpte for a President. Never has been. And I already explained this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, which you can't do because I already know what's in the Constitution.

If there was, those nine states I mentioned, and a lot of others in other years, would have had their electoral votes tossed.

Once again, for those who must be new to this country, CITIZENS don't vote for President.
ELECTORS do.

You're playing games with semantics and trying to whittle the argument down to the system in which we vote caries out that task. But, you are conflating that technicality.
If you truly believe this then why vote at all. Just let the electors take care of it. That's essentially the case you are making.

He's basically telling the population of each state that they have no right to choose a President....yeah let's see how that works.

Jo

Well, pogo isnt wrong here. If you read the constitution, it actually doesnt mention citizen voting as part of electing a president. It says legislature chooses the electors and the electors choose the president. There are some scenarios, in case of a tie, that default to the states, but, in the normal scenario, it's the electors who decide. Also, it says the person with the second most number of votes becomes the vp. According to the constitution, the presidential candidate isnt supposed to choose his own running mate.

Of course, we've been doing it so long the way we are, it's pretty much solidified and nothing is going to change it, but, in what pogo is saying, he is correct, according to my reading of those passages.

 

[BrokeLoser]

You claimed this nation continues to grow further apart and now we are just too different. If that is not retarded silly talk you should be able to back it up. Can you?

Not even the most ignorant, most foolish among us would need proof that we are divided like never before in our history. Save it, you're simply making an ass of yourself in public.

I accept your admission that you're just pulling your opinions out of your butt. Thanks for playing.

Well, he usually is, but I don't think he's completely incorrect either. He just talks like a fag and his shit's all retarded.

I think what you meant is that I scare the piss out of faggots and retards with my transparent, no bullshit, Fuck PC sort of style...am I right?

You scare me with your fact-free ranting.

Always find your safe space before reading my posts scared guy.

 

[justoffal]

The SCOTUS doesn't even enter into it. If the Legislature of State X directs that its electors are awarded to Peewee Herman,. then that's it. All Constitutional.

As for "never been a time in which the electorates [sic] [you mean Electors] voted against the will of the people of the state they represent", I already cited nine states that did just that in 2016 alone, and I didn't even name all of them.

States cannot institute laws that overrun and individual's federal constitutional rights. You're out of your mind.

Once AGAIN there is no "federal Constitutional right" to vpte for a President. Never has been. And I already explained this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, which you can't do because I already know what's in the Constitution.

If there was, those nine states I mentioned, and a lot of others in other years, would have had their electoral votes tossed.

Once again, for those who must be new to this country, CITIZENS don't vote for President.
ELECTORS do.

You're playing games with semantics and trying to whittle the argument down to the system in which we vote caries out that task. But, you are conflating that technicality.
If you truly believe this then why vote at all. Just let the electors take care of it. That's essentially the case you are making.

He's basically telling the population of each state that they have no right to choose a President....yeah let's see how that works.

Jo

Well, pogo isnt wrong here. If you read the constitution, it actually doesnt mention citizen voting as part of electing a president. It says legislature chooses the electors and the electors choose the president. There are some scenarios, in case of a tie, that default to the states, but, in the normal scenario, it's the electors who decide. Also, it says the person with the second most number of votes becomes the vp. According to the constitution, the presidential candidate isnt supposed to choose his own running mate.

Of course, we've been doing it so long the way we are, it's pretty much solidified and nothing is going to change it, but, in what pogo is saying, he is correct, according to my reading of those passages.

No he is not correct. The only mention in the constitution is selection of electors.
There was never any intention written into that selection process for the electors to oppose the popular vote of the state. The founding fathers didn't expressly direct that because they probably figured only a retard wouldn't reach that conclusion.

The Constitution gives them the freedom to go out into the gutters and resurrect dead winos for electors if they so choose. It does not give those electors the right to vote in differentiation from the decision of the majority of the state's voters. Any legal forensic on the matter will quickly lead back to the right of the individual vote and will always come to the same conclusion.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Don't
Don't need to find it.

Jo

NOT ABLE to find it.

Tends to happen with things that do not exist.

Doesn't matter....
The Apollo moon mission isn't mentioned there either....doesn't need to be.

Jo

Nobody claimed that citizens have a Constitutional "right" to the Apollo moon mission.

Did they.

But they do have a constitutional right to select a President....even if it's not in there word for word. No one will succeed using your argument. SCOTUS will always prevail
Toward the individual....until 2/3 of elected officials tell them otherwise and I'm not talking commonwealth officials. A state cannot misrepresent it's voters. Never happen. Federal officials will not vote to weaken the federal system.

Jo

You're completely wrong on every count.

There is *NO* --- ZERO --- Constitutional right for any citizen, or citizens collectively, to select a President. Never has been.
AGAIN, the Constitution has no requirement --- ZERO --- at all that there even be an election day for the ordinary citizen AT ALL. Does not exist. What the COTUS does say is that the individual states will select Electors --- HOWEVER THEY WANT TO DO THAT --- to vote for the President. It does *NOT* say, anywhere, that any state has to hold an election, or if it does, that those electors have to IN ANY WAY reflect the results of it. That's what you're not going to find, because it doesn't exist.

Again, I rattled off the names of several states that provably did not reflect their own election results. Actually the way the system works that can apply to AT LEAST 48 states who follow that moronic "winner take all" scheme.

SCOTUS has no bearing on any of that, and NO, there is no Constitutional citizen's right to select a President. Not in there, does not exist, NEVER DID exist. That's why I keep challenging you to find it --- it ain't in there.

Doesn't need to be there...it is the dominant trend of thousands of contributing legal decisions over the past 200 years. You seem to forget that the constitution also did not expressly guarantee black citizenship and yet anyone who reads it honestly will understand that it does.

Jo

 

[Pogo]

NOT ABLE to find it.

Tends to happen with things that do not exist.

Doesn't matter....
The Apollo moon mission isn't mentioned there either....doesn't need to be.

Jo

Nobody claimed that citizens have a Constitutional "right" to the Apollo moon mission.

Did they.

But they do have a constitutional right to select a President....even if it's not in there word for word. No one will succeed using your argument. SCOTUS will always prevail
Toward the individual....until 2/3 of elected officials tell them otherwise and I'm not talking commonwealth officials. A state cannot misrepresent it's voters. Never happen. Federal officials will not vote to weaken the federal system.

Jo

You're completely wrong on every count.

There is *NO* --- ZERO --- Constitutional right for any citizen, or citizens collectively, to select a President. Never has been.
AGAIN, the Constitution has no requirement --- ZERO --- at all that there even be an election day for the ordinary citizen AT ALL. Does not exist. What the COTUS does say is that the individual states will select Electors --- HOWEVER THEY WANT TO DO THAT --- to vote for the President. It does *NOT* say, anywhere, that any state has to hold an election, or if it does, that those electors have to IN ANY WAY reflect the results of it. That's what you're not going to find, because it doesn't exist.

Again, I rattled off the names of several states that provably did not reflect their own election results. Actually the way the system works that can apply to AT LEAST 48 states who follow that moronic "winner take all" scheme.

SCOTUS has no bearing on any of that, and NO, there is no Constitutional citizen's right to select a President. Not in there, does not exist, NEVER DID exist. That's why I keep challenging you to find it --- it ain't in there.

You are delusional....200 years of court decisions makes you a confirmation bias idiot.

The Scotus will always champion the individual vote....you're just totally wrong.
This is as basic as the 2/3 vote bullshit.

Go for it dude! Trust me it will be struck down.

Jo

For the nineteenth time ---- go find me anywhere in the Constitution that gives you a vote for President.

ANYWHERE.

 

[Pogo]

NOT ABLE to find it.

Tends to happen with things that do not exist.

Doesn't matter....
The Apollo moon mission isn't mentioned there either....doesn't need to be.

Jo

Nobody claimed that citizens have a Constitutional "right" to the Apollo moon mission.

Did they.

But they do have a constitutional right to select a President....even if it's not in there word for word. No one will succeed using your argument. SCOTUS will always prevail
Toward the individual....until 2/3 of elected officials tell them otherwise and I'm not talking commonwealth officials. A state cannot misrepresent it's voters. Never happen. Federal officials will not vote to weaken the federal system.

Jo

You're completely wrong on every count.

There is *NO* --- ZERO --- Constitutional right for any citizen, or citizens collectively, to select a President. Never has been.
AGAIN, the Constitution has no requirement --- ZERO --- at all that there even be an election day for the ordinary citizen AT ALL. Does not exist. What the COTUS does say is that the individual states will select Electors --- HOWEVER THEY WANT TO DO THAT --- to vote for the President. It does *NOT* say, anywhere, that any state has to hold an election, or if it does, that those electors have to IN ANY WAY reflect the results of it. That's what you're not going to find, because it doesn't exist.

Again, I rattled off the names of several states that provably did not reflect their own election results. Actually the way the system works that can apply to AT LEAST 48 states who follow that moronic "winner take all" scheme.

SCOTUS has no bearing on any of that, and NO, there is no Constitutional citizen's right to select a President. Not in there, does not exist, NEVER DID exist. That's why I keep challenging you to find it --- it ain't in there.

Doesn't need to be there...it is the dominant trend of thousands of contributing legal decisions over the past 200 years. You seem to forget that the constitution also did not expressly guarantee black citizenship and yet anyone who reads it honestly will understand that it does.

Jo

Actually yeah it does, although it doesn't specify "black" because it doesn't need to. See Fourteenth Amendment, to wit:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

 

[Pogo]

The SCOTUS doesn't even enter into it. If the Legislature of State X directs that its electors are awarded to Peewee Herman,. then that's it. All Constitutional.

As for "never been a time in which the electorates [sic] [you mean Electors] voted against the will of the people of the state they represent", I already cited nine states that did just that in 2016 alone, and I didn't even name all of them.

States cannot institute laws that overrun and individual's federal constitutional rights. You're out of your mind.

Once AGAIN there is no "federal Constitutional right" to vpte for a President. Never has been. And I already explained this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, which you can't do because I already know what's in the Constitution.

If there was, those nine states I mentioned, and a lot of others in other years, would have had their electoral votes tossed.

Once again, for those who must be new to this country, CITIZENS don't vote for President.
ELECTORS do.

You're playing games with semantics and trying to whittle the argument down to the system in which we vote caries out that task. But, you are conflating that technicality.
If you truly believe this then why vote at all. Just let the electors take care of it. That's essentially the case you are making.

He's basically telling the population of each state that they have no right to choose a President....yeah let's see how that works.

Jo

Well, pogo isnt wrong here. If you read the constitution, it actually doesnt mention citizen voting as part of electing a president. It says legislature chooses the electors and the electors choose the president. There are some scenarios, in case of a tie, that default to the states, but, in the normal scenario, it's the electors who decide. Also, it says the person with the second most number of votes becomes the vp. According to the constitution, the presidential candidate isnt supposed to choose his own running mate.

Of course, we've been doing it so long the way we are, it's pretty much solidified and nothing is going to change it, but, in what pogo is saying, he is correct, according to my reading of those passages.

Thank you. Wee minor correction, the runner-up no longer gets the VP job; they vote for that separately now.

Fun fact: if we did still do it that way Mike Pence would be the President today. He got more electoral votes than Rump did.

 

[Pogo]

States cannot institute laws that overrun and individual's federal constitutional rights. You're out of your mind.

Once AGAIN there is no "federal Constitutional right" to vpte for a President. Never has been. And I already explained this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, which you can't do because I already know what's in the Constitution.

If there was, those nine states I mentioned, and a lot of others in other years, would have had their electoral votes tossed.

Once again, for those who must be new to this country, CITIZENS don't vote for President.
ELECTORS do.

You're playing games with semantics and trying to whittle the argument down to the system in which we vote caries out that task. But, you are conflating that technicality.
If you truly believe this then why vote at all. Just let the electors take care of it. That's essentially the case you are making.

He's basically telling the population of each state that they have no right to choose a President....yeah let's see how that works.

Jo

Well, pogo isnt wrong here. If you read the constitution, it actually doesnt mention citizen voting as part of electing a president. It says legislature chooses the electors and the electors choose the president. There are some scenarios, in case of a tie, that default to the states, but, in the normal scenario, it's the electors who decide. Also, it says the person with the second most number of votes becomes the vp. According to the constitution, the presidential candidate isnt supposed to choose his own running mate.

Of course, we've been doing it so long the way we are, it's pretty much solidified and nothing is going to change it, but, in what pogo is saying, he is correct, according to my reading of those passages.

No he is not correct. The only mention in the constitution is selection of electors.
There was never any intention written into that selection process for the electors to oppose the popular vote of the state. The founding fathers didn't expressly direct that because they probably figured only a retard wouldn't reach that conclusion.

There's no mention of that because THERE WAS NO POPULAR VOTE in the states. When it all started the state legislatures were simply appointing Electors --- there was no "election day", period. As late as 1860 South Carolina was still doing it that way -- nobody went out and voted for a POTUS there until 1868.

The Constitution gives them the freedom to go out into the gutters and resurrect dead winos for electors if they so choose. It does not give those electors the right to vote in differentiation from the decision of the majority of the state's voters. Any legal forensic on the matter will quickly lead back to the right of the individual vote and will always come to the same conclusion.

Jo

There IS, NO. SUCH. RIGHT. I've told you this twenty times now and challenged you to prove me wrong. You can't do it.

And once AGAIN --- state Electors ALREADY vote in differentiation from the majority of the state's voters. My state (NC) did it in 2016. So did the electors of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Arizona and Utah, and those are just off the top of my head. NOBODY won a majority of any of those states. Go ahead, look that up too as long as you're busily not looking things up.

This is one of the problems of the WTA/EC that we've articulated over and over and over and over.

WAKE UP.

 

[EvMetro]

Please let go of that tired played out “POPULAR VOTE” shit.
NOBODY I know who will vote for Trump would encourage him to tailor his form of governance to appeal to the populous of Mexifornia and Loon York.
We are a nation divided and we want it to stay that way.....Welcome to the Democrat designed, LefTist built Divided States Of America.

I do not want Trump to win the popular vote. I would be happiest if he would just win the ec like he did when he kicked Hillary's ass. I absolutely love it when lefties are stuck having to claim that Trump lost when he really won, I can never get tired of that. Every time a lefty claims Trump lost the presidential election by 3 million votes, it's as sweet as watching a YouTube video compilation of the lefty media predicting how Trump would never win, or a compilation of lefties crying in Hillary's camp. Please Trump, kick ass and win the EC, but please don't win the PV.

 

[ThisIsMe]

States cannot institute laws that overrun and individual's federal constitutional rights. You're out of your mind.

Once AGAIN there is no "federal Constitutional right" to vpte for a President. Never has been. And I already explained this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, which you can't do because I already know what's in the Constitution.

If there was, those nine states I mentioned, and a lot of others in other years, would have had their electoral votes tossed.

Once again, for those who must be new to this country, CITIZENS don't vote for President.
ELECTORS do.

You're playing games with semantics and trying to whittle the argument down to the system in which we vote caries out that task. But, you are conflating that technicality.
If you truly believe this then why vote at all. Just let the electors take care of it. That's essentially the case you are making.

He's basically telling the population of each state that they have no right to choose a President....yeah let's see how that works.

Jo

Well, pogo isnt wrong here. If you read the constitution, it actually doesnt mention citizen voting as part of electing a president. It says legislature chooses the electors and the electors choose the president. There are some scenarios, in case of a tie, that default to the states, but, in the normal scenario, it's the electors who decide. Also, it says the person with the second most number of votes becomes the vp. According to the constitution, the presidential candidate isnt supposed to choose his own running mate.

Of course, we've been doing it so long the way we are, it's pretty much solidified and nothing is going to change it, but, in what pogo is saying, he is correct, according to my reading of those passages.

No he is not correct. The only mention in the constitution is selection of electors.
There was never any intention written into that selection process for the electors to oppose the popular vote of the state. The founding fathers didn't expressly direct that because they probably figured only a retard wouldn't reach that conclusion.

The Constitution gives them the freedom to go out into the gutters and resurrect dead winos for electors if they so choose. It does not give those electors the right to vote in differentiation from the decision of the majority of the state's voters. Any legal forensic on the matter will quickly lead back to the right of the individual vote and will always come to the same conclusion.

Jo

PolitiFact - U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says

 

[DrLove]

The error was corrected - Illegals can't vote nor would they risk it - STOP LYING Rumpbot!!

The DMV says the error did not allow anyone living in the country without authorization to register to vote

California DMV may have botched 23,000 voter registrations

No risk, no reward.

"mistakenly accepted"

LOL

Her and couple more millions.

One is millions? Okay. But at some point one would think that you people could stop repeating President Poopstain's whoppers and come up with a few of your own.

Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth

 

[justoffal]

Doesn't matter....
The Apollo moon mission isn't mentioned there either....doesn't need to be.

Jo

Nobody claimed that citizens have a Constitutional "right" to the Apollo moon mission.

Did they.

But they do have a constitutional right to select a President....even if it's not in there word for word. No one will succeed using your argument. SCOTUS will always prevail
Toward the individual....until 2/3 of elected officials tell them otherwise and I'm not talking commonwealth officials. A state cannot misrepresent it's voters. Never happen. Federal officials will not vote to weaken the federal system.

Jo

You're completely wrong on every count.

There is *NO* --- ZERO --- Constitutional right for any citizen, or citizens collectively, to select a President. Never has been.
AGAIN, the Constitution has no requirement --- ZERO --- at all that there even be an election day for the ordinary citizen AT ALL. Does not exist. What the COTUS does say is that the individual states will select Electors --- HOWEVER THEY WANT TO DO THAT --- to vote for the President. It does *NOT* say, anywhere, that any state has to hold an election, or if it does, that those electors have to IN ANY WAY reflect the results of it. That's what you're not going to find, because it doesn't exist.

Again, I rattled off the names of several states that provably did not reflect their own election results. Actually the way the system works that can apply to AT LEAST 48 states who follow that moronic "winner take all" scheme.

SCOTUS has no bearing on any of that, and NO, there is no Constitutional citizen's right to select a President. Not in there, does not exist, NEVER DID exist. That's why I keep challenging you to find it --- it ain't in there.

You are delusional....200 years of court decisions makes you a confirmation bias idiot.

The Scotus will always champion the individual vote....you're just totally wrong.
This is as basic as the 2/3 vote bullshit.

Go for it dude! Trust me it will be struck down.

Jo

For the nineteenth time ---- go find me anywhere in the Constitution that gives you a vote for President.



ANYWHERE.

For the twentieth time....it doesn't need to be there any more than the Apollo moon mission does.

I'll tell you what is there though..2/3 required
To make that change. No 2/3.....no change.
But do knock yourself out for nothing. YOU WILL LOSE ON THIS ISSUE.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Once AGAIN there is no "federal Constitutional right" to vpte for a President. Never has been. And I already explained this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, which you can't do because I already know what's in the Constitution.

If there was, those nine states I mentioned, and a lot of others in other years, would have had their electoral votes tossed.

Once again, for those who must be new to this country, CITIZENS don't vote for President.
ELECTORS do.

You're playing games with semantics and trying to whittle the argument down to the system in which we vote caries out that task. But, you are conflating that technicality.
If you truly believe this then why vote at all. Just let the electors take care of it. That's essentially the case you are making.

He's basically telling the population of each state that they have no right to choose a President....yeah let's see how that works.

Jo

Well, pogo isnt wrong here. If you read the constitution, it actually doesnt mention citizen voting as part of electing a president. It says legislature chooses the electors and the electors choose the president. There are some scenarios, in case of a tie, that default to the states, but, in the normal scenario, it's the electors who decide. Also, it says the person with the second most number of votes becomes the vp. According to the constitution, the presidential candidate isnt supposed to choose his own running mate.

Of course, we've been doing it so long the way we are, it's pretty much solidified and nothing is going to change it, but, in what pogo is saying, he is correct, according to my reading of those passages.

No he is not correct. The only mention in the constitution is selection of electors.
There was never any intention written into that selection process for the electors to oppose the popular vote of the state. The founding fathers didn't expressly direct that because they probably figured only a retard wouldn't reach that conclusion.

The Constitution gives them the freedom to go out into the gutters and resurrect dead winos for electors if they so choose. It does not give those electors the right to vote in differentiation from the decision of the majority of the state's voters. Any legal forensic on the matter will quickly lead back to the right of the individual vote and will always come to the same conclusion.

Jo

PolitiFact - U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says

Why do you think we have the Federal Bench
and 200 years of decisions that bolster the right of the individual vote? YOU WILL LOSE THIS ARGUMENT IN SCOTUS EVERY TIME.

Jo