Can the Electoral College Elect Clinton legally?

[flghtr65]

It would be legal and it could happen. However, it's not likely. In states where it is not legal for the elector to vote opposite of election results, the elector would just pay small fine if he/she chose to do so.

From the link:

“If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win,” the petition states. “However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine – which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay! We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states’ votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton.”


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...z&OCID=DELLDHP

[DSK]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

It would be legal and it could happen. However, it's not likely. In states where it is not legal for the elector to vote opposite of election results, the elector would just pay small fine if he/she chose to do so.

From the link:

“If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win,” the petition states. “However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine – which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay! We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states’ votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton.”


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...z&OCID=DELLDHP

I'm not afraid of it happening, but I think if it did, you might finally see white people riot.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

It would be legal and it could happen. However, it's not likely. In states where it is not legal for the elector to vote opposite of election results, the elector would just pay small fine if he/she chose to do so.

From the link:

“If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win,” the petition states. “However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine – which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay! We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states’ votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton.”


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...z&OCID=DELLDHP

welcome back fagger65 .. this dog won't hunt boy. your "hail mary" petition means nothing legally. i don't care if it gets a zillion signatures. first, many states have laws against faithless electors. let's say you get enough electors some 40 or so would do it to change their votes.

guess who ratifies the electoral college? the Republican controlled Congress and Senate. they'll just invalidate the so-called faithless votes and declare Trump President.

it's your new world order. get used to it. bahahaaaa

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

welcome back . i don't care if it gets a zillion signatures. first, many states have laws against faithless electors. let's say you get enough electors some 40 or so would do it to change their votes.

Can you fucking read hillbilly? One more time boy, from the link:

Q: Can the Electoral College elect Hillary Clinton on Dec. 19?
A: Yes, it may be constitutionally possible;

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Can you fucking read hillbilly? One more time boy, from the link:

Q: Can the Electoral College elect Hillary Clinton on Dec. 19?
A: Yes, it may be constitutionally possible;

Liar.

You are ate up with it bad. Just like you clinging to all the Obamacare lies and trying to justifying them by any means necessary.

Oh, and by the way.....





LIAR.

[CuteOldGuy]

Yes, they could elect Hillary and it would be Constitutional. But they won't. You lost, Fluffy. Find a safe space and a therapy dog. It will help you.

[dilbert firestorm]

Faithless electors.

You're also forgetting the soros emails about bribing those electors to vote for clinton. It remains to be seen if this happens.

if enough republican electors (at least 38) flip their states votes toward Clinton, electing her in the process. There is nothing the states can do about that.

It is constitutional. The U.S. Supreme court ruled that states cannot force faithless electors to change their votes.

It doesn't really matter too much as Congress is the one who will accept or reject the recommendation of the electors when they submit their votes in January.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes, they could elect Hillary and it would be Constitutional.

Actually not "Constitutional" ... many of the electorate are legally bound to the vote of the State that they represent.

If they broke the contract and invalidated the election that selected them, it would be unConstitutional on several levels:

due process
disenfranchisement
equal protection
deprivation of contract

...just to name a few.

Fortunately for this country we still have States, although some seem to believe it more "expedient" to do away with them.

Just remember: The shoe is on the other foot soon enough.

What a bunch of cry-baby anarchists.

It is becoming increasingly clear why most of you HillaryNoMore apologists simply look the other way when there is bribery, lying, criminal activity, and extortion by HillaryNoMore and her alleged "husband"! Your philosophy is: The end justifies the means. Clintonistic.

[roaringfork]

Was this what they were going to talk about on that Tucker Carlson show last night? The teaser had me interested and a little worried, but not enough for me to miss my bedtime.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by roaringfork

Was this what they were going to talk about on that Tucker Carlson show last night? The teaser had me interested and a little worried, but not enough for me to miss my bedtime.

The numbers don't work for a "reset" of the election decision.

The Anti-Democracy-Free-Stuff-Anti-Gun Anarchists lose again.

[Guest123018-4]

Talk about the potential to start a civil war.
I wonder which side is the most armed and stocked with ammunition?

[LexusLover]

This conversation is like seeking to relocate goal posts AFTER the superbowl!

Why don't those of you who want to change the rules after the fact go burglarize/vandalize a shoe store and steal some Nikes! No bandanas!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

You're also forgetting the soros emails about bribing those electors to vote for clinton. It remains to be seen if this happens.

Seriously? I would like to see a link for that. As much as I loathe George Soros, I doubt if he would be that stupid. During the campaign, the libtards screamed that the Russians were trying to manipulate our election by leaking DNC and Podesta emails via wikileaks (although no one denied their authenticity, and blaming the Russians was a nice way to deflect from the content of those emails). In terms of meddling with our election results, this would be much, much worse. Again, please show me your source where Soros urged anyone to bribe electors into changing their votes.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Seriously? I would like to see a link for that. As much as I loathe Soros, I doubt if he would be that stupid. The libtards complained that the Russians were trying to manipulate our election by leaking DNC emails via wikileaks (although no one denied their authenticity). In terms of meddling with our election results, this would be much, much worse. Again, please show me your source where Soros urged anyone to bribe electors into changing their votes.

The "Russians Are Coming" story-line was bullshit to divert attention away from the content of the emails being published.

Who really gives a fuck how there were obtained ... the substance was the important part. You can tell it really made a difference to the voters that the "Russians were coming"!!!

It only makes a difference to a pack of weak-minded whimps who whine about the outcome of an election that were unable to steal with their "dirty tricks," which only reveals why they should never be in charge of any more than sweeping floors ... and that task is too much for their incompetency.

I hope Soros goes around passing out money for changing votes and the Feds indict his ass for bribery with each count stacked on the other one at sentencing ... no release or supervision. He gets a 10x10 in solitary with one hour a day in the sunshine with no privileges, limited visits, and only a Bible to read.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

It would be legal and it could happen. However, it's not likely. In states where it is not legal for the elector to vote opposite of election results, the elector would just pay small fine if he/she chose to do so.

From the link:

“If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win,” the petition states. “However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine – which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay! We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states’ votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton.”


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...z&OCID=DELLDHP

The only way that could be legal is if tonight Trump passed away or sustained an abrupt illness or injury that would render him unable to serve as president. Other than that not going to happen.


Jim