Comey drafted Clinton Exoneration... (1 Viewer)

[LetsGoBrandon]

Can you tell me the last time when state legislatures did NOT allow people to vote in their state for President?

Are you really taking the position that a state legislature can deny people the right to vote for President?

Absolutely. Most states either ban or restrict felons from voting. And if you do not show a valid state photo ID, my state will stop you from voting.

 

[haymarket]

You shot down your own argument with the term: "United States of America. There are 50 0f those United States and they still maintain a level of sovereignity.

Get a clue for heavens sake. The united States of America is our country. The President of the USA is a national office for ALL the American people. In fact, it is the one elected office that can say that.

He is not the President of the 50 states but President of the United States of America - the one nation.

 

[haymarket]

What sticky situation would that be? I only made a point. Take it or leave it. I don't really care.

Since I have already crushed and flushed it there is nothing remaining from you to take or leave.

 

[JackA]

You are in fantasy land.

And you are in ignorance land. I won't do your research for you. Google what you highlighted.

 

[haymarket]

Again, you are contradicting yourself. Do you understand the term "United States of America"? We are 50 states that make up the nation: "America". The president is our national leader, however there are powers that he does not have that are relegated to the states. And the electoral college that you are so butthurt over is the way we have elected presidents since the nation was founded.

You having to resort to a term like "butthurt" invoking anal rape is disgusting and reveals much about your tactics here.

 

[haymarket]

Absolutely. Most states either ban or restrict felons from voting. And if you do not show a valid state photo ID, my state will stop you from voting.

WOW!!!! That went fifty miles over your head. You know damn well what I am asking and its not about felons. When is the last time a state legislature declared that the people who comprise their state - the normal usual legal voters up until now - were not going to be able to vote in the presidential election?

 

[Stinger]

Get a clue for heavens sake. The united States of America is our country. The President of the USA is a national office for ALL the American people. In fact, it is the one elected office that can say that.

He is not the President of the 50 states but President of the United States of America - the one nation.

Do you have a point in all this or something?

He is President of the United States of America. Not the United People. The STATES elect the President. Should he give heed to the people of course. Does he need to get people to vote for him in the respective states? Yes. But is the goal to win the most national votes or win the most state electors by winning the most states?

Why do you think a President can win the Presidency while losing a tally of all the votes cast in all the state elections that are held even winning by a 2 to 1 margin? The STATES elect the President.

And again your state legislature could choose to appoint the electors without your vote and the Constitution gives you no protection, it gives your state legislature that authority to appoint them in the manner it sees fit.

 

[rocket88]

No sport. I gave my take. While I support Trump, I do not have to agree 100% with him. He gave Comey the benefit of doubt after he re-opened the investigation into Hillary's emails. While I was delighted that he re-opened the investigation, that does not mean I had new found respect for Comey. He lost any respect I might have had when he went out of his way to clear Hillary Von Pantsuit in his July press conference. And to be honest, until the new FBI Director cleans house, I have very little respect for the FBI, not just over the email scandal, but other scandals. For instance when the FBI investigated the IRS withholding or delaying tax free status for Tea Party groups, they concluded the investigation without interviewing even one of the victims. As for contradictions, you libruls do it all the time. Comey was yoru friend when he declared he was not going to prosecute Hillary over the email scandal....then your enemy when he reopened the investigation just days before the election. then when Trump fired him, you were suddenly friends with Comey again as you thought he was going to tank Trump in his testimony in the Senate. In effect, he tanked himself.

I never suddenly liked him. He did the right thing reopening the e-mail investigation when new evidence came to light. He did the right thing continuing the Trump/Russia investigations. Seems he may have had something other than party on his mind. It's a shame you don't.

 

[rocket88]

I believe there is, however many blue states, especially California are resisting Justice Depart efforts to gather that evidence.

A few red ones too. In some states, giving the information would be against state law. Secretaries of State should follow the law, don't you think?

 

[Stinger]

The office of President of the USA is a national office which represents all the people of the USA. It is a principle of one many one vote that no person shall have any more voting power for any office than any other person voting in that same election.

As already noted the President is not elected by one man one vote. You do realize the President is not elected by your vote in November, that only elects the electors for your state which are proportionate to the populations of the states.

State electors can vote for anyone they decide to vote for and some have indeed gone against the peoples choice in their own states. So what happens to the peoples votes then? They get the worst of both ends of the stick in that they supposedly voted for electors and the electors did not even vote how the people indicated they should vote.

Of course, that is how the Founders intended it and they saw the electors as special people with special abilities and special powers in a special situation who would use their intelligence and abilities to protect the nation. Sadly, even though we still have parts of that mechanism left over from the 1700's , we do NOT have what the Founders envisioned to justify the EC in the first place.

Yes the electors in SOME states can, in others they are bound to the state vote. So again it depends on how that STATE regulates it's electors. AND it was a compromise amongst the states so that the larger populist states do not have as much as say as per their population, smaller states get the two electors for the Senators. As I noted the Florida state legislature was on the cusp of appointing their state electors in 2000 because Gore kept tying it up in court and they were approaching the deadline threatening their entire electoral vote.

Read Federalist Paper 68 and it becomes painfully obvious that the electors in 2016 did NOT do their job as envisioned.

That is merely a matter of opinion. But you are saying they should have overridden this "will of the people you claim"? You agreed with the push to get electors to changed their votes? Well spare me the people elect the President if you believe the will of the people in their state election could be ignored in the electoral college under such plan.

So save your lectures about what the Constitution says about electors and the peoples vote because it is not functioning any longer and in some cases never did in certain elections.

It functions just find and it is not going to change so save your lectures about changing it.

There is no SO CALLED RIGHT TO VOTE. There is a definitive and absolute right to vote and the US Constitution lists it FIVE TIMES in five different sections of the Constitution. Other rights like the right to keep and bear arms is mentioned but a single time.

The only voting right you have is that IF there is an election you have equal protection that you are allowed to vote and your vote counted. You have NO right to vote for the President and Vice-President, it's up to your state legislature if you get to or they use some other means to appoint them.

Oh an BTW there is another reason we don't have a national vote. Because if we did and one little tiny voting precinct had some little problem and they went to court the entire election could be held up over that one little voting precinct. And the way liberal courts work these days that could be for months, passed the inauguration day. Then what? Had that been the case in Florida 2000 those what 5 counties could have prevented a new President being elected. As it was with the electoral college Florida would not have been able to cast their votes but all the other states would have and a President elected.

 

[haymarket]

Do you have a point in all this or something?

He is President of the United States of America. Not the United People. The STATES elect the President.

Actually it is the Electoral College who elect the President. And each elector can vote for who they please and that is what was intended by the Founders.

Which part of this seems to so befuddle and confuse you: there are no such thing as states without the actual people who comprise the states.

Saying that the States elect the President is saying that the people elect the President because the people comprise the states and there can be no state without the people who comprise it.
But not even that is correct as the power is solely in the hands of the electors who make up the Electoral College.

 

[haymarket]

As already noted the President is not elected by one man one vote.

Which is a major reason why we need to get rid of that mechanism from the 1700's.