ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Pointless pressure

There has been considerable sturm und drang about the Electoral College, mostly because the media is grasping at any straw that won't leave them cast out of influence for the next eight years:
In two days, members of the Electoral College will cast their historic votes for the next president of the United States. In the meantime, they are under siege. The nation’s 538 presidential electors have been thrust into the political foreground like never before in American history. In the aftermath of a uniquely polarizing presidential contest, the once-anonymous electors are squarely in the spotlight, targeted by death threats, harassing phone calls and reams of hate mail. One Texas Republican elector said he’s been bombarded with more than 200,000 emails.

“I never can imagine harassing people like this. It’s just f----- up,” said Jim Rhoades, a Republican elector from Michigan who runs a home inspection service. “I’ve lost a bunch of business.”

In recent decades, the Electoral College had become such a reliable rubber stamp of Election Day results that it was viewed as an afterthought.

But with many Democrats desperate to block the all-but-certain ascension of Donald Trump to the White House, this long-neglected body has been gripped by turmoil, and its members have been subjected to pleas to upend centuries of tradition by casting their votes for someone other than the president-elect.

There have been ad campaigns targeting electors and op-eds assailing their role. One Democratic member of Congress has called to delay the vote for president while an investigation of Russian involvement in the election is underway. Two others have pleaded with electors to consider Russia’s role when deciding how to vote. Progressive groups are preparing protests across the country at sites where electors will meet to cast their ballots. Personal contact information for many electors has been posted publicly — and it’s been used to bury them with massive email campaigns.
None of it signifies anything. I'll be very surprised if more than two electors actually prove faithless, and it's as likely to be a Clinton elector as a Trump one. Trump's popularity has risen considerably since his election, his post-election moves have been distinctly presidential to the point of overshadowing the actual president, and the electors will have noticed that just like everyone else.

Labels: ,

104 Comments:

Anonymous Eric the Red December 18, 2016 4:30 AM  

The left is gearing up to have the Electoral College system thrown out. Not this time, but for subsequent elections:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jost-electoral-college-20161216-story.html

From the article: "The mechanics of the electoral college are the product of a morally corrupt decision to placate slave states in the agrarian South."

Based on past SCOTUS rulings, they have a good chance at it, too. Anything that they can directly or indirectly trace back to racism against blacks will be seen by the imperial judges as sufficient grounds to be eliminated.

There are three branches of government. Nowhere in the Constitution does it make the judicial branch the sole arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional. It's time for Trump to make the Executive branch a means of deciding not to go along with SCOTUS rulings, as determined by the President's responsibility to protect the Constitution from other branches of the government.

Blogger ChickenChicken Sweep December 18, 2016 4:35 AM  

When in the past have any Americans even known when the Electoral College met? I know I didn't.

"I've lost a bunch of business" That was the one worrying thing about this drama, that it might be possible to use economic levers on the electors, but it appears it isn't happen.

It also points out the moral vacuousness and petty political monomania of the anti-Trumpers of both parties.

Blogger ChickenChicken Sweep December 18, 2016 4:40 AM  

@1 - But there's at least 47, maybe 48, states that will tell them to go pound sand. And has the SCOTUS ever overturned an actual article of the Constitution?

Blogger Retrenched December 18, 2016 4:41 AM  

I think the Democrats' next step will be to protest the electoral votes from every Trump state - or hell, maybe all the states for that matter - on grounds that the electors were not given any intelligence briefings prior to the vote. This will fail too, and its failure will be reported by the MSM as the death knell for American democracy, or some shit.

As for faithless electors, my guess is that Hillary could lose as many as 8-10 votes to Bernie, while Trump loses no more than 2 (most likely to Romney or Kasich).

Anonymous Eric the Red December 18, 2016 4:45 AM  

@3...

The left has pushed the boundaries of legality or Constitutionality far past anything I ever thought possible.

This time they will be playing for an end-run around the Amendment process. The question is, what happens if SCOTUS allows it?

Blogger ChickenChicken Sweep December 18, 2016 4:57 AM  

@5 - First, I see nothing in that LA Slimes article other than a highly hypothetical "this could work!", nor any explanation how this could bypass the amendment process.

Second, "what happens if SCOTUS allows it"? It's called abrogation by federal statute. If not that, another challenge, this time to a Trump-appointed Supreme court, which the original might be facing anyway, by the time their suit works its way through the various lower courts.

Anonymous Eric the Red December 18, 2016 4:57 AM  

... addendum to @5...

The underlying problem is that the states have no real power anymore over the Federal government. Congress is theoretically the way to exert state power, but realistically over the last 50 years the left has insured that the Executive and Judicial branches are far more powerful than the Legislative. It started with the 17 Amendment, and has gone downhill from there.

Blogger VD December 18, 2016 4:57 AM  

This time they will be playing for an end-run around the Amendment process. The question is, what happens if SCOTUS allows it?

Then the Alt-Right uses it harder.

Blogger Lazarus December 18, 2016 5:01 AM  

What I am worried about is the aftermath of yet another Trump win after the EC confirmation.

What will we wring our hands about then?

Lawd a mercy.

Blogger Worlds Edge December 18, 2016 5:03 AM  

Ten states have enacted the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and several more are considering it.I'd imagine all of those states would at least consider a constitutional amendment. Still less than what is needed, but quite a bit more than you're suggesting.

Blogger Worlds Edge December 18, 2016 5:04 AM  

Comment 10 was supposed to be a reply to Comment 3. Sorry about that, and maybe someday I'll figure out how to internet.

Blogger ChickenChicken Sweep December 18, 2016 5:11 AM  

The NPVIC, "signed" by 10 heavily Dem states, and without any actual authority. And guess what, the state legislatures can just as quickly leave the Compact.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT December 18, 2016 5:23 AM  

@3 - And has the SCOTUS ever overturned an actual article of the Constitution?

You mean besides the 10th Amendment?

Wouldn't electing the president by popular vote ultimately hurt Democrats? I'm pretty sure a lot of Republicans in blue states would be energized to vote if they thought their vote mattered.

Anonymous Eric the Red December 18, 2016 5:28 AM  

There are no Constitutional first principles involved in what will constitute the left's challenge. Instead, there is a tautology of legalisms: 3/5ths representation versus one-man-one-vote, the Amendment process based on State's rights, and SCOTUS ability to decide on Constitutionality including (why not?) the Amendment process. All of these represent fragile interdependencies, since none of them constitute an originating first principle. Therefore any one of them can be usurped by Affirmative Action, which is the knife that has been successfully used to slice and dice the traditional Constitution.

Anonymous Eric the Red December 18, 2016 5:31 AM  

@14 ..er should have said 'Civil Rights', not Affirmative Action.

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Hair December 18, 2016 5:35 AM  

For those that don't know there's an interstate compact among all 50 states recognizing each other's driver's license (just in case anyone was too lazy to Google an example thereof).


The Left, media, etc. need to drop this nonsense. Trump won. For all those fools that have issued death threats, that's felony intimidation. For those that posted the electors' personal info, dox'em.

It's all fine to marginalize our side but kinda sucks when the shoe's on the other foot, eh? As much as I despise Clapper and think he should be in prison, or at least lost his job for perjury, (The correct response when asked if the NSA was collecting information on US citizens is to say I cannot discuss that in an unclassified setting) I love how he said they'd be happy to give a briefing once they can protect sources and methods. Although there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth, as anyone who has been on the class side can tell you, every source and method (guarding how you came up with it, use it, etc) is extremely important.

Now, per That 70s Show, the EC has one job: doooooo it.

Blogger MATT December 18, 2016 5:40 AM  

A huge demographic shift will have to take place and that wall better go up if they do away with th electoral college.

Blogger Carnivore December 18, 2016 5:40 AM  

"Wouldn't electing the president by popular vote ultimately hurt Democrats? I'm pretty sure a lot of Republicans in blue states would be energized to vote if they thought their vote mattered."

I've read elsewhere that Trump did win the popular vote - minus California. If so, he might have won CA as well with more direct campaigning there and/or voter fraud investigation.

Blogger lannes December 18, 2016 5:45 AM  

The question is, will mob rule prevail? Just what the founders sought to prevent when they created an Electoral College.

Blogger ChickenChicken Sweep December 18, 2016 5:46 AM  

minus California

If only.

Anonymous Steve Canyon December 18, 2016 5:51 AM  

If these guys refuse to play by the Marquis de Queensbury rules, there's no reason for us to do the same. Those who are driving away business from the electoral voters voting for Trump need to be exposed so we can boycott them and not hire them. The companies bankrolling it and supporting it, the same. The people who are losing business for voting for Trump, we need to support and ensure they don't suffer financially from this. We close ranks around our supporters and stand united with them, these victim-mongers won't stand a chance.

Blogger MATT December 18, 2016 6:02 AM  

@Iannes There is no one way. All roads lead to tyranny. The moral character of thr citizens of this nation is what matters most. Franklin said it best in his speech to the Constitutional Convention. Perfection won't be found here.

Blogger SteelPalm December 18, 2016 6:24 AM  

Seems like the leftists have tired of playing the Long Game and think that now is the time to instigate major civil strife and a borderline coup.

Obviously, they had imagined Crooked, Demonic Hillary would win and they would enact permanent leftist tyranny and control.

Trump threw a wrench in those plans, but they still feel that they can prevail through brute force.

They will be in for some more rude awakenings, and even less pleasant than the one they had on November 8th.

Blogger Phillip George December 18, 2016 6:36 AM  

Vox, I think the point of the campaign has actually been to delegtimize and to avert peoples attention from covens of pedophiles.

In this respect the campaign has worked.

Why hasn't Julian Assange walked to the window?
Where is the unpublished material on the Podesta - Comet Pizza - Clinton circle.

Witch Hunters, we need you. A witch with a pulse is still a witch.

Nagasaki ended the Pacific War and saved thousands of POW lives. PizzaGate remains an undetonated incendiary.

Blogger Desillusionerad December 18, 2016 6:38 AM  

The whole elector thing is just insane - Even if they could switch 40 rep's - who do you think the HoR is going to put into office?
The only possible uppside is making so much fuss an electoral college repeal becomes something the people want, but even that is unlikely.

Blogger Shimshon December 18, 2016 6:38 AM  

What did I say regarding the breathless comment to a post a few weeks back about the MI/PA/WI recounts being the opening salvo in an attempt to steal the election?

Let me think...oh, right:

"Settle down son."

There are limits to how successful these crazies can be in shifting opinion and rallying support. Just because the media is reporting in lockstep doesn't mean the intended audience is buying it.

The recounts backfired. I expect it to get more and more spectacular in that regard. WI increased Trump's standing and MI is exposing fraud on a scale that Trump is certainly aware of and will address...when he can.

This will not succeed. Neither will any attempt to question the results in Congress next month. And neither will any attempt to subvert the EC sans amendment.

Behind all this gaslighting by Hillary, the DNC, and the media is, of course, PizzaGate (the useful idiot masses who fall for it are just doing what useful idiots do, which is screech and holler). They must be scared to death that President-elect Trump and the marvelous team he is assembling may actually do something about it. Gives new meaning to "drain the swamp" if thousands, or even tens of thousands, of government personnel get swept up in the housecleaning.

Blogger Phillip George December 18, 2016 6:43 AM  

Obama's birth certificate is a fraud - so let's talk about the electoral college.

You see people, You have been played. They largely succeeded. You have to be three steps ahead.

Blogger JACIII December 18, 2016 6:43 AM  

SteelPalm wrote:Seems like the leftists have tired of playing the Long Game and think that now is the time to instigate major civil strife and a borderline coup.

Obviously, they had imagined Crooked, Demonic Hillary would win and they would enact permanent leftist tyranny and control.


One cannot overstate the role lefty overreach has played in preserving what is left of the constitutional republic. Particularly useful has been their MSM hugbox in giving them the confidence to deploy a legislative agenda that shocks the rest of the country in its tone deafness.


As is oft repeated: "They want us to shut up. We want them to keep talking."

The EC harassment will move the red states to protect the integrity of their system of allocating votes and/or selecting their electors.

Blogger Shimshon December 18, 2016 6:52 AM  

@27 Phillip George, we've known that all along. What do you propose, impeach Obama a few weeks before he's gone? What's the point?

Blogger Cataline Sergius December 18, 2016 7:22 AM  

Mostly this latest orgasm of narcissistic drama has left me laughing. What is there not to laugh at?

Their efforts have all the impact of "kittens mewing in a box. Null program."

My favorite drama queens have been...who else? The drama queens themselves. Geriatric Communists in Hollywood put together a Joss Whedon style video imploring the electors to throw the election.

Video begins with Martin Sheen pretending he's an ex-president.  Possibly he believes he is one at this point.  He's getting on in years and used to be quite he booze hound and it may have taken's it's toll.  

The chick that played Grace from Will and Grace comes next.  She repeats what President Martin has said in her sincere voice.

She is followed by an older Jewish guy who I don't recognize and is replaced on screen by some smug looking Asian who I also don't recognize.

Next comes...OH FUCK YOU NOAH WYLE!   Damn it!  I liked the Librarians.  Now that one is soiled too.  Thanks Noah, I really appreciate this.

Anyway these idiots are now telling members of the electoral college what the electoral college is.  I think they might have a clue about that one guys.

Anonymous Fisher December 18, 2016 7:27 AM  

In the event that you, dear reader, were, like me, too busy trying to get into Sara Reed's pants to be bothered with this 8th grade Social Studies lesson: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html

Blogger SteelPalm December 18, 2016 7:30 AM  

@28

Good point, but I wonder when we move further past the "educational" and "rallying people to our cause" stages? (Not to say that there hasn't been progress on that front, like with Alt-Tech)

The left pushing for more violence and internal strife may force our hands.

@30

Heh, as I commented, it was a funny post but that "old Jewish guy" is actually James Cromwell, an old English-Scottish-Irish-German guy. He used to be decent, too.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 18, 2016 7:37 AM  

Phillip George wrote:Obama's birth certificate is a fraud - so let's talk about the electoral college.
Yes, let's keep that on the hush-hush for another 33 days.  Because if it turns out that Zero was ineligible, all of his actions can be declared invalid and rescinded.  This includes every bill he signed (incl. Obamacare) and every last one of his appointments.  Best not to drop that bombshell while they can still do something about it.

AAMOF it would probably be best not to put that on the table until after the new justice is appointed.

Blogger Duke Norfolk December 18, 2016 7:40 AM  

One telling difference between the right and the left is that if this situation were reversed there would, IMO, be a quite large majority of those on the right saying that we need to honor the legal process, and that not doing so causes much more damage in the bigger scheme of things, etc. (Which in this case is actually a very debatable matter.)

On the other hand, the left, as usual, doesn't think in principled terms, just in terms of "what gets us more power RIGHT NOW"; period. And of course that is facilitated by the fact that their base is a bunch of emotional shallow thinkers.

Blogger Gordon December 18, 2016 7:48 AM  

I'm just so grateful that these aging, unemployable professional liars took time out of their busy lives to record this informative, emotional vignette. They're so caring, you know.

Martin Sheen's entire reputation for wisdom, such as it is, comes from Aaron Sorkin putting words in his mouth. The chick who used to be hot on the show about the gay guy and his hetero slut best friend, well, her reputation for wisdom is um, uh, she doesn't actually have that reputation. Cromwell is best known for his laconic role as second fiddle to a talking pig.

So, so grateful.

Anonymous MongoJimmy December 18, 2016 7:56 AM  

Self-described "Fortune Teller", Astrologer Michael Lutin, who I personally have found to be quite prescient in his Writings, Years ago predicted Obama will not finish his Term.

It's beginning to look like Christmas..

Anonymous Yann December 18, 2016 7:56 AM  

The thing is that, if they don't elect Trump, that becomes officially a Coup d'Etat.

Beyond that point, the social contract is broken, and people would have the right to declare they don't recognize the elected government, and use their weapons to defend it if necessary.

Blogger Shimshon December 18, 2016 8:00 AM  

Cromwell was pretty good as a talking AI hologram in I, Robot.

Blogger Ron December 18, 2016 8:23 AM  

@Cataline Sergius

This never gets old :D response to Hillary supporters on the God Emperor's ascension

Blogger Stilicho December 18, 2016 8:31 AM  

Iowahawk had a great response to a Salon tweet that essentially accused "President Trump" of not knowing where his bombs are falling in Syria. The response was basically "I don't have the heart to tell them".

Thank you, Lord, for making our enemies so ridiculous.

Anonymous JAG December 18, 2016 8:32 AM  

I am certain that at least 10 million illegal alien votes were cast for Hillary.

Blogger Jack Ward December 18, 2016 8:35 AM  

I wonder if a stolen election would trigger civil war redux? I mean, like one of those reenactments but the bullets are real and hurt when they hit.

Blogger James Dixon December 18, 2016 8:35 AM  

> The question is, what happens if SCOTUS allows it?

Secession and/or war.

> If only.

They're working on it: http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-california-secession-calexit-htmlstory.html

We should all support them.

Anonymous JAG December 18, 2016 8:36 AM  

Phillip George wrote:Obama's birth certificate is a fraud - so let's talk about the electoral college.

You see people, You have been played. They largely succeeded. You have to be three steps ahead.


My prediction that we will find out Obama was never even a legal US citizen may happen sooner than I originally thought.

Blogger Front toward enemy December 18, 2016 8:39 AM  

Pizza-gate, election fraud, fake birth certificate, wait - look, a squirrel over there next to the electoral college. Quick, start flailing.

Blogger bob kek mando ( NABTY ) December 18, 2016 8:45 AM  

3. ChickenChicken Sweep December 18, 2016 4:40 AM
And has the SCOTUS ever overturned an actual article of the Constitution?



are you discounting the Bill of Rights? because SCOTUS wiped their ass with 9 / 10 more than a century ago.

Anonymous JAG December 18, 2016 8:50 AM  

In response to total shitlib control of our government, Texas contemplates secession. The shitlib response was to claim the Civil War settled the issue of secession (it did no such thing legally, only brutally), and that we won't be allowed to leave.

In response to the ascension of the God-Emperor to the Cherry Blossom Throne, California contemplates secession. "Get the fuck out, we'll even help you pack", is the response from the non-shitlibs.

Blogger Doom December 18, 2016 9:06 AM  

Now THAT would be cute... if, say, eight electors flipped a bad and six of them were pro-Trump giving him a four point extra lead in overtime? Oh, hush though, in truth. Hillary would love it, she is said to love being screwed. Still, it would leave a mark! Maybe even a mark of cain? Bottoms! Up!

Anonymous Man of the Atom December 18, 2016 9:09 AM  

@43. James Dixon

If they succeed, then just the efforts to get enough water from the US to support 50 million residents (or more) with only enough to support 10 million coming from within their borders will be epic theater. Not enough popcorn on the planet to satisfy the audience.

"Nuclear-powered desalinization" plants will explode more heads than can be imagined.

Blogger seeingsights December 18, 2016 9:52 AM  

I'll make an argument for the Electoral College that I've haven't seen made before.
In an extreme crisis, say if nuclear war broke out and all the presidential candidates got killed, having the Electoral College pick someone would be a efficient method that would produce a reasonable result.

Anonymous Sevatar December 18, 2016 9:59 AM  

I am not an American so not sure how feasible but is it worth Trump looking into decentralising the federal state back to what the constitution intended. Hence if things look grim due to demographics sometime in the future states could theoretically leave the union as a fail safe against an out of control federal government.

I know most can't do this now but after gains in 2018 and onwards the GOP might be able to push it through regardless of what the democrats want.

Anonymous Frosty December 18, 2016 10:31 AM  

Yes, Trump hass bin verru preccedential!

Anonymous Lawyer Guy December 18, 2016 10:37 AM  

Shimshon wrote:The recounts backfired. I expect it to get more and more spectacular in that regard. WI increased Trump's standing and MI is exposing fraud on a scale that Trump is certainly aware of and will address...when he can.

Thanks to the recount, 100 Detroit Poll Books disappeared, 95 turned up after a while, 5 still missing. Oops

Blogger Harsh December 18, 2016 10:47 AM  

Ah, those little brains with their outcome bias are so amusing. They don't realize that had the popular vote been the goal Trump would have campaigned much differently and still won.

Blogger pyrrhus December 18, 2016 10:49 AM  

@43 @49 Califorkication has several problems. First, a severe water shortage now, which would become lethal if access to the Colorado River water were cut off in Nevada.Desalinization is not practical on any meaningful scale. Second, California imports 40% of its power, and rising. Third, lack of fuel for future power plants. Fourth, vulnerability to simply being occupied by Mexico.

Blogger pyrrhus December 18, 2016 10:52 AM  

@54 If popular vote had been the test, Trump would have had thousands of election observers and attorneys in the big election fraud and alien voting states, and a civil war in the courts would have broken out.

Blogger James Dixon December 18, 2016 10:59 AM  

We know about the problems, pyrrhus. But those would be problems for the sovereign country of California, not us.

Blogger Elocutioner December 18, 2016 11:00 AM  

The electoral college isn't going anywhere. The left is working hard on giving the Reps a super majority in 2018. If the illegals are largely gone and election lists are purged they have ZERO chance of doing anything. SCOTUS will be American again in a few years. (At least he won't do worse than Reagan did.)

How would they do it? After claiming for a month that the Putin himself was directing the election hacks that left zero trace they're going to ram it down our throats via their fake news that (many months ago) had a 6% trust rating? That's approaching margin of error territory. Except for holding almost half the Senate for the next two years, legislatively they're out of power. There are still plenty of leftist judges to purge, but that only goes so far. Don't buy their narratives.

(I'd love to see what the *REAL* vote totals were in California. I suspect it's not as completely gone as most would expect.)

Blogger Cail Corishev December 18, 2016 11:02 AM  

Wouldn't electing the president by popular vote ultimately hurt Democrats?

They don't know, but they don't care, because none of this is serious. All of it -- the attempts to bribe/blackmail electors, the nattering about the popular vote, the cries of "Russians!" -- it's all intended to reduce Trump's "mandate" so he'll be more inclined to compromise and scale back his plans. It's supposed to make Americans think he won on a technicality or perhaps by cheating, like Bush in 2000, so they won't support his charging forward with his platform.

Which means they still don't have any idea whom they're dealing with -- Trump or his supporters. When a businessman buys a new business, he runs it the way he thinks it needs to be run. It doesn't matter whether he paid a billion dollars for it or bought it for a dollar at a bankruptcy sale, or won it in a poker game. Trump won a 4-year position as CEO of the USA (with a possible 8-year extension), and people criticizing the game rules or his tactics aren't going to affect that one bit. By continuing to treat him the way they did during the campaign, they're only making him less likely to want to work with them.

Blogger Elocutioner December 18, 2016 11:04 AM  

BTW, speaking of political intimidation, a (((real estate agent))) attempted to intimidate Spencer's mother into selling her property for cheap because the little commie didn't like Richard's badthinkz. She had a (((buyer))) already set up to make a bid and everything, with some of the proceeds donated to her (((charity.)))

Anonymous BBGKB December 18, 2016 11:11 AM  

Congress is theoretically the way to exert state power

The cat ladies fight to keep sanctuary cities will be begging for states rights.

another Trump win after the EC confirmation. What will we wring our hands about then?

He better audit the FED before the Jews That Be crash the economy by letting their Ponzi scheme fall apart early, so he doesn't get the blame.

Ten states have enacted the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and several more are considering

People in PA VA and Michigan should contact their representatives to speak against this. I know that NY & CA would never actually follow the compact if it went against leftists. Make sure to mention that Crooked Eye Clinton won the popular by less than 1/2 the number of illegal aliens found to have voted in 2012, and this year Bath House Barry Obama on TV told illegals it was ok for them to vote. The compact was designed to help illegal alien votes in NY & CA swing the national election harder.

Wouldn't electing the president by popular vote ultimately hurt Democrats? I'm pretty sure a lot of Republicans in blue states would be energized to vote if they thought their vote mattered.

Jenner only had to kill one woman to be accepted as a woman driver but an afghani moslem that shot 102 gays got mislabeled an NRA American. Someone else posted this a while ago:

a Mexican Democrat in the CA state senate put it very succinctly to a GOP (viz., loser) colleague: "If I win, I get to take your money. If you win, you just get to keep your money. But there doesn't exist a scenario where if you win, you get to take _my_ money."

I've read elsewhere that Trump did win the popular vote - minus California

He clobbered Crooked Eye minus the illegal aliens found to have voted in 2012.

Those who are driving away business from the electoral voters voting for Trump need to be exposed so we can boycott them and not hire them.

Not boy cot them but put them in ditches, the left has a support system for its cat's paws beyond just welfare. You saw the Project Veritas videos with the pink tie wearing faggot saying about how the provide lawyers & hospitalization for even their crazy homeless protesters.

that "old Jewish guy" is actually James Cromwell, an old English-Scottish-Irish-German guy. He used to be decent, too.

Perhaps he took in so much jewish DNA on the casting couch he became Trans-jew

Astrologer Michael Lutin, who I personally have found to be quite prescient in his Writings, Years ago predicted Obama will not finish his Term

Because of that prediction the Secrete Service would never let Obama alone with a male donkey.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents December 18, 2016 11:15 AM  

Remember long ago, during the 3rd debate when Trump was asked if he would "accept the results" of the election? Remember how smug Rodan looked? Good times.
Remember back when libtards screamed about "rule of law!" for years and years?

Trump Derangement Syndrome is still spreading, and he hasn't even been selected! not elected! by the Electors yet. How much more Deranged can the leftards get before he's sworn in?

MOAR Popcorn! MOAR! Dammit, I need something like a ball-pit full of popcorn to just fall into, but even that won't be enough because so much pure winning fun.

I'm agreeing with Pink right about now.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents December 18, 2016 11:19 AM  

@53
Califorkication has several problems

That is not my circus, those are not my monkeys, but here are my LulZ!

Trump 2016 for the LOLZ!

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents December 18, 2016 11:22 AM  

@59
Which means they still don't have any idea whom they're dealing with -- Trump or his supporters.

They still haven't figured out what We. Don't. Care. means, are you not entertained?

Trump 2016 for the LOLZ!

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable December 18, 2016 11:23 AM  

From the article: "The mechanics of the electoral college are the product of a morally corrupt decision to placate slave states in the agrarian South."

That is a serious lie of omission. In order to get independeny States to join the Federation, their independence had to be respected. To this day, every state has such different methods of balloting that it would be nonsensical to just add the votes from different States together, like adding the number of cats' whiskers in one house to the number of cats' claws in another.

Furthermore, as others have noted, converting the Presidency into a "popular vote" election ruled by California and New York would result in immediate secession of most of the States, for the same reasons why the electoral college was established in the first place.

You can sincerely argue for changing its mechanics, although you would still be wrong; but every argument for its abolition must be stupid, ignorant and/or dishonest, unless the reason given is "because I want the USA to break up."

There are three branches of government. Nowhere in the Constitution does it make the judicial branch the sole arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional. It's time for Trump to make the Executive branch a means of deciding not to go along with SCOTUS rulings, as determined by the President's responsibility to protect the Constitution from other branches of the government.

Yes.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd December 18, 2016 11:28 AM  

pyrrhus wrote:@43 @49 Califorkication has several problems. First, a severe water shortage now, which would become lethal if access to the Colorado River water were cut off in Nevada.Desalinization is not practical on any meaningful scale. Second, California imports 40% of its power, and rising. Third, lack of fuel for future power plants. Fourth, vulnerability to simply being occupied by Mexico.

No Americans would be affected by those problems. I'm sure Mexico would be happy to provide some nuke desalinization plants, and the technicians to run them, for their compatriots in California Norte.

Go Calexit!

Blogger bearspaw December 18, 2016 11:53 AM  

Christ, Loretta Swit looks like an alien. Oddly, her hot lips don't seem to have aged since her heyday.

Blogger rcocean December 18, 2016 12:23 PM  

@1 has it correct. The left understands the EC is a roadblock to their winning back the Presidency and so the EC must go.

Right now, we have 4 SCOTUS Libs who would vote for its abolition. All they need is one Republican appointee "Maverick".

If you think the Liberals are going to stop trying to destroy the EC, you're crazy. The Right and Republicans had better start coming up with a better counter than "that doesn't make any sense" or "that's not in the Constitution".

Blogger Elocutioner December 18, 2016 12:29 PM  

MAGA in 5 easy steps:
1. CalExit.
2. It splits into multiple states.
3. We accept back the good states into the union.
4. Since LA is like 50% Mexican now Mexico can have that state back.
5. Hollywood is now persona non grata Mexican without American citizenship.

All the appropriate people get rewarded and all the appropriate people get punished. Win-win.

Blogger bob kek mando ( NABTY ) December 18, 2016 12:56 PM  

47. JAG December 18, 2016 8:50 AM
(it did no such thing legally, only brutally),



erm, the Supreme Court ruled that the 10th Amendment had no application and that all of Lincoln's gross excessions of Constitutional authority were 'lawful' ( such as dismembering Virginia to create West Virginia ) due to the war time circumstance.

if Supreme Court rulings don't count as "legal" for you, i'm curious as to what does.



51. Sevatar December 18, 2016 9:59 AM
I know most can't do this now but after gains in 2018 and onwards the GOP might be able to push it through



the GOP is the party that murdered a 1/2 million Americans in order to prevent the Southern states from exercising their 10 Amendment right to determine secession protocol on a state by state basis.

i'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely.



55. pyrrhus December 18, 2016 10:49 AM
Fourth, vulnerability to simply being occupied by Mexico.



they're already being occupied by Mexico. and they like it. that's what "Sanctuary City" means.

5 - Cali receives ~$50 billion more in Federal expenditures than they remit in taxes / fees

to secede would immediately collapse their ability to sell bonds, which would immediately collapse their ability to fund their deficit spending.

i concur, encourage them to go.

between Nevada jacking water rates through the roof and it practically being an act of war if Cali tries to divert water from Mexico, this has all the makings of a grand kekistocracy.

Anonymous JAG December 18, 2016 1:36 PM  

bob kek mando ( NABTY ) wrote:47. JAG December 18, 2016 8:50 AM

(it did no such thing legally, only brutally),


erm, the Supreme Court ruled that the 10th Amendment had no application and that all of Lincoln's gross excessions of Constitutional authority were 'lawful' ( such as dismembering Virginia to create West Virginia ) due to the war time circumstance.

if Supreme Court rulings don't count as "legal" for you, i'm curious as to what does.

51. Sevatar December 18, 2016 9:59 AM

I know most can't do this now but after gains in 2018 and onwards the GOP might be able to push it through


the GOP is the party that murdered a 1/2 million Americans in order to prevent the Southern states from exercising their 10 Amendment right to determine secession protocol on a state by state basis.

i'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely.

55. pyrrhus December 18, 2016 10:49 AM

Fourth, vulnerability to simply being occupied by Mexico.


they're already being occupied by Mexico. and they like it. that's what "Sanctuary City" means.

5 - Cali receives ~$50 billion more in Federal expenditures than they remit in taxes / fees

to secede would immediately collapse their ability to sell bonds, which would immediately collapse their ability to fund their deficit spending.

i concur, encourage them to go.

between Nevada jacking water rates through the roof and it practically being an act of war if Cali tries to divert water from Mexico, this has all the makings of a grand kekistocracy.



Erm, the Constitution says nothing about secession thereofr it is reserved to the states of the people.

Forgive me if I take the Constitution over a rogue court which had no authority to rule as they did.

Anonymous JAG December 18, 2016 1:37 PM  

fuckin typos...

"therefor it is reserved to the states or the people."

Blogger bob kek mando ( NABTY ) December 18, 2016 1:44 PM  

71. JAG December 18, 2016 1:36 PM
Forgive me if I take the Constitution over a rogue court which had no authority to rule as they did.



whyn't ya teach your grandmother to suck eggs?

i was the first one on this board to point that out.

the philosophical and logical fact has little to do with how the Law is administered in these United States until such time as judges / justices start getting disbarred for ruling against the Constitution.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 18, 2016 2:04 PM  

Man of the Atom wrote:"Nuclear-powered desalinization" plants will explode more heads than can be imagined.
They basically can't.  After decades of trying to drive out anything that pollutes, California doesn't have the heavy industry to build much of anything; even the reactor vessels have to be forged in Japan or Korea now.

On the other hand, if they quit the union they would be out of NRC jurisdiction.  They could buy back the pieces of San Onofre that have been shipped to disposal and re-commission it.  Some new steam generators from MHI and good to go.

It still wouldn't be anything like enough, though.

Anonymous Just another commenter December 18, 2016 2:06 PM  

The left is all about process when process favors them. They love to impose lots of rules that the generally very rule-following right has to abide by (often enforced by the left-o-crats), to tie them up in knots and slow them down and bind their strength. But they are all about "social justice" (never really defined, but meaning their desired outcome) when process does not favor them, so they bypass all the rules and go straight to chants, drums, intimidation, threats, and tantrums. They want power, the control, but not the responsibility or consequences. Much like children.

@5 - It's called impeachment and removal from office. If they are lucky.

Blogger tublecane December 18, 2016 2:12 PM  

@62-I do remember, and on the part of the Chris Wallaces of the world, who cares why they brought it up? They don't matter. (They didn't want Trump as president, presumably, and just wanted the whole thing over with once Hillary inevitably won. Plus, they idolize a status quo that would goes up in smoke whenever anyone with enough power doesn't get what he wants.) As for everyone else, I knew at the time it was projection. Because I remember 2000, which the MSM apparently forgot or just expects us to forget.

They always project. They imagined Trump would be a sore loser because they would be sore losers. They have proven themselves to be sore losers.

Blogger Iron Spartan December 18, 2016 2:12 PM  

The Republicans completely own 34 state governments. The Democrats completely own 4. It takes 36 states to push through a constitutional amendment.

After the midterms, the Republicans may have 38 states and super majorities in both houses. As long as the R's keep the cucks out of positions of influence, the Dems screeching only cements the God Emperor's power.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 18, 2016 2:15 PM  

We know about the problems, pyrrhus. But those would be problems for the sovereign country of California, not us.

But James, failed states tend to create problems for their neighbors. We'll need a plan for recapturing the place, from the Mexicans if we do it quickly, from the Chinese if we wait.

Of course, if it's recaptured after secession, we don't have to re-admit it to the Union. We could leave it as a territory until such time as we can fix the demographics.

Blogger stevev December 18, 2016 2:25 PM  

Um. All your ports on the West Coast are belong to the Left.
As would be the highways thru the State.
Seems more than a big enough stick to wield.

Blogger dienw December 18, 2016 3:01 PM  

@ stevev December 18, 2016 2:25 PM
Um. All your ports on the West Coast are belong to the Left.
As would be the highways thru the State.
Seems more than a big enough stick to wield.


That brings a third option:
1. give the sanctuary cities x days to end their sanctuary polies and deport illegals; if they don't, halt all Federal monies to the cities; and any welfare/Soc. Sec. to legitimate Americans will be directly mailed from Washington, not allowing the State to skim off any funds;
2. Give the sanctuary states one month to end their policies; if they don't, same as above;
3. If at the end of the month, the state(s)continue their sanctuary policies; the, remove their statehood, impose a military governor,remove all current ofice holders and bureaucrats, deport all illegals, rewrite the state constitution, and lastly allow them to reenter the Union after a trial period of say ten years.

Blogger James Dixon December 18, 2016 3:12 PM  

> We'll need a plan for recapturing the place, from the Mexicans if we do it quickly,

Why would we want them back from Mexico? Just extend the wall.

Blogger Natalie December 18, 2016 3:33 PM  

James Dixon wrote:> We'll need a plan for recapturing the place, from the Mexicans if we do it quickly,

Why would we want them back from Mexico? Just extend the wall.


Because the upper middle/northern sections are dang nice.

Blogger James Dixon December 18, 2016 3:35 PM  

> Because the upper middle/northern sections are dang nice.

What makes you think they will vote to leave? There is precedent for keeping part of the state.

Blogger Ken Prescott December 18, 2016 3:37 PM  

"the GOP is the party that murdered a 1/2 million Americans in order to prevent the Southern states from exercising their 10 Amendment right to determine secession protocol on a state by state basis."

Problem: the Constitution does not exist in a vacuum. There are antecedents and precedents.

The Articles of Confederation described the Union of the several states as permanent and indissoluble. The Constitution's stated purpose was to form "a More Perfect Union."

Making a permanent and indissoluble Union unilaterally revocable based on any one party's feelings of butthurt (and thus, making that purportedly permanent Union quite transient) is not making that Union "More Perfect."

Further, new states are admitted to the Union by the consent of the existing states; in other words, the several states of the Union have to concur that admitting a new state is in their interest. Therefore, to allow unilateral secession from a supposedly permanent Union is to risk injury to the interests of those other states. In the most severe case, it could very well rise to the level of casus belli all by itself.

Also, please explain to me how you can support a unilateral right of secession from the Union, and not a unilateral right of counter-secession back to the Union; your position's inconsistencies are, to put it mildly, baffling.

Blogger Ken Prescott December 18, 2016 3:38 PM  

"3. If at the end of the month, the state(s)continue their sanctuary policies; the, remove their statehood, impose a military governor,remove all current ofice holders and bureaucrats, deport all illegals, rewrite the state constitution, and lastly allow them to reenter the Union after a trial period of say ten years."

I do not see how this might even come close to passing Constitutional muster...

Blogger Feather Blade December 18, 2016 4:15 PM  

@55 "Califorkication" LOL

Read your list. Not seeing any problems. What am I missing?

Blogger kurt9 December 18, 2016 4:15 PM  

JAG wrote:I am certain that at least 10 million illegal alien votes were cast for Hillary.

The most legitimate estimates I've seen are about 3 million, nearly all of them in California. This is far more than the popular majority that was recorded for Hillary. Based on legitimate votes, Trump won the majority.

There was considerable voter fraud on top of this (dead people voting, people voting multiple times), nearly all of which occurred in liberal cesspools such as Detroit.

Blogger James Dixon December 18, 2016 4:23 PM  

> I do not see how this might even come close to passing Constitutional muster...

Neither did Obamacare, and yet here we are.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 18, 2016 4:49 PM  

Why would we want them back from Mexico? Just extend the wall.

You stopped reading too soon. If we don't take it back from Mexico, we'll eventually have to take it back from China. Or whatever Chinese warlord ends up with it.

Blogger dienw December 18, 2016 5:39 PM  

"I do not see how this might even come close to passing Constitutional muster..."

A case can be made that by declaring themselves sanctuary cities and states they have already seceded from the United States. They do not recognize the authority of Federal government; or do they have regard for the rights and wellbeing of the citizens of the United States within their cities or states; allowing illegals to vote is to deny the citizens to determine the nature and organization of their own cities, states, and Federal government.

It is in the interests of the United States that foreign powers do not gain control of major ports, agricultural areas, and waterways of the Union; nor that seceded states would become prefects or colonies of such powers.

Blogger bob kek mando ( NABTY ) December 18, 2016 5:46 PM  

77. Iron Spartan December 18, 2016 2:12 PM
As long as the R's keep the cucks out of positions of influence



Ryan and McConnell say you've already lost.



79. stevev December 18, 2016 2:25 PM
Um. All your ports on the West Coast are belong to the Left.



um. so we'd have to onshore all the manufacturing that we sent to China?

help me out here, i'm not seeing the downside.



84. Ken Prescott December 18, 2016 3:37 PM
The Articles of Confederation described the Union of the several states as permanent and indissoluble.



yes, the Articles were the prior contract. and the Constitution is the succeeding contract now in force.

WHEN you agree to a new contract
AND all parties agree to *remove* a clause which was in the prior contract
THEN is that prior clause still of any effect?

i'm only asking because it seems like a lot of lawyers and judges have difficulty on this point ... when it applies to the Constitution.

but none of that really matters anyways.

because the Northern states have been flouting the Fugitive Slave clause of the Constitution almost since the very adoption of the contract.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Fugitive_Slave_Clause

you're all lawless oathbreakers who don't give a fuck about what the Constitution pronounces as Law.

and we all know it.


84. Ken Prescott December 18, 2016 3:37 PM
Also, please explain to me how you can support a unilateral right of secession from the Union, and not a unilateral right of counter-secession back to the Union; your position's inconsistencies are, to put it mildly, baffling.



i will waste time explaining the 10th Amendment to you when you explain to me how the Federal Government is the same as one of the constituent States.

the purpose of the Constitution was to limit and constrain THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

it is no surprise to me that you are incapable of grasping that the Federal government now claims the 'right' to constrain both the States and the People ... nor that you see no contradiction there.



85. Ken Prescott December 18, 2016 3:38 PM
I do not see how this might even come close to passing Constitutional muster...



pffft.

you assert that the Federal government has the right to tell bakers and wedding photographers they must serve faggots ( in flagrant violation of the 9th Amendment ), you just disavowed that the States had any Rights protected by the 10th, now you wish to use the 10th to constrain the Federal government?

and you call me inchoherent?

Anonymous BBGKB December 18, 2016 6:05 PM  

Ken Prescott I do not see how this might even come close to passing Constitutional muster...

Bake me a cake that says the "Moohamad blows pigs"

Blogger James Dixon December 18, 2016 6:07 PM  

> You stopped reading too soon. If we don't take it back from Mexico, we'll eventually have to take it back from China.

If the US actually starts rebuilding their manufacturing base, China won't be in any position to be a problem.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft December 18, 2016 6:37 PM  

@91. Fugitive slave clause, meet the thirteenth amendment. Is anyone still alive from prior to 1866? No?

On top of that, look at the specific wording. It doesn't mention slavery specifically, because it was not legal in all states, hence the "held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof". It was, in part, a way to extend the jurisdiction of the laws of slave-owning states into states were slavery was illegal (Massachusetts and Vermont).

I would add that the clause was snuck in silently (in bad faith) despite prior objections.

Between the dishonest insertion of the clause, the Thirteenth Amendment, and the fact none of us alive were born before it, perhaps you ought cast your aspersions elsewhere? All of you who "know it" about us are apparently mentally deficient somehow? I'll note that many people "know" things that are not only unproven, but demonstrably false.

A much better target would be Lincoln. Other than that and idiotically calling us lawless oath-breakers though, I agree with all of your arguments vs Kenny boy, he's not a very logical individual, is he?

To all comers, we haven't generally been operating under the constitution or the law for quite a while now on the foederal level, the only question is how much we the people will let the feds get away with, and I for one would be quite unperturbed by dienw's suggestion, even though I think there might be simpler solutions available.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab December 18, 2016 6:43 PM  

Interesting that Fox is getting in on the drum banging and shouting 'squirrel'. Nearly anyone else would be easier for the news to manipulate. But Trump will be providing them with interesting stories and big ratings for years.

Why mess that up? Trump has already proven how he will deal with media bs.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft December 18, 2016 6:47 PM  

@95. Unfortunately Fox has proven repeatedly that it's indiscernibly better than other major media outlets.

I think it's already well messed up with regards to them.

Blogger tublecane December 18, 2016 6:52 PM  

@84-The Articles were pitched over illegally by the Constitution's ratification process. So if you want to make any kind if argument for the permanent union you have to fall back into "mystical chords of memory" territory. If that's the case, I think an infinitely stronger case can be made for the U.S. as English than as a everlasting independent nation.

Blogger Thucydides December 18, 2016 6:59 PM  

Slate published an article about how great the Electoral College is in 2012: …
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html

Slate published an article in 2016 on why the Electoral college was an anachronism and could be quickly abolished: …
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html

I wonder what was different to make them change their minds?

Blogger Ken Prescott December 18, 2016 7:27 PM  

"WHEN you agree to a new contract
AND all parties agree to *remove* a clause which was in the prior contract
THEN is that prior clause still of any effect?"

To change the fundamental nature of the Union of States created by the Articles of Confederation needs something more explicit than omitting those words, especially since the Constitution refers directly back to the Union created by the Articles of Confederation, and states an intent to make that (perpetual) Union more perfect.

The overall sovereignty of the states was greatly reduced under the Constitution as compared to the Articles of Confederation, but, somehow, allowing unilateral secession by a state over even the most transitory or trivial affair was exactly the intent of those drafting the Constitution...

Sorry, that doesn't pass the giggle test.

"you assert that the Federal government has the right to tell bakers and wedding photographers they must serve faggots"

I didn't. Must be thinking of someone else.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft December 18, 2016 7:38 PM  

@99. So you're one of those who giggles when they flat fail to understand something.

Blogger RobertT December 18, 2016 7:40 PM  

Good comment.

Anonymous Beau December 18, 2016 8:02 PM  

A fascinating thread. Someone could write a thriller about 1) the scheming seamy infighting leading up to #CalExit. The posturing blowhard Sacramento grandees and preening big-city mayors leading the people of California over a cliff. Racist activists working to get theirs. And 2) the aftermath, the federal government declaring California in rebellion, with all the attendant consequences. It could be titled, Reaping the Whirlwind.

Blogger Akulkis December 19, 2016 3:14 AM  

@85

Simple. The state is in Rebellion against Congress AND assisting foreign invaders.

Blogger Duke Norfolk December 19, 2016 10:12 AM  

James Dixon wrote:There is precedent for keeping part of the state.

Yep. On that point, interesting podcast with Tom Woods the other day: http://tomwoods.com/ep-805-should-california-be-split-up/

California secession (with northern new state of Jefferson remaining): I say the sooner the better. Although I think it's largely a bluff. But who knows.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts