Millions sign petition urging Electoral College to elect Hillary Clinton
312 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Komodoh;51358061]Liberals made him out to be Hitler and now they all genuinely believe he's Hitler.[/QUOTE]
Self fulfilling prophecy. Constantly look for monsters when they dont exist, soon they shall manifest. We shape outcomes with our outlook and mindset to a small but significant degree.
As for attacking minorities? Not likely. More likely getting triggered by trolls and being made into triggerlypuff clone memes for said trolls' amusement.
[QUOTE=Judas;51356841]the future vice president of the united states of america tried to divert AIDS funding to conversion therapy for homosexuals[/QUOTE]
I wish people would stop parroting that false infographic. Pence has never supported gay conversion therapy. That was an assumption that the press presented as fact.
[quote=sourced from ' [url]http://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-therapy/[/url] ']Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.[/quote]
By "sexual behavior", he's likely discouraging promiscuous behavior as aids spread from promiscuity. Sex Addiction and sexual disorder clinics exist to tackle promiscuous behavior, and they aren't necessarily conversion therapy camps.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;51358071]I wish people would stop parroting that false infographic. Pence has never supported gay conversion therapy. That was a assumption that the press presented as fact.
He's likely discouraging promiscuous behavior as aids spread from promiscuity. Sex Addiction and sexual disorder clinics exist to tackle promiscuous behavior, and they aren't necessarily conversion therapy camps.[/QUOTE]
[quote]When asked about the claim, Newsom’s spokesman pointed to Pence’s own words. During his first successful run for Congress in 2000, Pence wrote on his campaign website, under a section called Strengthening the American Family:
"Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior."
Also on the website, Pence wrote: "Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage." And "Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexual’s [sic] as a 'discreet [sic] and insular minority' entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities."
Our research found no evidence Pence has walked back his stance on public funding for conversion therapy. His spokesman did not respond with information about Pence’s current position.[/quote]
[url]http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jul/28/gavin-newsom/true-mike-pence-advocated-conversion-therapy/[/url]
He needs to come out and clarify his position then. Because right now, this is what we know about his stance. And so far, he hasn't done anything to clarify it. There is a legitimate reason to be concerned about him.
[QUOTE]All the other shit aside, that's yet another bad sign of what to expect out of this administration. And we also have to worry about a Republican-dominated Congress now too.[/QUOTE]
Become more politically active. There are elections in two years. Local ones too.
[QUOTE=Govna;51358081][url]http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jul/28/gavin-newsom/true-mike-pence-advocated-conversion-therapy/[/url]
He needs to come out and clarify his position then. Because right now, this is what we know about his stance. And so far, he hasn't done anything to clarify it. There is a legitimate reason to be concerned about him.[/QUOTE]
Have you read the paragraph that you gave to me? Because it doesn't disprove what I said. Show me where it states "gay conversion therapy" in the paragraph that you provided.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51358084]Become more politically active. There are elections in two years. Local ones too.[/QUOTE]
Which will involve protesting and working to fight this administration as fervently as possible. And to that end, I already am. I predicted that it would be necessary months ago after Clinton and Trump seized the nominations. When the arguing started to devolve into who was the "lesser of two evils", that's when you know there's a problem with them and with the system and drastic action is necessary.
[QUOTE=Govna;51358096]Which will involve protesting and working to fight this administration as fervently as possible. And to that end, I already am. I predicted that it would be necessary months ago after Clinton and Trump seized the nominations. When the arguing started to devolve into who was the "lesser of two evils", that's when you know there's a problem with them and with the system and drastic action is necessary.[/QUOTE]
There are ways to bring down the government without force or violence.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;51358094]Have you read the paragraph that you gave to me? Because it doesn't disprove what I said. Show me where it states "gay conversion therapy" in the paragraph that you provided.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it does.
[quote]"Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior."[/quote]
This is what [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy]conversion therapy[/url] is.
Or are we suddenly going to play stupid now and ignore his background as a staunch opponent of LGBT rights?
[editline]12th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51358099]There are ways to bring down the government without force or violence.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, like protesting and signing petitions. Exactly what's going on here. They will be opposed as fervently as possible, as they deserve to be.
[QUOTE=Govna;51358065]More like you have no idea what the hell is going on and clearly haven't been paying attention to the election if you think this.
Trump is a demagogue who uses the most inciteful rhetoric he can to rile up the hate in his supporters against everyone from gays and Muslims to Hispanics and his critics. When asked if he thought he'd gone too far in his rhetoric, he just responded with, "No. I won." He's not calling them off or telling them to tone things down... and that's something to be concerned over for obvious reasons. He's also an unashamed sexual predator (who bragged about it no less and got caught), he's incredibly dishonest (do I need to supply a link detailing how many lies he's told?), and he's only out to benefit himself. There's nothing remotely redeeming about him or that makes him the "lesser of two evils" between him and Clinton. The false equivalency bullshit of "they're both equal" does not work; he is objectively worse than Clinton, as has been demonstrated I don't know how many times now by I don't know how many different people.
So as far as "giving up" goes, that's not going to happen. We will never accept him, we will not accept the electoral college (especially considering that this is the FIFTH time this has happened now in our nation's history; he lost the popular vote, the majority of the American people do not want him, deal with it), and that's how simple it is. Sorry.[/QUOTE]
If you ask me, any individual is leagues better than a duplicitous woman who has endorsed the bombings of Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia.
If those electors did vote for Hillary, I bet you that they will be out of the job pretty soon. Both the Democrats and Republicans would want none of the electors as they lied to their pledge; you couldn't trust them anymore and it is political suicide.
Doing this now would set an awful precedent, that all you have to do is petition enough and you can get the person you wanted elected. Electoral college was set up so that stuff like this wouldn't happen. If a couple of states with the majority of people were able to determine most of America, what would be the point of the other states? This gives fair balance and importance to other states which then politicians must work to get the voters.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51357475]To be honest there's quite a bit of difference between trusting a group of representatives the composition of which is proportional to the repartition of political stances with deciding things based on their knowledge of the subject and their constituents' wishes, and trusting an electoral system which is a total crapshoot where people have disproportionate voting power based on their location, where your vote doesn't matter if you live in a state where the opposition has a big enough majority, and where you give voting directions to a select few people three months in advance so they have the time to make the trip by horse and then decide who gets to be the president, but not really, because they always follow the directions they were given even if it contradicts the popular vote, which kind of flies in the face of there being a purpose to electing voters instead of directly voting in the first place.[/QUOTE]
In my opinion, this is the most well thought out response to what I wrote - and I agree that the two are not directly comparible. The comparison I am making however, is not between the US electoral mechanism and the UK's parliamentary decision making process, but rather the logic that is being used by some people, left and right in both the UK and the US.
Using the argument of needing to obey or not to obey the outcome of a direct democratic result is not compatible with "Hillary presidency in the US with a Remain vote in the UK".
Nor is it directly compatible with a "Trump presidency with a UK vote to leave the EU". - But at least in this current combination, there is still the possibility of parliament voting to continue to leave completely (however unlikely). It is more unlikely that Hillary will be brought in by the back door.
The reason I put those two things together (US presidency and Brexit) is because the media has been telling everyone in western society either directly or indirectly that all our countries must eventually somehow merge, and a lot of people are in agreement with that, labelling anyone who disagrees as racist. It's not racist to want to restrict multinational corporations from running what is basically an international slavery operation and a race to the bottom to find the cheapest workers possible, wherever they might live.
[QUOTE=Govna;51358103]Yeah it does.
This is what [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy]conversion therapy[/url] is.
Or are we suddenly going to play stupid now and ignore his background as a staunch opponent of LGBT rights?[/QUOTE]
Sexual behavior doesn't mean sexual orientation.
It doesn't mean "gay conversion therapy" since rehabilitation clinics for promiscuity exist. AIDS isn't spread by LGBT people, it spread the way it did because people had sex with multiple partners.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;51358111]If you ask me, any individual is leagues better than a duplicitous woman who has endorsed the bombings of Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia.[/QUOTE]
Uh, Trump (in addition to being a duplicitous man, as previously demonstrated) endorsed our intervention in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and he's also supported using force against North Korea and Iran.
[url]http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_War_+_Peace.htm[/url]
You have a gift for being irrational.
[editline]12th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;51358124]Sexual behavior doesn't mean sexual orientation.
It doesn't mean "gay conversion therapy" since rehabilitation clinics for promiscuity exist. AIDS isn't spread by LGBT people, it spread the way it did because people had sex with multiple partners.[/QUOTE]
Yes it does. Conversion therapy involves changing a person's sexual behavior by changing their sexual orientation. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence#LGBT_rights_policy]The man has a legendary track record for for opposing LGBT civil rights[/url]. You are deliberately attempting to ignore this, and it's not working.
If he doesn't mean he's going to try promoting conversion therapy against homosexuals, then he needs to come out and clarify that immediately. Because otherwise, the evidence says that that's exactly what he's going to aim for-- based off his past behavior and past statements.
[QUOTE=Govna;51358126]Uh, Trump (in addition to being a duplicitous man, as previously demonstrated) endorsed our intervention in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and he's also supported using force against North Korea and Iran.
[url]http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_War_+_Peace.htm[/url]
You have a gift for being irrational.[/QUOTE]
Did you read the quotes that the source provided? For Libya, he contrasted the viewpoints that the US had towards Libya, hence why he stated:
[quote=http://www.ontheissues.org/2016_CINC_Forum.htm][b]Donald Trump:[/b] 2011: Knock out Ghadafi; 2016: Libya war was a mistake.[/quote]
For Afghanistian, he never wanted to intervene in there. He just stated that it was unfortunate that we went in, and that we can't leave it in it's current broken state:
[quote=]"At some point, are they going to be there for the next 200 years? It's going to be a long time," Trump said, when asked about Afghanistan. "We made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place. We had real brilliant thinkers that didn't know what the hell they were doing. And it's a mess. And at this point, you probably have to stay because that thing will collapse about two seconds after they leave." [/quote]
For Iraq, he answered it with uncertainly because it was a question that was asked out of the blue.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51357744]The electoral college is badly broken, and has been broken since it stopped growing with the population in 1913. It needs to overhauled, or preferably even scrapped in its entirety in favor of a more direct democracy utilizing something like runoff voting systems.
[I]That said,[/I] doing it [B]right now?[/B] That would be fairly catastrophic, I believe. Doing this [I]in direct protest[/I] of Donald Trump, who [I]was[/I] democratically elected under the laws our land and the rules of our democracy (however broken they may be) would be seen as an absolute affront to democracy by the ~60,000,000 who voted for him. It would lend actual legitimacy to his "rigged election" narrative, inciting massive civil unrest, and shattering faith in the Democratic party for many, many years for failing to honor the results of the election and turn the presidency over peacefully.
Getting rid of the electoral college is something that needs to happen during a president's active term, not immediately following an unpopular election.
Though I'm as concerned about a Trump presidency and a red congress as much as any of the rest of you, we [I]must[/I] honor the results of the election for our democracy to have any value whatsoever. Failing to do so lends increasing weight to the words of those who would seek to compromise it for their own gain, such as Trump himself attempted in the weeks leading up to his shocking victory.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't the US Electorate College technically make the voting system non democratic by most all definitions? If the majority vote isn't being considered, how can it be a democracy?
By doing it now it would make both sides finally want to abolish it. Obviously Trump won't touch it, and Republicans will claim its fair and square when it's a giant mess of a system.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;51358153]Did you read the quotes that the source provided? For Libya, he contrasted the viewpoints that the US had towards Libya, hence why he stated:[/quote]
Yes, I did. You didn't:
[quote]USA TODAY Fact-Check: This isn't the first time Trump has ignored his past support for the U.S. intervention in Libya. During the 10th GOP debate, Trump said he had "never discussed that subject" when Sen. Ted Cruz called him out on supporting U.S. action in the country. But Trump said in a February 2011 YouTube video that the U.S. should go into Libya "on a humanitarian basis" and "knock [Gadhafi] out very quickly, very surgically, very effectively and save the lives."[/quote]
He supported it. He tried to ignore it when Clinton brought it up, just as he did when Cruz brought it up, but he said he was in favor of intervening, and that's how simple it is.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;51358153]For Afghanistian, he never wanted to intervene in there. He just stated that it was unfortunate that we went in, and that we can't leave it in it's current broken state:[/quote]
[quote]Trump said the US was right to invade Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks--a reversal of his position earlier this month when he called the war a "mistake."[/quote]
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;51358153]For Iraq, he answered it with uncertainly because it was a question that was asked out of the blue.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. He said that he supported it, as the article points out. If you won't accept OnTheIssues.org, [url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/26/donald-trump/donald-trump-claims-again-he-was-against-war-iraq/]take PolitiFact[/url]. He was not against the Iraq War, he supported it. He said that he supported it. End of story.
[QUOTE=Govna;51358194]Yes, I did. You didn't:
He supported it. He tried to ignore it when Clinton brought it up, just as he did when Cruz brought it up, but he said he was in favor of intervening, and that's how simple it is.
Wrong. He said that he supported it, as the article points out. If you won't accept OnTheIssues.org, [url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/26/donald-trump/donald-trump-claims-again-he-was-against-war-iraq/]take PolitiFact[/url]. He was not against the Iraq War, he supported it. He said that he supported it. End of story.[/QUOTE]
He literally said "Yeah, I guess so." which is the definition of an uncertain answer. At the time it was popular opinion to be for it, and he begrudging went along with the interview. Taking this as hard 100% certainty that Trump supported the war is just absurd.
[QUOTE=Komodoh;51358209]He literally said "Yeah, I guess so." which is the definition of an uncertain answer. At the time it was popular opinion to be for it, and he begrudging went along with the interview. Taking this as hard 100% certainty that Trump supported the war is just absurd.[/QUOTE]
He literally said, "[b]Yeah[/b], I guess so." He said that yes, he supported the war. That's not uncertainty, that is the definition of a YES answer. Even if it could be spun as being "uncertain" (again, it can't; he said that yes he supported it), then he still supported Libya, Afghanistan, and he's been favorable to intervention/force against North Korea and Iran. He said that yes he supported the war, and he did not speak against it as he claimed he did.
What kind of mental gymnastics are you people trying to do right now?
[editline]12th November 2016[/editline]
Fuck it, I'm going to bed.
[QUOTE=Govna;51358230]He literally said, "[b]Yeah[/b], I guess so." He said that yes, he supported the war. That's not uncertainty, that is the definition of a YES answer. Even if it could be spun as being "uncertain" (again, it can't; he said that yes he supported it), then he still supported Libya, Afghanistan, and he's been favorable to intervention/force against North Korea and Iran. He said that yes he supported the war, and he did not speak against it as he claimed he did.
What kind of mental gymnastics are you people trying to do right now?
[editline]12th November 2016[/editline]
Fuck it, I'm going to bed.[/QUOTE]
He literally said, "[B]Yeah, I [U]guess[/U][/B] so."
Suck it up and deal with it is my view on it, your side lost so get on with life. i never saw any mass republican protests when obama won nor a petition to make it super easy to dominate, then again thats probly the plan...
Given the somewhat skewed perspective a lot of people have towards Trump, is it possible the electoral college could end up electing Hillary anyways? Doubtlessly, riots would crop up but it's possible, right?
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;51358281]Given the somewhat skewed perspective a lot of people have towards Trump, is it possible the electoral college could end up electing Hillary anyways? Doubtlessly, riots would crop up but it's possible, right?[/QUOTE]
yes. this possibility is why the thread (and petition) was made, and its the antithesis of the argument saying 'its over'
And if the electoral college elects Clinton then what?
The unrest is going to be even worse and it's going to be led by Trump's second amendment people this time.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;51358295]And if the electoral college elects Clinton then what?
The unrest is going to be even worse and it's going to be led by Trump's second amendment people this time.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Ex military people with oathkeeper bent. Definitely not the people to encourage into rebellion.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;51358295]And if the electoral college elects Clinton then what?
The unrest is going to be even worse and it's going to be led by Trump's second amendment people this time.[/QUOTE]
But Trump supporters are above that, they wouldn't mob and riot like the SJWs just because they didn't get what they wanted.
I actually think trump supporters would not protest in any major way if trump lost. Trump winning came as a surprise to pretty much everyone. I think what makes clinton supporters especially angry is the fact that they feel cheated. They feel cheated they lost when they thought they were going to win, and they feel cheated they lost even though they got more votes.
[QUOTE=Darknclaw;51358269]Suck it up and deal with it is my view on it, your side lost so get on with life. i never saw any mass republican protests when obama won nor a petition to make it super easy to dominate, then again thats probly the plan...[/QUOTE]
Republicans didn't protest because the rights they thought they'd lose (gun rights) are just a hobby (and they know that, no matter how much they pretend otherwise), and life goes on without that. The rights that are being threatened now are the right to marriage, the right to not be fired because of who you love, and the fact that these were won less than half a decade ago, after several decades of fighting for them.
But nah, those liberals are just whiny cry babies amirite?
Guys you would need 38 faithless electors.
The last time there was more than 30 was in the 1800s when the candidate died before the vote, and even then 3 voted for him.
Not to mention the 20th century when you usually had 1 every 8 years.
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51358354]But nah, those liberals are just whiny cry babies amirite?[/QUOTE]
Yes, yes they are. They are literally crying and needing safe space therapy to cope with not getting their way. This kind of behavior should not be tolerated for the first election the majority of millennials are participating in. Man the fuck up, and move on.
[QUOTE=Thlis;51356971]I can't help but wonder how many people say "The majority were for Clinton by 160,000" but also say that "1.9% (1,250,000 votes) isn't enough of a margin" for Brexit.
You cheeky ninja fok[/QUOTE]
A presidential election isn't the same as a constitutional amendment. I'm perfectly happy with direct democracy electing a president or prime minister (although I'm not such a fan of FPTP) but brexit, and by extension any constitutional amendment, requires a supermajority for a reason. You can change your president in four years - it's essentially impossible for us to rejoin the EU after we leave.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.