Flip Electoral College From Trump To Clinton!

[TB]

The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to her, SHE would become President! We must therefore demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a petition on change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use with the electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

TB <tsbr...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in
news:d701afc8-45cc-4d7d...@googlegroups.com:

Hold your breath on that. No, really, hold your breath. Until that
happens. Blue is your color.

Clinton supporters, as criminal as their candidate, call Trump a
fascist by demanding a legal election be set aside and their
candidate given the office by fiat, and protest that Trump's
supporters are criminals by rioting in the streets.

You lost. Time to "suck it up, buttercup."

Aside from the mental image of whiners throwing temper tantrums like
a two year old who has just been told, for the first time in his
life, that he can't have a candy bar, adopting the thing used to hold
a diaper on, aside from that, if you really support with people who
literally riot in the streets, maybe you *should* be afraid.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Greg Goss]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Clinton supporters, as criminal as their candidate, call Trump a
>fascist by demanding a legal election be set aside and their
>candidate given the office by fiat, and protest that Trump's
>supporters are criminals by rioting in the streets.
>
>You lost. Time to "suck it up, buttercup."

While I disagree with you on Clinton's character, we are indeed stuck
with "suck it up, buttercup."

Perhaps we need a web community "moveon2.org"

Unless some kind of believable criminal case shows up before the
official vote date, flipping the election by rule-hacking would
destroy democracy.

(I personally find the rape of a minor case to be believable, it was
no longer a criminal case and is now canceled entirely. And since it
was already out there when the populace voted, it's not a suitable
reason for an elector to flip.)

Signed
Buttercup.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:e97hgj...@mid.individual.net:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Clinton supporters, as criminal as their candidate, call Trump a
>>fascist by demanding a legal election be set aside and their
>>candidate given the office by fiat, and protest that Trump's
>>supporters are criminals by rioting in the streets.
>>
>>You lost. Time to "suck it up, buttercup."
>
> While I disagree with you on Clinton's character,

And intelligence

> we are indeed
> stuck with "suck it up, buttercup."

Yep.

>
> Perhaps we need a web community "moveon2.org"

Would they pay rioters twice as much?

>
> Unless some kind of believable criminal case shows up before the
> official vote date, flipping the election by rule-hacking would
> destroy democracy.

And since Trump hasn't even been accused of a crime, that seems
unlikel.

>
> (I personally find the rape of a minor case to be believable,

You would, being stupid.

> it
> was no longer a criminal case

It never _was_ a criminal case. Ever.

>and is now canceled entirely.

Not for the first time, if I understand correctly.

> And
> since it was already out there when the populace voted, it's not
> a suitable reason for an elector to flip.)

But Clinton's decades long history of dishonesty, incomptence and
coverups was certianly a suitable reason to vote against her.
>
> Signed
> Buttercup.

Indeed.

[Robert Woodward]

In article <XnsA6C3D6F2C85...@69.16.179.43>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> TB <tsbr...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in
> news:d701afc8-45cc-4d7d...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec
> > 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to
> > defect to her, SHE would become President! We must therefore
> > demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a
> > petition on change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use
> > with the electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of
> > Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is
> > too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
> >
> Hold your breath on that. No, really, hold your breath. Until that
> happens. Blue is your color.
>

If Trump has unfaithful electors, they will most likely vote for Ted
Cruz (IIRC, his supporters dominated many of the state conventions that
chose the electors).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
ã-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robe...@drizzle.com

[David Johnston]

On 11/17/2016 9:57 PM, TB wrote:
> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec 19.
> Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to
> her, SHE would become President! We must therefore demand that Trump
> electors flip to Clinton.

Even if I was American, I'd have better things to do with my time than
pursue such an absurd fantasy. It would actually make kind of an
interesting political thriller for a plot to flip electors, but it would
only make sense if the two candidates were only separated by like...six
or less.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 9:36:16 PM UTC-8, Robert Woodward wrote:

(elector-flipping)

> If Trump has unfaithful electors, they will most likely vote for Ted
> Cruz (IIRC, his supporters dominated many of the state conventions that
> chose the electors).

The possibilities are a bit wider than that- the Repubs will more likely negotiate for someone who doesn't terrify (in actuality, not memetically like Trump) the Dems. Who that might be, I dunno.

IMO the Dems are actually quite pleased that Trump is in office. No matter what goes wrong they can blame it on him.

> "We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
> Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
> ã-----------------------------------------------------
> Robert Woodward robe...@drizzle.com

I love appropriate .sigs especially when they're randomly generated.


Mark L. Fergerson

[tsbr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 9:07:47 PM UTC-8, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> TB <tsbr...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in
> news:d701afc8-45cc-4d7d...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec
> > 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to
> > defect to her, SHE would become President! We must therefore
> > demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a
> > petition on change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use
> > with the electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of
> > Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is
> > too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
> >
> Hold your breath on that. No, really, hold your breath. Until that
> happens. Blue is your color.
>
> Clinton supporters, as criminal as their candidate, call Trump a
> fascist by demanding a legal election be set aside and their
> candidate given the office by fiat, and protest that Trump's
> supporters are criminals by rioting in the streets.

But Hillary won the popular vote! By the "one man, one vote" principle, SHE should be the President!

Most of the protests have been peaceful.

[tsbr...@gmail.com]

I don't recall the mass media publicizing the alleged rape case, so I contend that few voters knew about it, so it would be a reason for electors to flip!

Trump has chosen an extremist for his chief strategist, and chosen for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was rejected in 1986 for a judgeship for making racist remarks. Meanwhile, there is alk of a "Muslim registry". These events are post election, so would be a reason for electors to flip?

[James Nicoll]

In article <robertaw-C6951A...@news.individual.net>,

Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>In article <XnsA6C3D6F2C85...@69.16.179.43>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> TB <tsbr...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in
>> news:d701afc8-45cc-4d7d...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec
>> > 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to
>> > defect to her, SHE would become President! We must therefore
>> > demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a
>> > petition on change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use
>> > with the electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of
>> > Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is
>> > too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
>> >
>> Hold your breath on that. No, really, hold your breath. Until that
>> happens. Blue is your color.
>>
>
>If Trump has unfaithful electors, they will most likely vote for Ted
>Cruz (IIRC, his supporters dominated many of the state conventions that
>chose the electors).
>

Ted Cruz is not a sleeper agent for either Canada or Cuba. Just reminding
people.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[James Nicoll]

In article <9385b423-dd9d-4125...@googlegroups.com>,

nu...@bid.nes <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 9:36:16 PM UTC-8, Robert Woodward wrote:
>
>(elector-flipping)
>
>> If Trump has unfaithful electors, they will most likely vote for Ted
>> Cruz (IIRC, his supporters dominated many of the state conventions that
>> chose the electors).
>
> The possibilities are a bit wider than that- the Repubs will more
>likely negotiate for someone who doesn't terrify (in actuality, not
>memetically like Trump) the Dems. Who that might be, I dunno.
>
> IMO the Dems are actually quite pleased that Trump is in office. No
>matter what goes wrong they can blame it on him.
>

Since "what goes wrong" has moved from "avoidable economic downturn"
to "concentration camps, Repatriation Mark II, Trail of Tears II and Whoops
Apocalypse" I suspect a lot of Dems would be happy to have a R in office
who was only mildly horrifying.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-11-18, nu...@bid.nes <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO the Dems are actually quite pleased that Trump is in office. No matter
> what goes wrong they can blame it on him.

Well, YO hasn't consulted actual Dems then. I'm pretty sure VERY few of us are
pleased things turned out this way; Trump is terrifying in a whole bunch of
ways, since he's got NO public office or military experience (the last
Businessman we elected? Herbert Hoover), that Clinton wasn't. His VP Pence is
a nasty piece of work in an insider mode, whose idea of when America was Great
appears to be back somewhere in the late '40s, or possibly the 1890s.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
website on VIC is down, probably for good - oh well/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Lynn McGuire]

The USA is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Look it up.

The Electoral College is the law of the land. If you do not like it then work to change it. Good luck.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

On 11/17/2016 10:57 PM, TB wrote:
> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to her, SHE would become President! We must therefore demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a petition on change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use with the electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.

You are soliciting treason. Be careful here, wars are started for many lesser reasons.

Lynn

[James Nicoll]

In article <o0m627$9v0$1...@dont-email.me>,

Are the electors limited to actual candidates? Or can they get creative?

Corporations are people, right? ANd wouldn't President the Disney Corporation
make people feel more secure?

ObSF: Rissa Kergulen.

[James Nicoll]

In article <o0nki9$7vo$4...@dont-email.me>,

The US has an admirably narrow definition of treason, much improved from
the days when obstreperous wives and servants could be convicted of a
form of treason. It's pretty hard to get a conviction for treason in
the US. Using the EC in a legal but unconventional way probably does not
satisfy the definition.

[Stephen Graham]

On 11/18/2016 11:26 AM, James Nicoll wrote:

> Are the electors limited to actual candidates? Or can they get creative?
>
> Corporations are people, right? ANd wouldn't President the Disney Corporation
> make people feel more secure?
>
> ObSF: Rissa Kergulen.

I think The Walt Disney Corporation would fail the natural born citizen
test. You might be able to argue that it's a citizen of California, as
it was created there, essentially as a creature of the legislature. But
I don't think it's a US citizen as Congress wasn't involved in the
organizational process.

(Yes, you can technically be a citizen of California and not of the
United States.)

[Stephen Graham]

Doesn't meet the Constitutional definition of treason.

It's not very likely and probably not a good idea, but the Constitution
doesn't restrict the Electors from voting for whomsoever they might
choose to.

[Peter Trei]

Lynn, since you're being the strict Constitutionalist here, you might want
to read that document sometime. Treason is explicitly defined in Article III,
section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

There's no way a 'faithless elector' is committing treason, so suggesting
that they do it isn't 'soliciting treason'. [The Trump/Putin relationship,
OTOH...]

FWIW, I'm fully in agreement that Trump was fairly elected President. I
just hope he doesn't fuck things up too badly before he stops being President.

pt

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-11-17 8:07 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> TB <tsbr...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in
> news:d701afc8-45cc-4d7d...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec
>> 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to
>> defect to her, SHE would become President! We must therefore
>> demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a
>> petition on change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use
>> with the electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of
>> Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is
>> too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
>>
> Hold your breath on that. No, really, hold your breath. Until that
> happens. Blue is your color.
>
> Clinton supporters, as criminal as their candidate, call Trump a
> fascist by demanding a legal election be set aside and their
> candidate given the office by fiat, and protest that Trump's
> supporters are criminals by rioting in the streets.

Was it criminal when Trump demanded the exact same thing in 2012, Gutless?

[Alan Baker]

And most tellingly: Trump agrees.

Or to be more precise, he agreeD...

...when he thought that Obama had one the electoral college and lost the
popular vote.

Even though he was wrong (what a shock), he called that a travesty that
needed to be overturned.

[Lynn McGuire]

Half ??? of the states have laws against electors changing their votes.

The other half might come up with something to charge the electors with.

Lynn

[Alan Baker]

Trump wanted to change it in 2012...

[Lynn McGuire]

If not treason, then what would you call an elector voting for somebody else than they pledged to do so ? Faithless is weak.

Lynn

[Peter Trei]

> If not treason, then what would you call an elector voting for somebody
> else than they pledged to do so ? Faithless is weak.

Again, you should study up on this. "Faithless Elector" is the correct term
of legal art for what we are discussing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

It's happened a number of times. Forex, in 1972, that's how the Libertarian
candidate got an electoral vote.

While many states have laws requiring electors to vote as pledged, the
enforceablity of such laws is unclear, since Section II, part 1 was held
by the Supremes to guarantee an elector's freedom of action in Ray v. Blair.

pt

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <o0nkg2$7vo$3...@dont-email.me>,

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The USA is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Look it up.

Indeed, do look it up if you would please.

Hint: these words do not mean what you seem to think they mean.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <o0nokd$ofd$1...@dont-email.me>,

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Half ??? of the states have laws against electors changing their votes.

Which are at least colorably unconstitutional. No state, of those
that have them, has ever even tried to enforce its "faithless elector"
law.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Well, it's happened 157 times before, and none of them were ever
charged. I think the penalty even in states that have it isn't "negate
their vote", but "fine them".

It's not treason; in fact, the reason that they technically CAN choose
to vote as they want is part of the FUNCTION of the Electoral College.



--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <o0nrdu$3aj$2...@dont-email.me>,

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Well, it's happened 157 times before, and none of them were ever
>charged. I think the penalty even in states that have it isn't "negate
>their vote", but "fine them".

A few states (four, if I recall the legal analysis I read correctly)
have laws that (purport to) interpret a "faithless" vote by an elector
as a resignation, with a new elector being appointed from among the
remaining electors.

> It's not treason; in fact, the reason that they technically CAN choose
>to vote as they want is part of the FUNCTION of the Electoral College.

Of course the other part being to give the slave states a greater say
in the selection of the president than they would otherwise be
entitled to. (Owing to the three-fifths clause inflating their
representation in the House.)

The EC also has had the effect of discouraging states from expanding
the franchise in other ways.[1] A classic collective-action problem.
(Indeed, not unlike the smaller-scale problem of getting enough
electors, secretly, to conspire to throw the presidency to the winner
of the popular vote. The only way to do it publicly is via something
like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which has the major
flaw that states can withdraw from it if their legislatures don't like
the outcome in any given election.)

-GAWollman

[1] Historically, both to women and to 18-year-olds. If we didn't
have the EC there would probably be a movement afoot in several states
to extend the franchise to 16-year-olds, which (whatever its merits
may be) would shift the balance of power towards the states that had
done so. There's no reason the states would have to restrict the
franchise to citizens, either, although AFAIK all states do. (Some
localities do not.)

[lal_truckee]

On 11/18/16 12:34 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
> Half ??? of the states have laws against electors changing their votes.

Presumably such laws were in response to just such behavior?
In any case the trial and penalty would be applied after the changed
vote was cast and counted, and wouldn't re-flip the impact of the vote
in question.

[Stephen Graham]

On 11/18/2016 1:34 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote:

> Of course the other part being to give the slave states a greater say
> in the selection of the president than they would otherwise be
> entitled to. (Owing to the three-fifths clause inflating their
> representation in the House.)

If I recall the convention debates correctly, it was a small state
versus big state compromise rather than a slave versus free compromise.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
news:o0noen$9kq$3...@news.datemas.de:

Were there riots when he didn't get elected in 2012, mental-illness
boy? With strong evidence they were being deliberately incited with
paid agitators? No? Maybe that's because Trump's not the criminal,
Clinton is.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:o0nokn$9kq$5...@news.datemas.de:

Did he pay professional agitators to incite riots? No? Maybe he's
not the criminal. Maybe Clinton is.

>
> Even though he was wrong (what a shock), he called that a
> travesty that needed to be overturned.
>
>>
>> Most of the protests have been peaceful.
>>
>
>

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:o0nonq$9kq$6...@news.datemas.de:

Did Trump pay for professional agitators to start riots over it?
No? Maybe that's because he obeys the law, unlike Clinton.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote in news:o0nr75$2crj$1
@grapevine.csail.mit.edu:

> In article <o0nkg2$7vo$3...@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The USA is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Look it up.
>
> Indeed, do look it up if you would please.
>
> Hint: these words do not mean what you seem to think they mean.
>

I expect they don't mean what you believe they mean, either. In any
event, the President isn't elected by popular vote, and never has
been. If you don't like it, the way to change it is to advocate a
constitutional amendment, not light cars on fire in the street.
Rioters belong in a case, with the door welded shut.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 18 November 2016 04:57:53 UTC, TB wrote:
> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to her, SHE would become President! We must therefore demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a petition on change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use with the electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.

Can I remind you that you're posting in rec.arts.sf.written ?

So, what we do is, we find the alternate universe
where Hillary won, and we switch their electors
with ours.

And, two hundred years later, /that/ universe has
Mr. Spock wearing a goatee beard.

Although, maybe that is also the universe where
Donald Trump is the reasonable person and Hillary
isn't and all the Justice League are bad guys.
In which case, we only swap the Trumps and the
Hillarys. Then no goatee beards. And I guess we
swap Pence who in the Twistyverse is a famous science atheist and Richard Dawkins is Pope.
(And we don't swap /him/.)

[William December Starr]

In article <o0nki9$7vo$4...@dont-email.me>,

You really don't know what that word means, do you?

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <o0nooh$ofd$2...@dont-email.me>,

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> said:

> On 11/18/2016 2:13 PM, Peter Trei wrote:
>
>> There's no way a 'faithless elector' is committing treason, so
>> suggesting that they do it isn't 'soliciting treason'. [The
>> Trump/Putin relationship, OTOH...]
>

> If not treason, then what would you call an elector voting for
> somebody else than they pledged to do so ? Faithless is weak.

I'm impressed, Lynn. Not everybody has their own private dictionary.

-- wds

[David Johnston]

On 11/18/2016 12:25 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 11/17/2016 10:57 PM, TB wrote:
>> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec 19.
>> Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to her,
>> SHE would become President! We must therefore demand that Trump
>> electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a petition on change.org to
>> that effect. Arguments we can use with the electors: Hillary won the
>> popular vote. Some of Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon,
>> Flynn). He is too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
>
> You are soliciting treason.

No. He isn't.

[David Johnston]

"Treason" would only be accurate if Trump was being crowned king.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <e99c51...@mid.individual.net>,

No, that's the effect of adding in the two senate seats.

Trivia: Vermont, the 14th state, is one of seven states with a single,
at-large seat in the House of Representatives (and thus three votes in
the Electoral College). Vermont had *six* House seats at one time.
The House would have to be expanded to 721 seats to give Vermont a
second seat at today's population. A modest increase to 483 would
give Montana and Delaware one new seat each.

-GAWollman

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:ea151e4a-962b-486c...@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, 18 November 2016 04:57:53 UTC, TB wrote:
>> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on
>> Dec 19. Hil
> lary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to
> her, SHE would become President! We must therefore demand that
> Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a petition on
> change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use with the
> electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of Trump's
> advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is too cozy
> with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
>
> Can I remind you that you're posting in rec.arts.sf.written ?
>

I suspect that "TB" stands for "Troll Boy." Though "'Tard Boy" seems
just as likely.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:o0o32e$m38$1
@panix3.panix.com:

There are a lot of words Lynn doesn't know what they mean. And he's
very resistant to learning.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:o0o3t3$16v$3...@dont-email.me:

Not even really then, by the constitutional definition.

[Greg Goss]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I expect they don't mean what you believe they mean, either. In any
>event, the President isn't elected by popular vote, and never has
>been. If you don't like it, the way to change it is to advocate a
>constitutional amendment, not light cars on fire in the street.
>Rioters belong in a case, with the door welded shut.

Portland seems to have been pretty good about separating the
"anarchists" who derive joy from destruction from the main mass of
peaceful protestors. Lots of statistics have circulated about those
arrested, but the reporters don't seem to know that they weren't a
randomized sample of the protestors.

I don't know much about the other protests.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Greg Goss]

Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:


>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
>
>It's happened a number of times. Forex, in 1972, that's how the Libertarian
>candidate got an electoral vote.

I think that one of Hillary's electors in Washington State has
promised to vote for someone else (Bernie?) So TB says that she needs
38 flips. This would make it 39 needed.

[Greg Goss]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 18 November 2016 04:57:53 UTC, TB wrote:
>> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to her, SHE would become President! We must therefore demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a petition on change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use with the electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
>
>Can I remind you that you're posting in rec.arts.sf.written ?
>
>So, what we do is, we find the alternate universe
>where Hillary won, and we switch their electors
>with ours.
>
>And, two hundred years later, /that/ universe has
>Mr. Spock wearing a goatee beard.

The opening sequence of the alt universe episode of "Enterprise"
indicated that the "Empire of Man" universe split off long before our
time. I think that the Apollo landing had militaristic markings or
some such.

Quick google. Apollo plants an "Empire of Man" flag on the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfbsZRbwbJ4

[Alan Baker]

Sorry, but it simply isn't treason.

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-11-18 1:13 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
> news:o0noen$9kq$3...@news.datemas.de:
>
>> On 2016-11-17 8:07 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> TB <tsbr...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in
>>> news:d701afc8-45cc-4d7d...@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on
>>>> Dec 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were
>>>> to defect to her, SHE would become President! We must
>>>> therefore demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have
>>>> heard of a petition on change.org to that effect. Arguments
>>>> we can use with the electors: Hillary won the popular vote.
>>>> Some of Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn).
>>>> He is too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
>>>>
>>> Hold your breath on that. No, really, hold your breath. Until
>>> that happens. Blue is your color.
>>>
>>> Clinton supporters, as criminal as their candidate, call Trump
>>> a fascist by demanding a legal election be set aside and their
>>> candidate given the office by fiat, and protest that Trump's
>>> supporters are criminals by rioting in the streets.
>>
>> Was it criminal when Trump demanded the exact same thing in
>> 2012, Gutless?
>>
> Were there riots when he didn't get elected in 2012, mental-illness
> boy?

You've avoided my question, Gutless.

> With strong evidence they were being deliberately incited with
> paid agitators?

What "strong evidence" is that, Gutless?

> No? Maybe that's because Trump's not the criminal,
> Clinton is.

Trump called for a march on Washington because he believed that Obama
had lost the popular vote and that him becoming president by the method
set out in the consitution was a travesty.

So I ask you again: was it criminal then?

[Alan Baker]

Assumes facts not in evidence, Gutless.

[Alan Baker]

Did Clinton? Do you have any actual evidence for that?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:o0oind$n0u$2...@news.datemas.de:

Your question was a pathetic attempt to change the subject, because
you're too mentally ill to handle that your favorite candidate is a
criminal.

>
>> With strong evidence they were being deliberately incited with
>> paid agitators?
>
> What "strong evidence" is that, Gutless?

What you're ignoring and pretending doesn't exist.

>
>> No? Maybe that's because Trump's not the criminal,
>> Clinton is.
>
> Trump called for a march on Washington because he believed that
> Obama had lost the popular vote and that him becoming president
> by the method set out in the consitution was a travesty.

Peaceful protest is legal. (And, of course, it didn't happen.)

>
> So I ask you again: was it criminal then?
>

Rioting is not. Are you denying that there have been riots, with
hundreds of arrests? Are you *that* mentally ill?

Yes, apparently, you are.

Clinton is a criminal, and has surrounded herself with criminals
all her life. She gets away with it because of people like you.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:o0oioa$n0u$3...@news.datemas.de:

What riots were started at Trump's instigation? You will not
answer, because the answer is "none," and you *cannot* accept
that.

>
>>>
>>> Even though he was wrong (what a shock), he called that a
>>> travesty that needed to be overturned.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most of the protests have been peaceful.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:o0oipd$n0u$4...@news.datemas.de:

Do you have any evidence that there were riots _at all_ over
Obama's election? Do you deny there are riots because of Trump's?

The answer to both of those are "no." Do you have the mental
ability to admit it?

You do not.

>
>> No? Maybe that's because he obeys the law, unlike Clinton.
>>
>
>

[Alan Baker]

Sorry, but:

1. She's only "favorite" in the sense that she was clearly more
qualified for the job.

2. She's not been charged much less found guilty...

...Gutless.

>>
>>> With strong evidence they were being deliberately incited with
>>> paid agitators?
>>
>> What "strong evidence" is that, Gutless?
>
> What you're ignoring and pretending doesn't exist.

Yet another failure to actually support your claims...

...Gutless.

>>
>>> No? Maybe that's because Trump's not the criminal,
>>> Clinton is.
>>
>> Trump called for a march on Washington because he believed that
>> Obama had lost the popular vote and that him becoming president
>> by the method set out in the consitution was a travesty.
>
> Peaceful protest is legal. (And, of course, it didn't happen.)

Lots of peaceful protest happened, Gutless.

>>
>> So I ask you again: was it criminal then?
>>
> Rioting is not. Are you denying that there have been riots, with
> hundreds of arrests? Are you *that* mentally ill?

Yes. I'm denying there have been riots.

There have been large protests with some violence.

>
> Yes, apparently, you are.
>
> Clinton is a criminal, and has surrounded herself with criminals
> all her life. She gets away with it because of people like you.

And you get away with throwing around lots of accusations without ever
actually backing them up...

...Gutless.

>

[Alan Baker]

As far as I know, none. He called for them, but:

1. He was wrong and Obama HAD won the popular vote, removing his stated
cause for a march on Washington.

2. He was a buffoon that nobody really paid any mind.

Do you deny he called for a march on Washington...

...Gutless?

What evidence can you present that Clinton has paid anyone to incite
riots...

...Gutless?

[Alan Baker]

My question first...

...Gutless.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Are you prepated to (*can* you) admit that there were riots resulting
in hundreds of arrests during the protests over Trump's election? Until
you *can* admit that, publicly, it is literally impossible to have
*any* other conversation with you.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Are you prepated to (*can* you) admit that there were riots resulting
in hundreds of arrests during the protests over Trump's election?
Until you *can* admit that, publicly, it is literally impossible to
have *any* other conversation with you.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Are you prepated to (*can* you) admit that there were riots resulting
in hundreds of arrests during the protests over Trump's election?
Until you *can* admit that, publicly, it is literally impossible to
have *any* other conversation with you.

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-11-18 9:30 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Are you prepated to (*can* you) admit that there were riots resulting
> in hundreds of arrests during the protests over Trump's election? Until
> you *can* admit that, publicly, it is literally impossible to have
> *any* other conversation with you.

I answered your question, so met your criterion for discussions beyond
that one subject:

"Until you do answer it (or stop posting), this is the only
subject we will be discussing."

So why did you snip everything I said...

...Gutless?

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-11-18 9:30 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Are you prepated to (*can* you) admit that there were riots resulting
> in hundreds of arrests during the protests over Trump's election?
> Until you *can* admit that, publicly, it is literally impossible to
> have *any* other conversation with you.

That wasn't your criterion when you asked your question, was it...

...Gutless?

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-11-18 9:31 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Are you prepated to (*can* you) admit that there were riots resulting
> in hundreds of arrests during the protests over Trump's election?
> Until you *can* admit that, publicly, it is literally impossible to
> have *any* other conversation with you.
>

[Robert Woodward]

In article <4957a668-a369-4118...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 2:25:33 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > On 11/17/2016 10:57 PM, TB wrote:

> > > The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec 19.
> > > Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to her,
> > > SHE would become President! We must therefore demand that Trump electors
> > > flip to Clinton. I have heard of a petition on change.org to that
> > > effect. Arguments we can use with the electors: Hillary won the popular
> > > vote. Some of Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He
> > > is too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
> >

> > You are soliciting treason. Be careful here, wars are started for many
> > lesser reasons.
> >
> > Lynn
>
> Lynn, since you're being the strict Constitutionalist here, you might want
> to read that document sometime. Treason is explicitly defined in Article III,
> section 3:
>
> "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
> them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
>
> There's no way a 'faithless elector' is committing treason, so suggesting
> that they do it isn't 'soliciting treason'. [The Trump/Putin relationship,
> OTOH...]
>
> FWIW, I'm fully in agreement that Trump was fairly elected President. I
> just hope he doesn't fuck things up too badly before he stops being
> President.

Technically speaking, he won't be elected President until the Electoral
College votes.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robe...@drizzle.com

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Are you prepated to (*can* you) admit that there were riots resulting
in hundreds of arrests during the protests over Trump's election?
Until you *can* admit that, publicly, it is literally impossible to
have *any* other conversation with you.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Are you prepated to (*can* you) admit that there were riots resulting
in hundreds of arrests during the protests over Trump's election?
Until you *can* admit that, publicly, it is literally impossible to
have *any* other conversation with you.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Are you prepated to (*can* you) admit that there were riots resulting
in hundreds of arrests during the protests over Trump's election?
Until you *can* admit that, publicly, it is literally impossible to
have *any* other conversation with you.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4957a668-a369-4118...@googlegroups.com:

Since the constitution doesn't require electors to vote based on
who won what votes in their state, it isn't even slightly illegal
(except in states that require it, which are limited in number, but
states don't get to define treason).

Lynn has lost his shit, as have so many whiny little bitches who
have finally been told "no" for the first time in their lives, and
now openly admit they need safety pins to hold their diapers on.

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-11-18 9:42 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Are you prepated to (*can* you) admit that there were riots resulting
> in hundreds of arrests during the protests over Trump's election?
> Until you *can* admit that, publicly, it is literally impossible to
> have *any* other conversation with you.
>
>
>

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-11-18 9:42 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Are you prepated to (*can* you) admit that there were riots resulting
> in hundreds of arrests during the protests over Trump's election?
> Until you *can* admit that, publicly, it is literally impossible to
> have *any* other conversation with you.
>
>
>

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-11-18 9:42 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Are you prepated to (*can* you) admit that there were riots resulting
> in hundreds of arrests during the protests over Trump's election?
> Until you *can* admit that, publicly, it is literally impossible to
> have *any* other conversation with you.
>
>
>

[Alan Baker]

Irony!

[Robert Woodward]

In article <4rGdnc_jsrn8pbLF...@earthlink.com>,
David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On 2016-11-18, nu...@bid.nes <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > IMO the Dems are actually quite pleased that Trump is in office. No matter
> > what goes wrong they can blame it on him.
>
> Well, YO hasn't consulted actual Dems then. I'm pretty sure VERY few of us are
> pleased things turned out this way; Trump is terrifying in a whole bunch of
> ways, since he's got NO public office or military experience (the last
> Businessman we elected? Herbert Hoover),

I want to point out that Herbert Hoover at least had been Secretary of
Commerce for over 7 years (he also had a position in the Wilson
administration). William Howard Taft hadn't held an elected position
either (4 years as Secretary of War, plus other offices, including a
Federal Judge) before being elected President.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.

-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robe...@drizzle.com

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-11-18, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The USA is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Look it up.

... actually, it's a Federated Republic. But yes, still not a Democracy.

Dave, no small pebbles were harmed
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
website on VIC is down, probably for good - oh well/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-11-18, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did Trump pay for professional agitators to start riots over it?

> No? Maybe that's because he obeys the law, unlike Clinton.

Surely you meant to say "unlike George Soros" there?

Dave, whom I admit having NEVER ONCE HEARD OF until he appeared all up in the
conspiracy theorists' grills this year

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-11-18, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/17/2016 10:57 PM, TB wrote:
>> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec 19.

>> Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to her, SHE

>> would become President! We must therefore demand that Trump electors flip
>> to Clinton.
>

> You are soliciting treason.

No, Lynn, he isn't. Read your Constitution; the founders, _because_ they had
experience stretching back a good while with places where 'treason' was
'whatever the king or queen or czar or grand poo=bah SAID was treason at the
time', made a SPECIFIC definition of what treason consisted of, here in the
USA.

And that ain't it.

> Be careful here, wars are started for many lesser reasons.

Oh sure. But it's always best to figure out what the actual underlying reasons
ARE, not just the labels slapped hurriedly upon them by memetic victims.

Dave, those same kings etc. could start a war because it was Thursday. In the
USA you actually have to get Congress to agree to it first

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-11-18, Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW, I'm fully in agreement that Trump was fairly elected President. I
> just hope he doesn't fuck things up too badly before he stops being President.

I, too, am desperately hoping in the back of my mind that I'm terribly wrong
about him, and that the way he's been acting on the campaign trail is "Trump
playing the part of a presidential candidate" and that he changes that to "Trump
playing the part of a president who history won't remember in a bad way" once
in office.

Hey, it COULD happen.

Dave, but my money's on "it gets sillier and more terrible simultaneously
somehow"

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-11-18, Stephen Graham <gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On 11/18/2016 1:34 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> Of course the other part being to give the slave states a greater say
>> in the selection of the president than they would otherwise be
>> entitled to. (Owing to the three-fifths clause inflating their
>> representation in the House.)
>
> If I recall the convention debates correctly, it was a small state
> versus big state compromise rather than a slave versus free compromise.

Two guaranteed electors plus more based on population ==> small states aren't
COMPLETELY shut out of the process. Much the same reasoning as why each state
has Representatives based on relative populations, but Senators numbering two.

Dave

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-11-18, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> So, what we do is, we find the alternate universe
> where Hillary won, and we switch their electors
> with ours.
>
> And, two hundred years later, /that/ universe has
> Mr. Spock wearing a goatee beard.
>
> Although, maybe that is also the universe where
> Donald Trump is the reasonable person and Hillary
> isn't and all the Justice League are bad guys.

See also Tom Tomorrow/This Modern World's occasional strips about Bizarro World
politics or Alternate Universe politics.

Dave, will swap Pence for food. Small amounts of food even. Will consider kale
or okra. Plz do not include picture of Pence.

[David Johnston]

On 11/19/2016 3:31 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2016-11-18, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The USA is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Look it up.
>
> ... actually, it's a Federated Republic. But yes, still not a Democracy.

Which is the same as saying it's not a unicorn.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 8:07:37 AM UTC+11, Peter Trei wrote:
> On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 3:37:08 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > On 11/18/2016 2:13 PM, Peter Trei wrote:

> > > On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 2:25:33 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > >> On 11/17/2016 10:57 PM, TB wrote:

> > >>> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to her, SHE would become President! We must therefore demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a petition on change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use with the electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
> > >>
> > >> You are soliciting treason. Be careful here, wars are started for many lesser reasons.

> > >>
> > >> Lynn
> > >
> > > Lynn, since you're being the strict Constitutionalist here, you might want
> > > to read that document sometime. Treason is explicitly defined in Article III,
> > > section 3:
> > >
> > > "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
> > >
> > > There's no way a 'faithless elector' is committing treason, so suggesting
> > > that they do it isn't 'soliciting treason'. [The Trump/Putin relationship,
> > > OTOH...]
> > >

> > > FWIW, I'm fully in agreement that Trump was fairly elected President. I
> > > just hope he doesn't fuck things up too badly before he stops being President.
> >

> > If not treason, then what would you call an elector voting for somebody
> > else than they pledged to do so ? Faithless is weak.
>
> Again, you should study up on this. "Faithless Elector" is the correct term
> of legal art for what we are discussing:
>
Lynn ain't gonnu study up on anything that don't match his gut instinct.
That learning stuff hurts...

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 9:14:28 AM UTC+11, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
> news:o0nonq$9kq$6...@news.datemas.de:

> > Trump wanted to change it in 2012...
> >

> Did Trump pay for professional agitators to start riots over it?
> No? Maybe that's because he obeys the law, unlike Clinton.
>

Terry, fuck off, adults are trying to talk.

[Mad Hamish]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:14:26 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
>news:o0nonq$9kq$6...@news.datemas.de:
>

>> On 2016-11-18 11:24 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 11/18/2016 7:33 AM, tsbr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 9:07:47 PM UTC-8, Gutless
>>>> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>>>> TB <tsbr...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in
>>>>> news:d701afc8-45cc-4d7d...@googlegroups.com:

>>>>>
>>>>>> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on
>>>>>> Dec 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors
>>>>>> were to defect to her, SHE would become President! We must
>>>>>> therefore demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I
>>>>>> have heard of a petition on change.org to that effect.
>>>>>> Arguments we can use with the electors: Hillary won the
>>>>>> popular vote. Some of Trump's advisors have extremist views
>>>>>> (Bannon, Flynn). He is too cozy with Russia. He talks of a
>>>>>> Muslim registry.
>>>>>>

>>>>> Hold your breath on that. No, really, hold your breath. Until
>>>>> that happens. Blue is your color.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clinton supporters, as criminal as their candidate, call
>>>>> Trump a fascist by demanding a legal election be set aside
>>>>> and their candidate given the office by fiat, and protest
>>>>> that Trump's supporters are criminals by rioting in the
>>>>> streets.
>>>>
>>>> But Hillary won the popular vote! By the "one man, one vote"
>>>> principle, SHE should be the President!
>>>>
>>>> Most of the protests have been peaceful.

>>>
>>> The USA is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Look it
>>> up.
>>>

>>> The Electoral College is the law of the land. If you do not
>>> like it then work to change it. Good luck.
>>>
>>> Lynn

>>
>> Trump wanted to change it in 2012...
>>
>Did Trump pay for professional agitators to start riots over it?
>No? Maybe that's because he obeys the law, unlike Clinton.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/when-obama-was-elected-outpouring-of.html

[James Nicoll]

In article <o0o32e$m38$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <o0nki9$7vo$4...@dont-email.me>,

>Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> On 11/17/2016 10:57 PM, TB wrote:
>>

>>> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec
>>> 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to
>>> defect to her, SHE would become President! We must therefore
>>> demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a
>>> petition on change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use with
>>> the electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of Trump's
>>> advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is too cozy
>>> with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
>>

>> You are soliciting treason. Be careful here, wars are started for
>> many lesser reasons.
>

>You really don't know what that word means, do you?
>
"Disagreeing with a Republican"?



--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[J. Clarke]

In article <o0pqg9$6l$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
jdni...@panix.com says...

>
> In article <o0o32e$m38$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <o0nki9$7vo$4...@dont-email.me>,
> >Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> said:
> >
> >> On 11/17/2016 10:57 PM, TB wrote:
> >>
> >>> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec
> >>> 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to
> >>> defect to her, SHE would become President! We must therefore
> >>> demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a
> >>> petition on change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use with
> >>> the electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of Trump's
> >>> advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is too cozy
> >>> with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
> >>
> >> You are soliciting treason. Be careful here, wars are started for
> >> many lesser reasons.
> >
> >You really don't know what that word means, do you?
> >
> "Disagreeing with a Republican"?

In the US there are two kinds of treason.

There is real treason as defined by the
Constitution, of which fewer than 30 people have
ever been charged and perhaps a dozen convicted.

Then there is treason defined by made-up-pretend
laws that exist only in the minds of authors,
scriptwriters, and the ignorant. That is the
kind of treason under discussion in this thread.

[Greg Goss]

David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 2016-11-18, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Did Trump pay for professional agitators to start riots over it?
>> No? Maybe that's because he obeys the law, unlike Clinton.
>
>Surely you meant to say "unlike George Soros" there?
>
>Dave, whom I admit having NEVER ONCE HEARD OF until he appeared all up in the
> conspiracy theorists' grills this year

He's been in the conspiracy theorizing for at least a decade, perhaps
as far back as the Bill presidency.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 1:13:45 PM UTC-7, Peter Trei wrote:

> Lynn, since you're being the strict Constitutionalist here, you might want
> to read that document sometime. Treason is explicitly defined in Article III,
> section 3:

> "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
> them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Which is something I expect Trump to engage in as President, given his record
with respect to that enemy of the United States which is Russia under Vladimir
Putin. If he gets caught before it's too late, even a Republican Congress would
be willing to impeach him.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

In article <98bca1ec-f76f-43f7-ba71-
ea8bf4...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

Hey, Quadi, maybe he'll tell the Russians they
can have Canada. Give you something real to
whinge about.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <xoydnYnqK7KMt63F...@earthlink.com>,

David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>On 2016-11-18, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The USA is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Look it up.
>
>... actually, it's a Federated Republic. But yes, still not a Democracy.

Bullshit.

Since nobody can seem to be bothered to look it up, I'll define
"democracy" for you, or rather, I'll let the editors of the Oxford
English Dictionary, third edition, do it:

1. a. Government by the people; esp. a system of government in
which all the people of a state or polity (or, esp. formerly,
a subset of them meeting particular conditions) are involved
in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to
elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly;
(more generally) a system of decision-making within an
institution, organization, etc., in which all members have the
right to take part or vote. In later use often more widely,
with reference to the conditions characteristically obtaining
under such a system: a form of society in which all citizens
have equal rights, ignoring hereditary distinctions of class
or rank, and the views of all are tolerated and respected; the
principle of fair and equal treatment of everyone in a state,
institution, organization, etc.

In early use democracy is usually associated with
republicanism, esp. classical republics (such as
Athens and Rome), republican states of early modern
Europe (such as Switzerland, Venice, and the Dutch
Republic), and later the post-revolutionary republics
in France and the United States. It is typically used
in (explicit or implicit) contrast with terms denoting
other systems of government derived from classical
Greek and Latin political terminology, as aristocracy,
monarchy, and oligarchy, and in these contexts often
has negative connotations of disorder or anarchy (see,
e.g., quots. a1500 and 1792, and compare the early
figurative examples at sense 1c). From the 19th cent.,
the term increasingly develops positive connotations
of egalitarianism, freedom, and the rule of law (see,
e.g., quots. 1836, 2011), and in the 20th cent. comes
to be used more typically in contrast with systems of
government seen as lacking in or inimical to those
qualities (such as dictatorship or anarchy),
describing both republics and constitutional
monarchies.

b. A state or polity with a democratic system of government;
(more generally) any institution, organization, etc., which is
run according to democratic principles.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

[Kevrob]

Funny how, when The Wall was falling, those of us who prefer free markets
to state socialism couldn't say enough good things about George Soros.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Central_and_Eastern_Europe

His donations, through his Open Society organization, were thought to
be a great help in building civil society in countries emerging from
totalitarianism. He's also donated money opposing our stupid, pointless,
counterproductive laws in the War On Some Drugs. That probably endeared
him more to libertarians than to old Cold Warrior conservatives. He did
reveal himself to be much less a free marketer than US libertarians and
(some) US conservatives would have liked him to be, and allied himself
more with the Democrats, but it is the social conservatives who really
can't stand him. Funding moveon.org and Dem-connected think tanks
during the Bush 43 Presidency made them froth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Political_donations_and_activism

Kevin R

[William Hyde]

On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 2:25:33 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 11/17/2016 10:57 PM, TB wrote:
> > The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to her, SHE would become President! We must therefore demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a petition on change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use with the electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
>
> You are soliciting treason.

Over 150 electors in US history have been faithless. None have been prosecuted for treason.


> Be careful here,

It is a stupid idea, true.

IIRC there have been over six hundred attempts to modify the electoral college. They fail for the same reason most attempts at electoral reform fail - those privileged by the current system are not going to vote to end it.

William Hyde

[Alan Baker]

Yup.

Here in Canada, before winning our latest election, the federal Liberals
were very much in favour of electoral reform.

Now... ...not so much.

:-)

[James Nicoll]

In article <o0nooh$ofd$2...@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/18/2016 2:13 PM, Peter Trei wrote:
>> On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 2:25:33 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 11/17/2016 10:57 PM, TB wrote:
>>>> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec 19.
>Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to her,
>SHE would become President! We must therefore demand that Trump
>electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a petition on change.org to
>that effect. Arguments we can use with the electors: Hillary won the
>popular vote. Some of Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon,
>Flynn). He is too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
>>>

>>> You are soliciting treason. Be careful here, wars are started for
>many lesser reasons.
>>>

>>> Lynn

>>
>> Lynn, since you're being the strict Constitutionalist here, you might want
>> to read that document sometime. Treason is explicitly defined in Article III,
>> section 3:
>>
>> "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
>against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
>Comfort."
>>

>> There's no way a 'faithless elector' is committing treason, so suggesting
>> that they do it isn't 'soliciting treason'. [The Trump/Putin relationship,
>> OTOH...]
>>
>> FWIW, I'm fully in agreement that Trump was fairly elected President. I
>> just hope he doesn't fuck things up too badly before he stops being President.
>
>If not treason, then what would you call an elector voting for somebody
>else than they pledged to do so ? Faithless is weak.

I would call it an elector voting for somebody else than they pledged to
vote for. We're a simple people in Canada. We like our terminology straight
forward. That's why it's just Canada, not something confusing like the
Transcendent Parliamentary Monarchy of Canada and Labrador.

Now, Americans prefer a bit more flair so in a US context I would call it
"the electoral college fulfilling its actual purpose' (if I was American
and like the guy who got voted for" or "even worse than that time THOSE
GUYS IN THE OTHER PARTY LITERALLY STAMPED THE BABY JESUS TO DEATH!" (if
I didn't.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 19 November 2016 06:30:44 UTC, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Are you prepated to (*can* you) admit that there were riots resulting
> in hundreds of arrests during the protests over Trump's election? Until
> you *can* admit that, publicly, it is literally impossible to have
> *any* other conversation with you.

Because, and only because, you are, and choose
to be, you.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 11/17/2016 10:57 PM, TB wrote:
> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to her, SHE would become President! We must therefore demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a petition on change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use with the electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
>

Is this the country that you want to live in ? Where people threaten
people for doing their sworn duty.

"Michigan electors cite threats over Trump vote"

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/17/elector-threats/94003176/

"“You have people saying ‘you’re a hateful bigot, I hope you die,’ ” he
said. “I’ve had people talk about shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing
my brains out. And I’ve received dozens and dozens of those emails. Even
the non-threatening-my-life emails are very aggressive.”"

Shame on you people for threatening this man for doing his sworn duty.
Some people in the USA still hold their personal integrity.

Lynn

[Kevrob]

On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 3:42:10 PM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:


> I would call it an elector voting for somebody else than they pledged to
> vote for. We're a simple people in Canada. We like our terminology straight
> forward. That's why it's just Canada, not something confusing like the
> Transcendent Parliamentary Monarchy of Canada and Labrador.
>

The common usage was "Dominion of Canada" for the first quarter century
of my life, when one was being official-like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Canada#Use_of_Canada_and_Dominion_of_Canada

Then there are the nicknames: The Great White North, America's Hat,
The Loon's Paradise, Santa's Backyard, Canuckistan, and "where Neil
Young should shut his trap about USAian politics and move back to...."

:) :) :) :)

Kevin R

[Lynn McGuire]

On 11/18/2016 1:33 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <o0nki9$7vo$4...@dont-email.me>,

> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2016 10:57 PM, TB wrote:
>>> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec 19.
>> Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to her,
>> SHE would become President! We must therefore demand that Trump
>> electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a petition on change.org to
>> that effect. Arguments we can use with the electors: Hillary won the
>> popular vote. Some of Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon,
>> Flynn). He is too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
>>

>> You are soliciting treason. Be careful here, wars are started for many
>> lesser reasons.
>

> The US has an admirably narrow definition of treason, much improved from
> the days when obstreperous wives and servants could be convicted of a
> form of treason. It's pretty hard to get a conviction for treason in
> the US. Using the EC in a legal but unconventional way probably does not
> satisfy the definition.

How about sedition ?

Lynn

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 19 November 2016 03:50:58 UTC, Greg Goss wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>
> >On Friday, 18 November 2016 04:57:53 UTC, TB wrote:
> >> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on Dec 19. Hillary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to her, SHE would become President! We must therefore demand that Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a petition on change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use with the electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of Trump's advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is too cozy with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
> >

> >Can I remind you that you're posting in rec.arts.sf.written ?

> >
> >So, what we do is, we find the alternate universe
> >where Hillary won, and we switch their electors
> >with ours.
> >
> >And, two hundred years later, /that/ universe has
> >Mr. Spock wearing a goatee beard.
>

> The opening sequence of the alt universe episode of "Enterprise"
> indicated that the "Empire of Man" universe split off long before our
> time. I think that the Apollo landing had militaristic markings or
> some such.
>
> Quick google. Apollo plants an "Empire of Man" flag on the moon.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfbsZRbwbJ4

Maybe so (if you trust a TV show made in the mirror
universe), but, that's /why/ they have opposite
candidates.

Wait. Either you're arguing that Hillary Clinton
won in the evil universe, or I am, I've lost count... either way it implies - well, it /may/
imply that mirror-universe Trump is no improvement
on "ours", after all.

Or maybe they were switched /already/. Say around 1978??
Hard to say.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 18 November 2016 23:53:56 UTC, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:ea151e4a-962b-486c...@googlegroups.com:

>
> > On Friday, 18 November 2016 04:57:53 UTC, TB wrote:
> >> The actual election will be done by the Electoral College on
> >> Dec 19. Hil
> > lary has 232 electors. If 38 Trump electors were to defect to
> > her, SHE would become President! We must therefore demand that
> > Trump electors flip to Clinton. I have heard of a petition on
> > change.org to that effect. Arguments we can use with the
> > electors: Hillary won the popular vote. Some of Trump's
> > advisors have extremist views (Bannon, Flynn). He is too cozy
> > with Russia. He talks of a Muslim registry.
> >
> > Can I remind you that you're posting in rec.arts.sf.written ?
> >

> I suspect that "TB" stands for "Troll Boy."

No.

[James Nicoll]

In article <o0qgse$9m$2...@dont-email.me>,

"conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of
a state or monarch"?

Is Trump America's king?