Six members vow to cast Electoral College votes against Trump

[PartySick 172,426]

5 minutes ago, LePetitMonstr said:

That would leave Congress to choose for a president

They choose regardless. Even if she did, by some miracle, get the votes she needs, congress (which is controlled by Republicans) can choose to ignore the faithless votes.

Like I said before - American democracy is an illusion. I sincerely hope Trump goes ahead with that little revolution of his and does away with the electoral college.

[Seeka 12,372]

Just now, JustPokeHerFace said:

Congress is mostly Republican right now, so they probably would. 

Yes but no Republican politician actually supports Trump. If he hadn't have won the entire party would be in decimated shatters. There would be no republican party if he hadn't have won.

He was the one who endangered the party and is now bringing in neo-nazis to run the country.

I really don't think anyone wants to associate themselves with the future four darkest years of america.

Just now, CowSiss said:

inb4 all electoral votes go to Bernie just cause

I don't care who they go to as long as we have some leftover hope Trump won't win.

[JustPokeHerFace 2,564]

Just now, Seeka said:

Yes but no Republican politician actually supports Trump. If he hadn't have won the entire party would be in decimated shatters. There would be no republican party if he hadn't have won.

He was the one who endangered the party and is now bringing in neo-nazis to run the country.

I really don't think anyone wants to associate themselves with the future four darkest years of america.

I don't care who they go to as long as we have some leftover hope Trump won't win.

they may not like him, but republicans really hate hillary clinton. if it were down between the two, they would choose trump. also they would rather someone in their political party be in the white house, even if it's someone they don't like 

[DiamondAngel 5,044]

Inb4 one of them votes for harambe 

[socotra 3,357]

I'm personally in favor of them selecting a consensus choice like Mitt Romney or John Kasich (which they can do) instead of Clinton. Much more practical, considering the House is controlled by Republicans and it'd be easier to convince Republican electors to vote for a Republican rather than a Democrat. 

[LuMetal 68]

its kind of what they're supposed to do if someone like trump wins the electoral college, but its subjective if he is the kind of president that warrants the electors disregarding the votes of the people. 

i'm hoping they do it so you could have both republicans and democrats united for a readjustment in how we elect our president 

[bionic 50,111]

9 minutes ago, Indyl said:

I'm personally in favor of them selecting a consensus choice like Mitt Romney or John Kasich (which they can do) instead of Clinton. Much more practical, considering the House is controlled by Republicans and it'd be easier to convince Republican electors to vote for a Republican rather than a Democrat. 

Paul Ryan's time to shine

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

12 minutes ago, bionic said:

Paul Ryan's time to shine

He's such a spineless bastard though with no sense of integrity  He's also so deadset on repealing Obamacare without even recognizing the good it's done  (Wouldn't be surprised if he runs in 2020/2024 though )

~~~~

Anyway, this is nice, especially since his current plans DO like catastrophic and unfit for the presidency, and if you buy the whole "electoral college exists to prevent an unfit person from being president" this would be the time to do their job.... but even if she were to get the over 38, she still wouldn't win The fact that faithless votes are just demonstrations of dissatisfaction... the whole system of the electoral college isn't working how it should, its flawed to its core  

[PartySick 172,426]

20 minutes ago, Indyl said:

I'm personally in favor of them selecting a consensus choice like Mitt Romney or John Kasich (which they can do) instead of Clinton. Much more practical, considering the House is controlled by Republicans and it'd be easier to convince Republican electors to vote for a Republican rather than a Democrat. 

I could live with Kasich honestly. I was pulling for him during the primaries since he seemed to be the only one on stage that had even an iota of sense

 

30 minutes ago, JustPokeHerFace said:

they may not like him, but republicans really hate hillary clinton. if it were down between the two, they would choose trump. also they would rather someone in their political party be in the white house, even if it's someone they don't like 

Actually, Hillary has quite the reputation of being easy to work with, great for compromise, and she has a history of reaching across the aisle to Republicans to get things done. As far as Democrats go, she'd be their best option but yeah, I can't see them wanting her over any Republican (even a pseudo-Republican like Trump).

[Gaga Monster 13,001]

4 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

He's such a spineless bastard though with no sense of integrity  He's also so deadset on repealing Obamacare without even recognizing the good it's done  (Wouldn't be surprised if he runs in 2020/2024 though )

~~~~

Anyway, this is nice, especially since his current plans DO like catastrophic and unfit for the presidency, and if you buy the whole "electoral college exists to prevent an unfit person from being president" this would be the time to do their job.... but even if she were to get the over 38, she still wouldn't win The fact that faithless votes are just demonstrations of dissatisfaction... the whole system of the electoral college isn't working how it should, its flawed to its core  

Obamacare was a disaster. You have no idea the pain it has caused tons of people. Premiums have shot through the roof, increasing 50-60% in some states. Not so affordable. And if you opt out of it, they penalize you for not using it by charging you fees. It should be repealed and a new plan should immediately replace it ensuring no one is uncovered who was on it. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Just now, Gaga Monster said:

Obamacare was a disaster. You have no idea the pain it has caused tons of people. Premiums have shot through the roof, increasing 50-60% in some states. Not so affordable. And if you opt out of it, they penalize you for not using it by charging you fees. It should be repealed and a new plan should immediately replace it ensuring no one is uncovered who was on it. 

And you have no idea of the millions of people who have had their lives potentially saved by this. It far outnumbers the number of people who will even have to pay any sort of penalty. On top of that, the penalties for average Americans who for whatever reason do not sign up (and also do not have an exemption or reason for not signing up other than #ThanksObama) are really not that high. You can calculate it online very simply   People who do not earn a lot of money are not effectively punished by this because of the exemptions as well. In fact, the number of Americans that have had exemptions from the ACA in the past has been around 20 million at its highest 2 years ago. There has been an extended transitional phase of Obamacare to allow those who were on old insurance to either keep theres if it meets the requirement or switch, in some states this transitional phase was extended to 2017 so there are still millions of Americans who have not even had to worry about Obamacare

Please go and read the hundreds of provisions in Obamacare before you dismiss the entire thing. When people are polled about certain specific benefits put into place because of the PPACA, there is overwhelming support for these things. It is not until you look at it as "Obamacare" and throw around the words "penalty" and "premium" that people run for the hills. The truth of the matter is that the average American does NOT know what Obamacare even is or why and how it works the way it does. They hear "premium" and think "Oh no!" and they hear "Penalty!" and scream, not understanding the process at all.

For example, part of the reason Premiums rise is because healthcare cannot be denied to someone who is determined to be high risk or has a previously existing condition. I personally think thats an entirely moral decision and am sad it took so long to do, even if it costs people more money as a whole. This was a huge part of why we needed health care reform in the first place wasn't it? Not enough people were being covered and it doesn't make sense to turn people away from life saving procedures and medicine just because greedy insurance companies didn't want to front the money  

Obama care is flawed and imo should have been a single payer method, but there are SO many benefits to it that we are reaping and not even acknowledging that any sort of sweeping "Lets get rid of it all!" is terrifying. It tells me that those people don't care about compromise, or improvement, they care about partisanship winning. Thats why its basically called "Obama" care; If people hate Obama, they will want to hate "Obama"care, regardless of whether the act has any merit whatsoever (and it does). It should be improved upon. Whether this means scrapping certain parts of the act or not totally depends on whether that will actually improve things. 

Spoiler

I honestly don't think there is a way to just put a new plan into place that continues to cover the over 20 million new people who have insurance now, those who had insurance before, and encourages more people to have insurance in the future that also has no such thing as a premium, or even some kind of penalty. I'm not an economist, so don't take my word there, but I believe that plan would look radically different from the Affordable Care Act, and I'm not even sure that such a plan would come from American Conservative economic policy at all  

This is off topic though, so if you want to converse further, message me   

[Goosey 3,017]

4 hours ago, Seeka said:

Not much better, but I doubt congress would choose Trump.

They would indeed choose Trump  let's be realistic.

Same as the Parliament of the UK still almost certain to choose Brexit, even though most members oppose it and are no longer obligated to follow the referendum results.

They might not like Trump, but they like the wrath of 60 million voters much less.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

5 hours ago, Goosey said:

They would indeed choose Trump  let's be realistic.

Same as the Parliament of the UK still almost certain to choose Brexit, even though most members oppose it and are no longer obligated to follow the referendum results.

They might not like Trump, but they like the wrath of 60 million voters much less.

As opposed to the 62 million that voted for Hillary eh?!  

 

[Maleficent 6]

9 hours ago, JustPokeHerFace said:

they may not like him, but republicans really hate hillary clinton. if it were down between the two, they would choose trump. also they would rather someone in their political party be in the white house, even if it's someone they don't like 

This. Obviously republicans would rather have someone from their own party, who they can easily control, running the country. Republicans aren't gonna let a Clinton come within a .5 mile radius of the white house. 

[Goosey 3,017]

55 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

As opposed to the 62 million that voted for Hillary eh?!  

There wouldn't be wrath from them, either nothing, a "meh" or  an "aww". They lost the election and aren't expecting Trump to be blocked from the presidency