How to pressure the electoral college?
 

It seems there are two electors that will go 'faithless' on the 29th. Is there some way we can urge more to consider this path, assuming we don't especially want the pres elect in office?

From a government standpoint, who would we put pressure on as well, our senators, governors, congressmen?

I'm not adequately versed in the workings of our government, but it seems that pressure can be brought to bear all along the chain.

Tricky stuff, it seems to me from reading the excerpts from the Federalist papers, that the currents situation is precisely what the electoral college system was designed to guard against, it their clear duty to not make Trump president.

but, what about the backlash from the people who believe in him, thousands packing out stadiums chanting his slogans who feel disenfranchised by 'the elites' and wanted somebody from outside the system to 'drain the swamp' (regardless of what he is actually doing and appointing). To be patted on the head by some faceless 'college' and told 'no you got it wrong' and put Hillary in, rigged system much?

Again the lesser of two evils, let Trump go ahead and prove how incapable he is, to the ruin of the country, or change the result to the destruction of faith in democracy and government to a great swath of the population.

I don't really know who the electoral college is, and so how to pressure them, kidnap their dogs?

Yeah this Democracy turned into a bad idea because the lower classes aren't voting the way we want.

Can we somehow overturn their votes?

Maybe we should change our entire system of government to do it, and guarantee that only we elites can vote.

(By "elites" of course I mean me and thee. But as always, I'm not so sure about thee.)

Both Hillary and Trump are tools of distraction and manipulation. Bernie's message was allowed to be heard only, just like Howard Dean's in 2004. Now everything going on is just the process used to render that message impotent.

That's my conspiracy theory, anyway.

I think that, in the end, Trump will have done less damage than Hillary would have.

But, what do I know? I'm low class and easily manipulated.

I believe that Hillary would have been as productive as Obama was allowed to be. Trump is going to go for it all...pro-money makers at the expense of all classes except the money makers. We will have to see if its a harm or benefit to you and me. Did Reagans trickle down do much for you?

No, but his war on drugs sure did...:right:

lol

I'll just put this here in case we need it in the future. Not saying we will, mind you, just in case. :rolleyes:

Kleptocracy and kakistocracy explained
Kleptocracy is a government with corrupt rulers that use their power to exploit the people and natural resources of their own territory in order to extend their personal wealth and political power. Typically this system involves the embezzlement of state funds at the expense of the wider population, sometimes without even the pretense of honest service...

The effects of a kleptocratic government on a nation are typically adverse in regards to the welfare of the state's economy, political affairs and civil rights. Kleptocratic governance typically ruins prospects of foreign investment and drastically weakens the domestic market and cross-border trade...

Kakistocracy is a term meaning a state or country run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens... The word comes from the Greek words kakistos (worst) and kratos (rule), with a literal meaning of government by the worst people.

That wouldn't be a change, when it comes to the Electoral College. Removing the Electoral College would be the change.

Heck, if the Electoral College blocked Trump, there might be bipartisan support for eliminating it.

The EC doesn't have to give it to Hilary; they could elect anyone,at least it seems that way from reading what's his name's piece in the times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/op...ald-trump.html

Concerns in Congress Rise Over Donald Trump’s ‘Militarizing’ His Cabinet

There's nothing to be concerned about. It's just a precautionary measure in case Elector College Electors double-cross their voters and make Hillary President. The Donald will be ready with a military coup! :D

I think he'd look better in a military soft top.

No problem. Trump knows more than generals. Therefore they will only recommend what he wants them to recommend. That is what we voted for.

Yeh, remember how crazy republicans got when Obama had three Generals in his first cabinet?
me neither.

I'm more concerned with Goldman Sachs' continued ownership of economic policy. I don't think that's what Trump's voters were looking for.

Of course they were. Because they were not thinking. They voted for their emotions. What is evil yesterday is good today - when one is emotional. When one is an adult still thinking like a child, then what was known yesterday means little to that child today.

Yeah. It wasn't a case of low class, it was a case of ignorance.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an initative that would fix the problem without a constitutional ammendament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...rstate_Compact

Of course, why obey the Constitution when you can just do an end run around it whenever you don't get what you want?

Peter Skurkiss has a good take on this.

This is actually kind of funny. Without context, this quote can be used to describe any number of things I've seen in recent years done by your team.

Pam, how can you support a party that has declared war on the LGBTQ community (among other groups)?

Ha! Ask Caitlyn Jenner.

Two minutes in the penalty box for Tu Quoque Fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Drops gloves/ Guess you don't remember that either./circles foot3

I honestly wasn't paying attention; I didn't know there was going to be a test.

:)

I'd like to see that declaration in the record. Who voted for it? When was the vote?

There is no war on the LGBT community. They are simply not getting everything they demand, which is way more than they need.

Yes, I am part of that group, but I have been deemed a heretic for refusing to recognize more than two genders, refusing to use silly pronouns which do not exist in grammar (zie etc) and daring to use common sense when thinking for myself.

When I cast my vote for President, I voted for the person I thought was best to lead the entire country in many topics, not just one or two. I feel that it would have been irresponsible to vote based on "feelings" or against anyone (impossible to vote against a person, only a ballot question).

I have very few LGBT friends these days.

Sort of, unless you're not arguing the basic logic of the argument, but rather the double standard itself. It's not Peter saying that animal products are morally wrong, it's Peter saying, "I won't allow Bill to use animal products" but continuing to use them himself. In that case it doesn't matter if animal products are morally acceptable or not, the primary problem is the injustice.

We actually own a VW Thing (my wife and her two siblings) and are in the process of selling it. It was her mom's.

If I'm not mistaken, this makes Pamela at least the 3rd transgender woman on Cellar that is also conservative. Just an interesting observation...nothing more.

Really?

"The platform also makes homophobia and the denial of basic civil rights to gays, lesbians and transgender people a centerpiece. It repudiates same-sex marriage, despite strong support for this constitutional right in the nation at large. The party invokes “natural marriage” and states’ rights for determining which bathrooms transgender people may use, and it defends merchants who would deny service to gay customers."

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02/t...-lgbtq-people/

https://ballotpedia.org/2016_preside...n_LGBTQ_rights

You thought wrong.

And this

GOP to Reintroduce "Religious Liberty" Bill Targeting LGBT People

http://www.advocate.com/politics/201...ng-lgbt-people

Maybe not, she didn't specify: to lead the country where...

Identity politics is DIFFICULT! Should one vote for the candidate who said consistently that gay marriage should be illegal because it is morally wrong, right up to 2013 - the year the law changed and it was clear nothing more could be done about it?

Or this asshole?

http://cellar.org/2016/lgbt-trump.jpg

(I'm just asking, I don't actually vote)

GOOD QUESTION!!!

And, I'd like to know if they think his cabinet will help him get us there.

Possibly the fourth. I forget where Susan fell on the spectrum.

Trump has not said a word about such a platform. I read his published platform and policies. Nary a word for OR against the GLBT crowd. And he had no problem hanging with us at rallies and even invited Caitlyn Jenner to use the restroom of her choice at Trump whatever it was. I don't think he really cares one way or the other. He has much bigger fish to fry.

Don't listen to the hysterical ravings of the increasingly irrelevant. Listen to Trump. HIS words, not what someone says are his words.

Give the man a chance; he might surprise you.

With all due respect, Pam, his words are becoming increasingly meaningless...for his supporters and the rest of us.

#1
​ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO CATHOLICS

Religious Liberty

Religious liberty is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is our first liberty and provides the most important protection in that it protects our right of conscience. Activist judges and executive orders issued by Presidents who have no regard for the Constitution have put these protections in jeopardy. If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths. The Little Sisters of the Poor, or any religious order for that matter, will always have their religious liberty protected on my watch and will not have to face bullying from the government because of their religious beliefs.
#2
"I think the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman," Trump said during the interview.

"I just don't feel good about it," Trump said. "I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage."
#3
Trump told the Fox News host that he supports leaving the issue of transgender rights up to the states. "You know, Obama’s getting into a very tricky territory," he said, referencing the guidance issued by the Obama administration. "The amazing thing is so many people are talking about this now and we have to protect everybody even if it's one person … but this is such a tiny part of our population."

O'Reilly asked Trump if he provided gender-neutral facilities in his properties. “No, we don’t have that," replied Trump. "I hope not. Because frankly, it would be unbelievably expensive nationwide. It would be hundreds of billions of dollars."

Whats the problem?

From your own link ...
and from another
Link

So that everyone understands why the "First Amendment Defense Act" is a discussion topic:
This language isn't accidental, and it isn't being misconstrued. It's very clear.

How is the Federal Government discriminating against these people now? How will that change with this bill?

Well there was that County clerk a couple years ago who got fired for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays. That was a local thing but it was a government thing

She did wrong and was fired. What more would you like to happen, glatt?

This is my only question. Why would they put that language in there?

It's certainly not "for no reason," so there has to be some reason. And because we're not mind-readers, we have to guess, based on what reasonable assumptions we can make, don't we? This is speculation, yes. Speculation is a large part of being aware of the world around you. People don't announce their intentions. People have even been known to obfuscate their intentions--believe it or not!!

Useful queries: is this part of a recognizable trend? (It is.) Have other examples of this trend been straightforward in announcing their intentions, i.e. have the hundreds of state-level, gay-hating laws been similarly, misleadingly packaged and titled? (They have.) Does creating the appearance of innocent, "religious" intentions create a "safe space" for bigots to openly deny basic human rights to other citizens, whose lives are none of their goddamn business? (It does.) Would you have to be naive, disingenuous, and/or extremely obtuse to claim ignorance of the obvious here? (You most certainly would.)

Nothing more. She should have been fired.

But she wound up being fired because she put her religion before her job. That proposed law up two posts above talks about protecting people who act based on their religious beliefs

Bingo.

naw fuck it

Same with the now out of business bakery.

I've scrolled through every page of this thread but I can't find the question...? (Did this yesterday also, couldn't find it, and resumed having a busy day at work.)

If it helps you to understand why I take a long time to return phone calls, texts, instant messages, and questions posed to me in message boards, it's because answers are complicated and I take a long time to weigh all of the factors before reaching a conclusion I'm 100% comfortable with. Also, the aforementioned busy day (and/or other social commitments such as literally being at a BBQ with friends), and also a fair amount of social anxiety / avoidant personality (aka Roast Beef syndrome).

"Shaming me" for not responding quick enough doesn't help. If you care.

There's nothing to think about, just go with preconceived notions. :lol2:

I answered your "is it news" question in the thread it's in. It's not this thread.

If this is the question you're asking why I didn't answer, I'll attempt to answer it, in this thread. But it will take me more time than I have right now, so I'm not going to do it right now. If you care. The short answer is that the question already got answered in this thread, subsequently before I had a chance to formulate an answer that I felt was comprehensive--somebody else answered the question easily in a few short sentences, which isn't my best skill. If you care. Federal vs. State/local is a complicating factor. Those laws don't always agree, and sometimes the overlap, and sometimes their jurisdiction isn't clear. Sometimes you pass a law in one place as a model for what you'd like to see done somewhere else. And I think the post you deleted touched on the question of making a political statement, which factors into this as well. If you care.

If you only care about replies that come in a timeframe that you're demanding (but not specifying), and then throw a temper tantrum when people don't comply with your unstated expectations, then best to just forget about it. It's not a chatroom, people can read and reply at their leisure, I had thought.

I've lost interest, I'm out.

so, tl;dnr

Okay, you've driven me away from the Cellar a second time now.
I get the message, I won't come back. You don't want me here.

From the citation: American was founded on a basic principle. One never imposes their religious beliefs on anyone. Ever. Earliest settlers came here because others imposed their religious beliefs on them in a harmful (discriminatory) manner.

Does not matter what your religion says. No American - for legal and for ethical reasons - no American does or cares what any other persons sexual preference is. Even worse, if that is done for religious reasons, then the perpetrator should be condemned as something worse than a Satanic worshiper.

No decent American ever discriminates against LGBTQ people for religious reasons. Ever. Religion is only a relationship between that one person and his god. It has no place imposed on anyone else anywhere in this world for any reason. We had to learn the evil of such religious actions the hard way - Spanish Inquisition, Holocaust, etc.

Religion is only how a man interfaces with his god. No man imposes religious beliefs on anyone else - if he is a good American.

First Amendment Defense Act should be retitled "We want to rape you because out religious says we should". But that would be too honest.

I don't think that's going to pressure the electoral college.

Psychological projection