Politics
Out of context: Reply #23142
- Started
- Last post
- 33,773 Responses
- BuddhaHat0
When you have electoral voters like these, it's absolutely no surprise Trump won. The system is truly broken and in need of repair. Here are some responses from people that are supposed to prevent a potentially dangerous person taking office:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ro…
Citing Constitutional scholar Lawrence Lessig, we explained that the Founders of this nation created the position of “Elector” precisely to prevent a truly dangerous and unqualified person from being elevated to the Presidency.
Many people who read our article emailed their Electors. The way some of the Electors responded is shocking:
Elector John Haggard, from Michigan, responded: “On Beaver Island Deer Hunting hope to kill 3 deer. Please hold all emails. Thanks. GO TRUMP.”
Elector Alex Kim, from Texas, wrote: “I reject the Democratic Party principles and I reject Hillary Clinton. I will not do anything that will open a path for HRC to become our next President. [T]he political opinions of non-Texas voters means nothing to me. I do not vote or get involved in your state, I am not sure why you are trying to interfere in mine. I encourage you to be more active in the political process where your vote matters.”
Both of these Electors seem unaware of the constitutional requirements of their job. Alexander Hamilton explains it best: “[Electors should be] men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to [the Presidency].” They should act “under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” They should “possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”
A more hopeful (if mildly condescending) response came from Elector L. Scott Mann, also of Texas.
“You have every right to lobby an elector... I am delighted that many are reading the Federalist Papers. I’ve been reading them for twenty years. Yes, I agree with Hamilton in Federalist 68. No, I do not believe that the election of Donald Trump rises to that level.”
So, if Mr. Mann is to be believed, then he needs to be convinced that Donald Trump is unfit for the Presidency. We need use no other words to do so, than those of his fellow Republican Texan Elector - Christopher Suprun, a 9/11 first responder — who writes why he is choosing to change his vote:
"[Donald Trump] shows daily he is not qualified for the office. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards."
- i don't think hillary would have really pass Supruns concerns either...********
- "an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence."BuddhaHat
- Definition of demagogue. 1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.BuddhaHat
- You could pretty easily just put a picture of Trump next to that definition.BuddhaHat
- Given that he stirred up racial hatred, and lied for his entire campaign.BuddhaHat
- i can put a picture of almost every politician i've seen against that definition. the popular desire not to be fearful. trump was the least rational********
- or least tactful at hiding it.********
- hard to get elected when you don't sell something though. a cure all fix to something we don't like. i blame voters for always voting greedy********
- and a lot on media. and how it fed and pretty much sold and grew the hate. i think johnson would have been the only one that fit that criteria********
- and did you notice how the author sets u up for every quote with the emotional response he wants, while there really is no reason for the response.********
- I see a lot of this false equivalency stuff where people have said 'but it's the same as other politicians do'; it's not. It's an order of magnitude worse.BuddhaHat
- Other Pres-elects have managed to make it through their first 100 days without committing a huge political faux pas (or otherwise outright stupid move with .Tw)BuddhaHat
- haven't made fatuous claims to millions of illegal votes during the election, appointed seriously dubious people to high-ranking positions in cabinet.BuddhaHat
- so, I'll totally agree that other politicians are crooked, absolutely 100%, but to compare their actions to what we're witnessing prior to Tru taking officeBuddhaHat
- is scary to a lot of people, and it should be.BuddhaHat
- remember obamas first term. his czars and appointees. his talk of socializing medicine. to someone who believes that stuff is good its not scary********
- i guess its relative to your own beliefs. personally everything so far seems like hollow talk, accept some of the business deals. he has 0 tact about cronieism********
- my biggest fear of him is openly treating US as a business more so than other presidents, in a way china runs. creating more bubbles********
- good pr movie cancelling boeings contract on new air force one though. im still waiting to see. haev faith in balance of powers but is till cant believe supreme********
- allowed obamacare on judicial restraint or whatever they called it. that was the final nail in coffin of HC. bet it cant even get removed********
- and hillarys/bernie minimum wage talk was hella super scary. too many who buy the lie its not scary, but those who understand it its really scary********
- i don't think hillary would have really pass Supruns concerns either...