The US Election, Part XI

[Namutree]

I would point out that ability to ask recount of vote is part of same system that made it possible to Trump to win in first place. Recount should be waste of time and money as it should give same result as original count. Speculations that it would not are reason why recount system exist in first place. It is there to ensure people that their will has been listened.

Recount will be a waste of time and money. Though I'm looking forward to leftist salt after Trump wins again.

[imaenoon]

Actually, I think it's great. Now that I understand what Stein is doing. Conning a bunch of weepy Clinton supporters to throw down cash in excess of the cost for a recount and then keeping that remaining money in Green party coffers. Terribly cynical, but that's politics for ya.

Edited November 26, 2016 by imaenoon

[Longknife]

 

I would point out that ability to ask recount of vote is part of same system that made it possible to Trump to win in first place. Recount should be waste of time and money as it should give same result as original count. Speculations that it would not are reason why recount system exist in first place. It is there to ensure people that their will has been listened.

Recount will be a waste of time and money. Though I'm looking forward to leftist salt after Trump wins again.

 

 

I'm all for a recount, but given all we've seen this election cycle, imagine a scenario where the United States actively determines Clinton actually won and, in an unprecedented turn of events, attempts to hand her the election now.

 

That would be a ****storm. Ain't nobody gonna trust such a result.

 

I fully believe rigging goes on from both parties to a degree, but no, I do not believe Trump has enough power and influence to directly call for rigging in 3+ states. Even if it were determined that, for example, let's say Republicans in Wisconsin actively rigged and flipped the results of their own accord, I would be very skeptic, angry and furious about the fact that suddenly the establishment candidate has all the support from all the right people to flip a result.

[imaenoon]

BruceVC linked an article that made several excellent points, one of which is, if you were going to defraud people, why not do it in states where the count was supposed to be closer. Take out Wisconsin and throw in states like NV and NH. There was a reason that the Clinton campaign started sending surrogates and money into Pennsylvania.

 

Look, Elerond, I agree with you in principle that recounts can be necessary. I can assure you, and you can believe this or not, but I would *not* have called for recounts in a reverse situation. Three states? With 20k+ in one and approximately 60k+ in another? Overturning a few hundred votes in one state is tough. Overturning 60k+ votes in one state? Just read what that knife dude put above. I agree with that entirely.

 

So, when the recount's done, are you going to accept that as legitimate, or come up with another reason why Trump won unfairly?

[ShadySands]

I'm for the recounts. It will be one less thing for people to complain about and since it's supposedly not costing tax dollars I say have at it

 

The people are never going to "come together" behind Trump (or anyone else) no matter what 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Looks like Stein is a master of the ruse.

[Meshugger]

Perhaps those millions in recount funding for Stein didn't come from various investors of the Clinton Foundation, but rather from someone else....

 

 

Edited November 26, 2016 by Meshugger

[Pidesco]

I can't help but think that there are Democrats sitting tight on really, really juicy Trump scandals. I imagine that the only reason they don't release the info is that they can't figure out which is better/worse for their party; the GOP in charge of everything with Trump at the helm or the GOP in charge of everything with Trump pushed aside.

[ShadySands]

I would think it's mostly been proven that his supporters don't care as much about his scandals

 

I know I would never support Clinton for all her baggage but none of the Trump supporters I've seen other than WoD have had second thoughts on Trump

 

Anyway, I gotta go lie down because the air is thin up here on this moral high ground

[imaenoon]

I'm for the recounts. It will be one less thing for people to complain about and since it's supposedly not costing tax dollars I say have at it

 

The people are never going to "come together" behind Trump (or anyone else) no matter what

I'll ask one question, and I'll take you at your word on my honor. Would you have said this if Trump had lost three states by a combined total of between 90-100k votes and had to win all three to win? Would you be for the recount no matter what? I can tell you, I wouldn't. Not under these circumstances.

 

I didn't understand Stein's angle at first, but now I just think she's brilliant. Kind of like the ad execs for cigarette manufacturers.

 

As for you, Pidesco, if the Democrats are sitting on something juicy about Trump, I'd wonder why the hell they didn't pull it out before the election. This whole thing has become such a cluster **** it's redefined the meaning of fubar.

[BruceVC]

I

Anyway, I gotta go lie down because the air is thin up here on this moral high ground

Dont worry my friend you will notice that high ground  is always  full of the majority of forum members already.....we always welcome another commentator 

[ShadySands]

I'll ask one question, and I'll take you at your word on my honor. Would you have said this if Trump had lost three states by a combined total of between 90-100k votes and had to win all three to win? Would you be for the recount no matter what? I can tell you, I wouldn't. Not under these circumstances.

I didn't understand Stein's angle at first, but now I just think she's brilliant. Kind of like the ad execs for cigarette manufacturers.

 

As for you, Pidesco, if the Democrats are sitting on something juicy about Trump, I'd wonder why the hell they didn't pull it out before the election. This whole thing has become such a cluster **** it's redefined the meaning of fubar.

Yes, I still wouldn't care as long as I'm not paying for it. It's highly unlikely that the recounts will change the overall results in those states and should hopefully shut down most of the people crying foul

 

I didn't think Stein was that shrewd either and I voted for her

[Guard Dog]

I can't help but think that there are Democrats sitting tight on really, really juicy Trump scandals. I imagine that the only reason they don't release the info is that they can't figure out which is better/worse for their party; the GOP in charge of everything with Trump at the helm or the GOP in charge of everything with Trump pushed aside.

If they have something really juicy they are three weeks too late to do anything with it. And as Shady said, anything other than flagrant illegality would not have changed anything. 

[licketysplit]

Shill Stein is as corrupt as anyone else in Washington. So much for a third party. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Perhaps those millions in recount funding for Stein didn't come from various investors of the Clinton Foundation, but rather from someone else....

 

 

Honestly if she swindled the money out of Hillary supporters that would make it even better.

[Agiel]

[Elerond]

BruceVC linked an article that made several excellent points, one of which is, if you were going to defraud people, why not do it in states where the count was supposed to be closer. Take out Wisconsin and throw in states like NV and NH. There was a reason that the Clinton campaign started sending surrogates and money into Pennsylvania.

 

Look, Elerond, I agree with you in principle that recounts can be necessary. I can assure you, and you can believe this or not, but I would *not* have called for recounts in a reverse situation. Three states? With 20k+ in one and approximately 60k+ in another? Overturning a few hundred votes in one state is tough. Overturning 60k+ votes in one state? Just read what that knife dude put above. I agree with that entirely.

 

So, when the recount's done, are you going to accept that as legitimate, or come up with another reason why Trump won unfairly?

 

Recount is systematic tool that is based on state laws that say who, when and how one can ask for recount. Recounted should always be exactly same as original count and if that is not case there is bigger problems than who won the election. Recount systems are in place to prevent human error. Recount isn't good tool to look for foul play, even though in cases like current accusation of hacking of results of electric voting as there are fail safe systems like physical prints of the votes that give ability to count votes manually.  But change that recount will ever give result that differ more than few hundred votes from original count are very low. But recount systems exist to ensure that election officials do their job with care.

 

Trump winning or losing don't really matter me personally, because I don't live in USA and I am not citizen of USA so his presidency has little impact to me. I don't agree with him on his social policy issues or economical policies, but those effect mainly only people that live in USA. Things that effect on me are his foreign policy issues, which are actually such that they are beneficial for political party that I support here in Finland. Even though I have relatives in USA, they are economical refugees or descendants of such and additionally they live in Washington state and in my understanding they voted for Gary Johnson, so their candidate isn't in competition of winning anyway.

 

So in short I don't come up reasons in first place why these elections were unfairly. I just take my fun out from pointing out things that happen to people that have previously said opposite things about similar happenings in other elections or in other context and see how they react on the news. In other words I continue to have conversation about things that I find interesting in intellectual level and try to find how different emotional approach to subject effects other people taking part in that conversation. Meaning that my jabs in this thread aren't aimed towards Trump or his win like you interpret it put towards other people on this forum, because that is where I get my fun.

 

And then to other subject that I already mentioned earlier but now from different perspective

 

https://thinkprogress.org/electoral-college-trump-top-lawyers-8a8b6e0ca916#.ftt01jq9u

 

Following is quote from the article behind the above link

 

Electoral College must reject Trump unless he sells his business, top lawyers for Bush and Obama say

Ethics lawyers for the last two presidents are in agreement.

 

Members of the Electoral College should not make Donald Trump the next president unless he sells his companies and puts the proceeds in a blind trust, according to the top ethics lawyers for the last two presidents.

Richard Painter, Chief Ethics Counsel for George W. Bush, and Norman Eisen, Chief Ethics Counsel for Barack Obama, believe that if Trump continues to retain ownership over his sprawling business interests by the time the electors meet on December 19, they should reject Trump.

In an email to ThinkProgress, Eisen explained that “the founders did not want any foreign payments to the president. Period.” This principle is enshrined in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which bars office holders from accepting “any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

 

This provision was specifically created to prevent the President, most of all, from being corrupted by foreign influences.

Virginia Governor Edmund Jennings Randolph addressed the issue directly during a Constitutional debate in June 1788, noting that a violation of the provision by the President would be grounds for impeachment. (Randolph was also a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.)

 

There is another provision against the danger mentioned by the honorable member, of the president receiving emoluments from foreign powers. If discovered he may be impeached. If he be not impeached he may be displaced at the end of the four years. By the ninth section, of the first article, “No person holding an office of profit or trust, shall accept of any present or emolument whatever, from any foreign power, without the consent of the representatives of the people” … I consider, therefore, that he is restrained from receiving any present or emoluments whatever. It is impossible to guard better against corruption.”

 

Eisen said that Trump’s businesses, foreign and domestic, “are receiving a stream of such payments.” A prime example is Trump’s new hotel in Washington DC which, according to Eisen, is “actively seeking emoluments to Trump: payments from foreign governments for use of the hotel.”

 

“The notion that his (through his agents) solicitation of those payments, and the foreign governments making of those payments, is unrelated to his office is laughable,” Eisen added.

This problem will be repeated “over and over” again with Trump’s other properties and business interests. The only way to cure this Constitutional violation is for Trump to sell his companies and set up a blind trust before he takes office.

 

Electors should insist that Trump set up a blind trust as a condition of their vote, Eisen said.

Another option, however unlikely, is for “Republicans in Congress [to] admit that they endorse Trump’s exploitation of public office for private gain and authorize his emoluments as the Constitution allows.”

Eisen’s conclusions are shared by Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe, one of the nation’s preeminent constitutional scholars. Tribe told ThinkProgress that, after extensive research, he concluded that “Trump’s ongoing business dealings around the world would make him the recipient of constitutionally prohibited ‘Emoluments’ from ‘any King, Prince, or foreign State’ — in the original sense of payments and not necessarily presents or gifts — from the very moment he takes the oath.”

The only solution would be to divest completely from his businesses. Failing that, Tribe elaborated on the consequences:

 

Trump would be knowingly breaking his oath of exclusive fealty (under Art. II, Sec.1) to a Constitution whose very first Article (Art. I, Sec. 9) — an Article deliberately designed to prevent any U.S. official,especially the Chief Executive, from being indebted to, or otherwise the recipient of financial remuneration from, any foreign power or entity answerable to such a power — he would be violating as he repeated the words recited by the Chief Justice.

 

Tribe said the violation would qualify as one of the “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” that would require Trump to be “removed from Office.”

This is where the Electoral College comes in. Tribe notes that the Electoral College was “originally conceived by Framers like Alexander Hamilton as a vital safeguard against the assumption of the Presidency by an ‘unfit character’ or one incapable of serving faithfully to ‘execute the Office of President of the United States [and] preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

 

“[T]o vote for Trump in the absence of such complete divestment… would represent an abdication of the solemn duties of the 538 Electors,” Tribe said.

This view is not a position of disgruntled liberals. Richard Painter, Bush’s Chief Ethics Counsel, was in complete agreement with Tribe and Eisen during a recent appearance on CNN.

“I don’t think the electoral college can vote for someone to become president if he’s going to be in violation of the Constitution on day one and hasn’t assured us he’s not in violation,” Painter said.

 

Painter also suggested a cure for the constitutional problem short of total divestment. Trump could agree to have his businesses audited and any payment from a foreign government be turned over to the United States. (Tribe does not think this would actually cure the Constitutional violation.)

 

Thus far, Trump has not shown a willingness to do anything. Trump told the New York Times that he is under no obligation to set up a trust and he “could run my business perfectly, and then run the country perfectly.” Instead, he plans on having his adult children run the company while he retains ownership.

 

Trump told a room full of reporters that “the law is totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest.”

 

Painter told CNN that his attempts to warn the Trump transition of the legal consequences of their approach, including emails to adviser Kellyanne Conway, are being ignored.

 

Meanwhile, Trump has already sought to leverage the office of the presidency to pressure foreign governments to take actions that would improve his bottom line. Trump admitted that he asked a group of British politicians to kill a proposed wind farm he believed would mar the views at a golf course he owns in Scotland. He reportedly asked the president of Argentina to approve permits for a high-rise in Buenos Aires. (Trump denied the allegation, although his local partner announced the project was moving forward the next day.) Trump has also had his daughter Ivanka, who is supposedly managing his day-to-day business interests, sit in on meetings with heads of state.

 

Eisen views the current situation as dire. If Trump is permitted to be sworn in as president without selling his companies, he says, the country is facing a “wholesale oligarchic kleptocracy of a kind that we have never seen before in our history.”

[imaenoon]

I haven't read all of your post, Elerond, but I will. Maybe later tonight, but no later than tomorrow evening. I won't respond, however. I'll leave my response here which is this: at some point we have to let our arguments stand. I've had my say, and I'm willing to let you have yours. That's fair. I won't argue with you about this again because I'm happy to accept your arguments as ones of conviction rather than convenience. Whether or not they are is between you and God.

 

Don't get me wrong, I've scanned your points, but I won't insult you by pretending I've given them a full reading yet. This election is truly exceptional, and that's coming from a man who turned 18 in military training and has voted in every election, local, state, and national, since. I don't know how long I'll be here, and that's irrelevant anyway.

 

I hope my convictions win the day, but it doesn't matter. I believe in the Republic. If, as a Republic, we decide to invade Sicily and spread our navy thin through adventure, I'll live with that. That's what it is to be a true Republican. Accept what the people say and live or die with it.

[Pidesco]

 

I can't help but think that there are Democrats sitting tight on really, really juicy Trump scandals. I imagine that the only reason they don't release the info is that they can't figure out which is better/worse for their party; the GOP in charge of everything with Trump at the helm or the GOP in charge of everything with Trump pushed aside.

 

If they have something really juicy they are three weeks too late to do anything with it. And as Shady said, anything other than flagrant illegality would not have changed anything.

Well, when I say juicy, I mean juicy. Career ending, jail time. Stuff that would make his own kids disavow him.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

I can't help but think that there are Democrats sitting tight on really, really juicy Trump scandals. I imagine that the only reason they don't release the info is that they can't figure out which is better/worse for their party; the GOP in charge of everything with Trump at the helm or the GOP in charge of everything with Trump pushed aside.

If they have something really juicy they are three weeks too late to do anything with it. And as Shady said, anything other than flagrant illegality would not have changed anything.

Well, when I say juicy, I mean juicy. Career ending, jail time. Stuff that would make his own kids disavow him.

 

 Like I said the time to play that card was a few days before the election. That is when that would have done the most good. Doing it now would be like kicking the ball into the goal after everyone has left the stadium. They could save it for 2020 but unless it's REALLY good ot will just be old news. And if he's doing really well or really poorly as President it would not matter anyway.

[Guard Dog]

Shill Stein is as corrupt as anyone else in Washington. So much for a third party. 

You know I really don't know what her angle is. Having the Democrats in disarray only helps the Green Party. If Trump is a disaster and the Democrats can't get out of their own way or fail to learn any lessons from this elections there is an unprecedented opportunity for the Greens to pick up support. Besides raising a little money and getting her name in the media (which may indeed be the whole point) I don't see an upside for her. If she genuinely wanted Hillary Clinton to win the election she could have helped by dropping out and endorsing Clinton. The US Communist Party did (indirectly) the US Socialist Workers Party did, as did the American Independent Party. 

 

As far as I know Stein is committed to the Green Party. And she is certainly not stupid enough to be manipulated. She has to know they will get better traction running against a Republican in 2018 & 2020 so seeing the election overturned (unlikely as that is) would not be to their benefit. So I'm guessing this is an opportunity to raise money and street cred with disaffected Democrats.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Check this out. They are baaaack: http://www.modernwhig.org/

[Pidesco]

 

 

 

I can't help but think that there are Democrats sitting tight on really, really juicy Trump scandals. I imagine that the only reason they don't release the info is that they can't figure out which is better/worse for their party; the GOP in charge of everything with Trump at the helm or the GOP in charge of everything with Trump pushed aside.

 

If they have something really juicy they are three weeks too late to do anything with it. And as Shady said, anything other than flagrant illegality would not have changed anything.

Well, when I say juicy, I mean juicy. Career ending, jail time. Stuff that would make his own kids disavow him.

 Like I said the time to play that card was a few days before the election. That is when that would have done the most good. Doing it now would be like kicking the ball into the goal after everyone has left the stadium. They could save it for 2020 but unless it's REALLY good ot will just be old news. And if he's doing really well or really poorly as President it would not matter anyway.

Obviously now, but at that time even Trump thought he was going to lose so why would they rock the boat. The best laid plans and all that.

[Meshugger]

 

Perhaps those millions in recount funding for Stein didn't come from various investors of the Clinton Foundation, but rather from someone else....

 

 

Honestly if she swindled the money out of Hillary supporters that would make it even better.

 

 

The presidential electon of 2016: tr0l0l000l-edition.

[redneckdevil]

Elerond-with that info, would that mean that if Hillary becomes president, she would have to dissolve or do the same thing with the Clinton foundation and the other 5? organizations that are tied to it? With her already being caught getting campaign money that she wasn't supposed to, would that mean that then the electorals couldn't vote for neither Trump NOR Hillary then? Or would voting for Hillary also be doing the same violation as voting for Trump?