The Democrats’ Petition To Overturn The Election

petition-electors

There is a petition on Change.org calling for Trump’s electors to violate their pledges and vote for Clinton when the Electoral College convenes on December 19. The originator is a Democratic cheating advocate, liar and Ethics Dunce named Elijah Berg. 3.5 million fellow cheaters, ignoramuses and sore losers have now signed the silly thing, on the way to the goal of 4,500,000, which will obligate the White House to respond to it. The proper response would be a Bronx cheer.

The petition makes me feel even better about not voting with these people, who now, fully corrupt, believe that it is just and right to achieve power by any means necessary, and ethics be damned. These are 3.5 million people I wouldn’t dare play cards with, or trust to mail my water bill.

Let’s focus on some of Elijah’s points, shall we?

On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots. If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose.

Yes, and they can defecate on the floor, too, but their duty is to vote according to how their state’s citizens directed them to vote, and their assumption that the electors would perform that duty.

Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine – which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay!

Because whether something is wrong or not depends on the penalty for doing it! Behold! The watermark of an ethics dunce. It is also one of the Clinton family’s operating principles. This is juuuust short of a bribe, incidentally.

We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states’ votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton. Why?

Because you are unethical and undemocratic cheats who think it is acceptable to defy the result of an election because you don’t like it, right? Well, at least  it’s better than rioting in Portland…

Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsive, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.

A fine argument for November 7! Unfortunately, it’s November 13. You can’t argue why we shouldn’t elect Trump after he’s been elected. Is Elijah trying to deceive, or is he stupid?

Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President. Hillary won the popular vote. The only reason Trump “won” is because of the Electoral College.

The reason Trump won—and the scare quotes are intentionally dishonest—is that the system isn’t set up the way Elijah wished it was. Too bad. The Constitution says that voters are voting for a slate of electors who are duty bound to vote for the voters’ preferred candidates. More Trump electors prevailed, hence he wins. Clinton didn’t “win” anything. He should be President because the system makes him President.

But the Electoral College can actually give the White House to either candidate. So why not use this most undemocratic of our institutions to ensure a democratic result?

The reason is that this isn’t a democracy, but a republic, as we all learned in school. The Founders rejected a pure democratic system, because the smaller states wouldn’t accept it, and because it might lead to regional domination. Why shouldn’t we undermine the system required for excellent reasons by the nation’s founding document? The question answers itself.

SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE.

YOU SAID THAT. The popular vote doesn’t determine who wins the election, and the system has been in place since 1788. Did it still surprise Elijah? I guarantee that it didn’t surprise Hillary or the Democrats, because they lost in the Electoral College just 16 years ago. They could have gotten an amendment passed (actually, they couldn’t, because the small states still like the Electoral College), or could have refused to participate in the election as a protest. However, they decided to participate, and thus accepted the system and rules as they existed.

There is no reason Trump should be President.

You mean, other than the fact that he was duly elected under the same system that every other President was elected under, and that the Democratic Party and their candidate agreed to abide by? The same system and process that they, incredibly and laughably, condemned Donald Trump for suggesting that he might not abide by? That’s a decisive reason.

Let us be clear about what this is. This is signature significance. It is the most corrupt and unethical segment of the Democratic Party claiming that it is acceptable to change the rules  after the election, because they lost, and don’t have the integrity, honesty or respect for our institutions to accept the results like good citizens and adults are ethically obligated to do. They are urging people who have pledged to act a certain way and who had millions of citizens vote trusting that their word was their bond to betray that trust, because it means just a “small fine.” and because the ends justify the means.

To this segment of the Left, the ends always justifies the means. This is why one DNC chair felt that rigging the nomination for Hillary Clinton was appropriate, and why her successor abused her relationship with the news media to help Clinton cheat in debates. This is why Clinton decided to break her own department’s rules to make it easier for her to hide her various political schemes.

Over 3,5 million  people have been so corrupted by the culture of the current Democratic Party that they publicly outed themselves as willing to disenfranchise the Americans who voted Donald Trump to victory, many of whom knew he was unfit to serve, but feared exactly this kind of totalitarian  mentality among Hillary Clinton’s supporters. We don’t like the results of the election, so we will just overturn it.

There is your Democratic Party after eight years of Barack Obama, America. It believes that the uninformed, arrogant certitude of 4.5 million fools should over-rule over 60 million votes.

This also speaks poorly for the intelligence and education of those Democrats, of course, since what they are calling for is impossible. Most of all, however, it demonstrates how devoid of ethics the progressive movement has become, and at this point, they don’t recognize or regret its. This is The Saint’s Excuse at extinction levels.

I recommend downloading and keeping that list of petition signers. They have publicly declared themselves in favor of cheating and betrayal. Be warned.

 

134 Comments

Filed under Character, Citizenship, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics, Law & Law Enforcement

134 responses to “The Democrats’ Petition To Overturn The Election

  1. The idea of thirty-seven Republican electors defecting to vote for Hillary Clinton is detached from reality.

    Getting thirty-seven of them to vote for Gary Johndon or Ted Cruz is a Hail Mary pass. But for Clinton?

    Whatever Mr. Berg is smoking is still illegal in California.

  2. THE Bill

    You just don’t get it Jack. It was Hillary’s turn and it was stolen away from her by that mean old constitution!!

  3. Looks like the petition will reach its goal; they only have 160,754 more signers to reach the 4.5 million goal. I will be interesting to see how the Obama Administration chooses to respond to it.

    • María

      I don’t think this is true. ElijH Berg is a cheater. He is liar.

      • María said, “I don’t think this is true. ElijH Berg is a cheater. He is liar.”

        It doesn’t make any difference if he is a cheater or a liar, he’s only short 3% of the total signatures he needs to forward the petition to the United States Government. That does not mean that he will achieve the goal of changing the voted of the Electoral College members.

        María,
        Are you using Google Translate to translate your comments to English?

        • María,
          Are you using Google Translate to translate your comments into English?

          If so, I suggest translating it several times to make sure your intention translates.

          Spanish Translation (Traducción Española)

          ¿Estás usando Google Translate para traducir tus comentarios al inglés?

          Si es así, sugiero que se traduzcan varias veces para asegurarse de que su intención se traduce.)

  4. Your rant ignores the fact that our founding father built into our system of government a failsafe in case the electorate were deceive by a foreign government or criminal organization.
    Your assertion of democratic cheating reflects poorly on your understanding of our system of government, its checks and balances as well as it fails safes.
    Therefore, if the Electoral College were to meet and determine foul play were indeed involved and vote for another choice, then our system would be vindicated and your argument rendered false and mute.

    • What the hell does that have to do with this issue? Nobody is asserting “foul play.” Democrats just don’t like the result, and want to cheat. Your own post doesn’t support your argument. Ridiculous. If the Electoral College were to vote for the losing candidate due to a circumstance having nothing to do with the current effort, that would prove that my argument that they can’t ethically do it in this unrelated circumstance is “mute.”

      Got it.

      You’re an idiot.

      AB Honors in American Government, Magna thesis on The American Presidency. Harvard College. I have a pretty good grasp of the system, thanks. Glad I could straighten that out for you.

    • Monamarie McCreary

      Well said Wade. Thank you for explaining to the rants, the reason why the Electoral College was put in place long, long ago.

    • I intensely dislike Trump but I’m not so blinded to ignore the fact that this is a great big pile of classic correlation equal causation conspiracy theory crap.

  5. Captain Obvious

    This list of people I should avoid hiring because they’re thundering dolts is getting to be… Extensive.

    It’s going to need its own DropBox pretty soon.

  6. Leah

    You may be an expert but your attitude toward people who support Hillary sucks! You come across as an uneducated man. You made generalizations about the people who signed the petition. I signed the petition and don’t fit your description at all.

    • Did you get tricked into signing the petition, Leah? Because it is, by definition, an effort to achieve power by any means necessary, and ethics be damned. And you have to be corrupt (or ignorant) to try to do that, and think it’s right. It is also an insult to over 60 million fellow citizens.

      You signed a logically absurd, legally dubious and ethically offensive petition.

      Love your singing, though. Don’t quit your day job.

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      And I don’t fit the left’s idea of a Republican either – I am graduate school educated (a lawyer in fact), I attend Broadway and Carnegie Hall performances, I write both prose and poetry and appreciate artwork and good coffee. Some might ask where I went wrong. My answer is I also attend church regularly, grew up shooting guns, changing tires, and clearing land. My parents had to work for everything they got, and so have I. I was taught by the Irish Christian Brothers and the Jesuits, old school. I also learned the US system top to bottom. I learned this nation’s history, and I’m not impressed with what the left has done or tried to do. This last naked grab for power is the last straw.

    • Leah said, “You may be an expert but your attitude toward people who support Hillary sucks!”

      Actually the attitude is towards unethical political hacks not Clinton supporters in general. Your smear claiming a generalized attitude towards Clinton supporters is unwarranted, it’s false, and it’s unethical.

      Leah said, “You come across as an uneducated man.”

      That Leah is an ad hominem attack, it’s an unethical personal attack on the messenger, it’s also bull shit. If you think Jack comes across as an uneducated man then you Leah are comprehension challenged.

      Leah said, “You made generalizations about the people who signed the petition. I signed the petition and don’t fit your description at all.”

      I think the generalization you talk about are based on the fact that every person that signed the petition is either ignorant or an unethical political hack that believes that the ends justify the means. If you signed the petition, as you say you did, then you fit into one of those categories – choose.

  7. I don’t know the accuracy but I did some cross checking with a couple of other sites and the map appears to be the same as individual state maps that I found.

    If this is factually accurate, you now know why Clinton focused her efforts in certain areas and basically ignored the rest of the USA. Get the Liberal voters out in the high concentrations of Liberal bastions across the USA and the rest just doesn’t mean shit to her. Clinton and her campaign staff are a bunch of political idiots.

    Votes By Counties…

    Of course this verifies that the Electoral College does the job of balancing out what the “majority” of the country wanted and not let the few densely populated bastions of Liberal dominance rule the entire country.

    If someone could verify the map further I appreciate it.

    • Randy

      It’s not clear what you think this map proves. It appears to be a map that shows who *won* each county, but it doesn’t indicate how many people in each blue county voted for Trump, or how many people in each red county voted for Clinton. Even so, there are blue counties in the vast majority of states. You could just as easily say that Trump ignored the vast majority of people in the United States. How is that preferable to ignoring swaths of land?

      • Randy said, “It appears to be a map that shows who *won* each county”

        Astute observation.

        Randy said, “but it doesn’t indicate how many people in each blue county voted for Trump, or how many people in each red county voted for Clinton.”

        I believe the point may have blown over your head.

        Randy said, “Even so, there are blue counties in the vast majority of states.”

        Another astute observation by captain obvious. Anyone who’s not color blind could see that. 😉

        Randy said, “You could just as easily say that Trump ignored the vast majority of people in the United States.”

        Vast majority? Think about that while you read the next couple of sentences.

        Sure you could “say” that if you wanted too; however, the outcome on the map doesn’t reflect that. Clinton and her staff took it for granted that she was going to win in area where Obama won before, their political ignorance sunk them. By the way Clinton only got 25.95% of possible votes from voting aged citizens, using your logic, doesn’t that show that she “ignored” 74.05% of the voting age population.

        Back to that “vast majority” phrase of yours. The fact is that Trump actually focused on the vast majority of the voting age population, working class citizens, and that focus is exactly what put him over the top across the USA. The localized support for Trump is so obvious that I would have thought that even a captain obvious lie yourself would have noticed it.

        Randy said, “How is that preferable to ignoring swaths of land?”

        I get the impression that you were trying to twist this into something that it’s not.

        The map clearly shows a HUGE majority of localized support for Trump across the vastness of the USA, ignore that fact if you want; that’s the point that appears to have blown over your head.

        • Randy

          You are correct, in that it might be reasonable to infer from the image that Trump ignored a slim majority of the U.S., but not a “vast” majority.
          That said, you’re looking at a graphic that shows that in the places where people gather together to live, Hillary Clinton held an edge. In places where fewer people choose to live, Donald Trump had an edge. The rest of your inferences are illogical.

          • Randy said, “In places where fewer people choose to live, Donald Trump had an edge. The rest of your inferences are illogical.”

            Ok Randy, I’m going to give you a fair chance to explain yourself, in detail if you like, how the “rest of my inferences are illogical”. Take them one at a time and explain why each inference (a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning) are illogical (lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning).

            I’ll hang out here in my lounge chair this evening waiting for your explanation and pondering how you’re going to logically present them.

            The wait begins…..

            • Internet Person

              Randy, they want you to structure a response using the same format they do. Allow me to demonstrate.

              Zoltar Speaks! said, “Take them one at a time and explain why each inference (a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning) are illogical (lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning).”

              Clearly, ZS is encouraging Randy to be more confident and reputable, most probably through the use of Google for definitions and articles. None of which are bad advice. This stern attitude and urgency for imparting ones own assumed wisdom on another is very common amongst people with deep insecurity and those who suffer from delusions of grandeur.

              Zoltar Speaks! said, “I’ll hang out here in my lounge chair this evening waiting for your explanation and pondering how you’re going to logically present them. The wait begins…..”

              Here, ZS illustrates their choices of time management and furniture. It can be said that ZS prefers to spend their time hanging out in a chair, which is described to be of the “lounge” (a couch or sofa, especially a backless one having a headrest at one end) type, deliberating on the actions of a person they have engaged with (assumedly) entirely on the internet. “The wait begins…” suggests that much time is invested in these activities.

              I hope this example was helpful to you!

              – A concerned party

              • Internet Person aka Randy,
                I see you have a duplicate account for this purpose. Using this aka account of yours, you haven’t presented an argument about either Jacks blog or about my arguments or tried to explain what you were asked to explain you just came back specifically to insult me – that’s what an internet stalker does.

                Listen Randy, I really don’t give a damn what you think of me and if you really want to play an insult game you appear to be intellectually unprepared. If you can’t support the random claims you make then maybe you should do something other than show off your Histrionic Malevolence Syndrome.

                There is something very familiar about your comment tactics of ad hominems, attack the messenger, and deflections. I’ll figure it our soon enough.

                Now Internet Person aka Randy you have a choice to make; you can explain the claim you made above “rest of your inferences are illogical”or I you could do as I expect and return with a few more insults and try to deflect attention away from your claim again.

                The wait continues…

                • dragin_dragon

                  He is also doing something that never fails to infuriate me…using psychological terms like he has some clue what he is talking about. Trust me (sorry, I know you don’t like the phrase), he does not. Among other things, ‘delusions of grandeur’ is a layman’s term derived from an actual psychological symptom.

                  • dragin_dragon wrote, “He is also doing something that never fails to infuriate me…using psychological terms like he has some clue what he is talking about. Trust me (sorry, I know you don’t like the phrase), he does not.”

                    I may not like it but I’ve connected the dots and I now fully understand why you wrote “trust me” in this context.

                    P.S. How do you like my little Histrionic Malevolence Syndrome creation. 😉 😉 😉

      • “You could just as easily say that Trump ignored the vast majority of people in the United States.”

        Not really. Though Republican turn out was lower, it wasn’t outside expected norms. If anyone ignored vast majority of people, it would be the Dems who had a HUGE chunk of people just straight up not vote because they weren’t being represented by Hillary.

        “How is that preferable to ignoring swaths of land?”

        It’s not about the land, it’s about culture groups, concentration of population, and not allowing a handful of culture centers to RULE over the rest of our diverse nation purely by weight of numbers, but by an ability for leaders to appeal to EVERYONE as best as possible.

        • Dwayne N. Zechman

          In fact, I was always under the impression that the Dems were the champions of the minorities…until those minorities don’t vote the way they’re supposed to.

          –Dwayne

  8. Jim Nevertrump

    We are at a critical juncture. The choice as to the next leader of the most powerful nation in history could well spell disaster for our collective future, for the future of the globe and the human race. Devastation awaits humanity from either of two crises – we can foreseeably suffer nuclear annihilation on the one hand, or broad environmental decimation on the other. A misstep here is one that we cannot chance. With a miscalculation once made, there’s no recovery. Beyond those two vital dangers, there are enormous questions pertaining to life and death, health and disease, wealth and destitution, power and servitude, crime and punishment. All these are on short fuses, and a wrong turn will inflict suffering on a great many.

    On the question of anointing the next president, the book is not closed. The Constitution challenges us to take a good hard look.

    The responsibility of electing the next President of the United States is firmly in the hands of the Electors from each of the 50 States. And they can, and they must indeed, make a choice for the good of the Nation, and the good of humanity. They in truth have a free hand and the sober obligation to vote their conscience.

    If I may, let me review the workings of U.S. elections that have, to this point, been rather vague to most of us.

    The Constitution of the United States dictates that each state select Electors, and each state is to decide the method in which the Electors will be designated. Those Electors will cast their ballots to determine the President of the United States.

    Prior to 1804 most states had their State Legislatures pick the State’s Electors. This of course would indirectly reflect the will of the people. The people directly elected their Legislators, and they trusted their Legislators to appoint Electors expressing their interests.

    After 1804 more of the States tied their Electors more directly to the results of popular votes. Some States published the list of Electors on the general election ballot and had the people vote for the Electors by district. Increasingly, the States found it easier to have the people across the state vote for President and Vice-President by party. The State would have a set slate of Electors representing each party. State by state, then, the Electors affiliated with the party or candidate winning the popular vote in that State would normally cast their vote for that candidate.

    A couple of states maintain an aspect of the district vote in presidential elections. Most however, are winner-take all. All Electors from each state would normally vote for the candidate who got the most votes in their state.

    Why the Electoral College in any case? Let’s start with an example. In the election of 1820, William Plumer, was an elector from New Hampshire . He had been United States senator and New Hampshire governor. James Monroe ran for President pretty much unopposed that year under the Democratic-Republican Party. Monroe won all electoral votes, save for Plumer’s. Plumer cast a lone vote for John Quincy Adams, who was not running at the time. What reason did Plumer give? One of the reasons was that Monroe’s Vice-Presidential running mate, Daniel Tompkins, was “grossly intemperate”, not having “that weight of character which his office requires,.”

    Why was Plumer in a position to be able to say this? Remember the old adage, “checks and balances”? The Congress passes laws, but it requires a double check. That is, the President must agree and sign the bill before it becomes law. The President appoints Federal judges, including Supreme Court judges, but the Senate is tasked with affirming the appointments.

    Likewise, in a very clever move enshrined in the Constitution itself, the individual States can have the people express their preference for President through the ballot box, but the Electoral College must take that expression under advisement and make its judgement as to the most suitable candidate. Granted, some states, through state law, instruct their Electors to vote according to that state’s popular vote, with violations punishable by fine. But that is not a Federal, much less Constitutional requirement.

    Checks and balances, check and double check. The people vote, but the Electors have a solemn duty, by the U. S. Constitution to use their own conscience, their own best judgement in the selection of the President.

    That’s why William Plumer, in 1804, voted his conscience. And that’s why 157 Electors to date have voted their conscience in fulfilling their duty under the Constitution.

    The Federalist Papers were a series of commentaries on the issues surrounding the founding of our Nation, and its Constitution. They include arguments and explanations on various sides of the many issues discussed. The Federalist paper # 68 provides further elucidation on the qualifications for President. It is from March 12, 1788, and was probably written by Alexander Hamilton.

    I would like to offer a paraphrase of the relevant discussion from Paper # 68:

    The office of the President of the United States is a position of the highest trust. The people should have a hand in the selection of the President (“the sense of the people should operate”).

    To those ends, the selection of President should be entrusted to a group of individuals chosen by the people for that specific purpose at that time.

    In that way the office of the President will be entrusted to someone who is “in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

    The skills of political intrigue and simple popularity may be enough get someone to the high office of a single state, but those would not be sufficient to qualify for the office of President of the United States.

    A different, higher level of qualification is required for that distinguished office.

    These qualifications must be sufficient to garner the high esteem and confidence of the majority of the Nation. This should assure that the President will always be a person of the highest ability and virtue.

    It’s clear, then, that each Elector is assigned a role of some gravity as the final arbiter. The Electoral College is not merely an arcane rubber stamp which introduces rounding errors into the election. The Elector is entrusted with a decision for the good of the nation, not just the interests of the party.

    That brings us to the election of 2016. There has been no election where the role of Elector has in more critical. We are expecting that each Elector, as directed by the Constitution, brings a sense of intelligence, wisdom, and sound judgement to his or her decision in selecting the next President of the United States. We are looking to them to be Conscientious Electors!

    • Terrific exposition of the history of the Electoral College, and it is encouraging that someone arguing for this hi-jacking of the election is educated, articulate, thoughtful, and still disingenuous and hypocritical as Hell.

      Plumer was grandstanding, of course, and he was a crackpot. Also grandstanding have been the 157 other rogue electors. All of them were protesting, not seriously trying to tip the election.

      The election process does not need an additional check and balance, and even if it did, the states have not, for centuries now, set up the electors to perform that function, not does the public spend months following the election aware that an anonymous set of citizens can just hijack the whole process and elect someone —George Clooney, Bozo the Clown—who isn’t running. That’s because they never have, shouldn’t, and realistically, can’t….and won’t.

      So the whole discussion is simply an attempt to DE-legitimatize the President Elect and refuse to accept the results as long as possible. That’s not responsible, it’s divisive, and again, it is incredibly hypocritical.

      Your first paragraph is a dispatch from October. The decision was made. Be an adult and a patriot, and accept it.

      I’ll still post this as the Comment of the Day.

      • Yet, I don’t disagree with the assertions that the EC does exist to Counteract the passions of the people. I don’t think, however, that we have run into a situation in our history where some sort of unbridled out of control passions have led to some overwhelmingly undesirable vote.

        All of these temper tantrums, and now this EC end run plan, all boil down to Democrats being COMPLETELY unwilling to admit they ran ONE of the TWO worst candidates the United States has seen in Centuries.

      • Jack said, “So the whole discussion is simply an attempt to legitimatize the President Elect and refuse to accept the results as long as possible.”

        Forgive my ignorance on the use of some words sometimes, but I honestly don’t understand why you used the word “legitimatize” instead of “delegitimize” in that sentence?

    • Jim Nevertrump,
      I felt like I just walked through a dense layer of fog specifically designed to cloud over the ethical and legal points that others have made about this petition. You’re trying to rationalize what’s clearly unethical.

      Do you realize that in some states not voting for Trump is an actual violation of state law or breaking an oath, this petition acknowledges that fact and is encouraging EC members to violate that law or oath and they are “bribing” them to break the law by stating that Clinton supporters will pay the fines – well that makes it soo much more ethical! This is unethical ends justify the means baloney and you’re just ignoring it.

      Jim,
      I dislike Trump, the unethical man that he is, so much that I couldn’t vote for him, I also couldn’t vote for the corrupt Clinton political machine; that said, I find this petition to be nothing but a blatant attempt from the left to obstruct Trump from taking office. This won’t likely end when the petition fails; there’s more obstructionism from the left to follow, you can count on it.

    • Slick Willy

      Mr. Never: I’ll pick up where others did not: your bland assertions that “Devastation awaits humanity from either of two crises – we can foreseeably suffer nuclear annihilation on the one hand, or broad environmental decimation on the other.

      Lets take these in parts.

      First, the nuclear option: what makes it so much more likely next year, as opposed to now? Are you seriously asserting that Obama is any less of a lying, cheating, bigoted narcissist than Trump? This is simple hysteria, as one man cannot launch nukes. Or is that Republicans are more likely to do so? You are being childish and silly.

      Then we turn to the environmental devastation claim. Again, what did the past 8 years accomplish in this arena, other than use it for political gain? Time and again, the proposals out of the current administration had little basis in science and more in hack politics. Little, if any, progress was made, assuming you buy into the climate change scam in the first place. What makes you think a Trump Administration would do worse than that?

  9. zoebrain

    Given an incapacity – such as an inability by the president elect to perform his duties due to unresolvable conflicts of interest… Or, less controversially, dropping dead…

    Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney? Or Pence (shudder) and a new VP?

  10. martha webb

    You just gloss over the real reason for the petition, which is the Trump is unfit to serve. That is because you can’t argue with it. All you said was what the date was, which has no relevance at all. Trump belongs in PRISON for his assaults against women, his slanderous racial comments and for his terrible business practices. If you voted for such a man, then I am asking myself why I’m even reading your opinion.

    • “Unfit to serve” is a subjective standard. I agree in this case, but there is no standard of fitness. I’m going on precedent, but the voters decide who is “fit to serve.” Hillary is equally unfit to serve. I don’t have to argue either determination now: the process and the public decide who is fit. They decided. The bell is rung. The die is cast.

      The fact that the Trump’s qualifications for the job are being challenged after the decision to give him the job has been made is irrelevant? That’s an idiotic statement. Is it irrelevant that the Cubs have won the World Series if the Indians fans say, “Hey, We should be the World Champions! We’re the better team!”

      I didn’t vote for the man, not that you appear to have the wherewithal to comprehend the ethical process whereby I decided Trump was unfit, since you seem to think someone should be in jail based on mere words and allegations.

      You should read the blog because you need to learn some basicadult ethics analysis skills, and appear to have none.

      • oogy

        “The voters determine”

        So when the electors college gives a wyoming voter 3.8 times more votes than a californian, that’s okay because “we arent a democracy”

        but if the electors do what the constitution clearly empowers them to do (if they couldnt, why have live people? Why not just tally votes and award them?) you cry foul.

        This is the system we have. If you dont like it, change it. But the petition is entirely constitutional.

        A break with tradition? Yes

        So is a senate refusing to consider a supreme court nominee for this long, for absolutely no good reason.

        So is a president who has never held public office, and run a campaign basically promising to attack the Constitution.

        Argue against it, but pretending it’s somehow unethical is absurd. It’s an attempt to stop an admitted sexual abuser from attaining officer by totally legal means.

        • The petition isn’t unconstitutional. The plot is. You have no argument. Just political animus, and a desire to reverse the results of the election and change the rules after the fact.

          The UN does not apportion votes by population, and neither does the US union. Wyoming and California are both states. Ask someone from Wyoming what they think of your logic.

          • Does oogy really believe that thirty-seven Republican electors will vote for Hillary Clinton?

            It is much, much more likely for two hundred seventy electors to vote for Ted Cruz or Ben Carson.

            • I know, I know. Then it would be thrown into the House, whereupon Trump would be elected there. Just an unethical effort to disrupt the process out of hate and spite. Nothing more, nothing less.

    • martha webb said, “You just gloss over the real reason for the petition, which is the Trump is unfit to serve.”

      No one is glossing over anything and if you had a shred of intellect you would have read a bit more from Jack before you spewed such utter nonsense. You inserted your foot in your mouth.

      martha webb said, “That is because you can’t argue with it”

      If you had read more of Jacks blogs before you spewed that you would have known that Jack has been saying that Trump is unfit for a long, long time. Why don’t you just read instead of commenting because what your doing is displaying your foot-in-mouth syndrome, but that might just be because your completely ignorant about what your are talking about when it comes to Jacks opinion but slinging falsehoods around to attack the messenger is right up your ends justify the means character.

      martha webb said, “All you said was what the date was, which has no relevance at all.”

      What the heck are you talking about?

      martha webb said, “Trump belongs in PRISON for his assaults against women, his slanderous racial comments and for his terrible business practices.”

      Do you understand the Constitution at all, or does the Constitution only apply to those you agree with?

      One point at a time…

      1. martha webb said, “Trump belongs in PRISON for his assaults against women…” We, as a society governed by the Constitution of the United States of America do not throw people in prison because they have been accused of something, we throw them in prison after a court of law deems them guilty and worthy of imprisonment as a punishment for their crime. Maybe you are willing to blindly believe any accusation someone slings at someone you don’t like; how about I accuse you of something, would it be fair for authorities to throw your ass in the clink just because I said you did something.

      2. martha webb said, “Trump belongs in PRISON… for his slanderous racial comments” We, as a society governed by the Constitution of the United States of America do not throw people in prison because they say something that offends you. Your ignorant comments offend me, off to prison with you! Do you understand now?

      3. martha webb said, “Trump belongs in PRISON… for his terrible business practices.” We, as a society governed by the Constitution of the United States of America do not throw people in prison because they have terrible business practices, we throw them in prison for being convicted of doing something illegal. There are lots of people out there running business that have terrible business practices, you want to throw them all in prison even if they’ve done nothing illegal?

      You’re playing the foot-in-mouth switch game.

      martha webb said, “If you voted for such a man, then I am asking myself why I’m even reading your opinion.”

      Maybe you shouldn’t bother to read Jacks opinion at all, it’s not dumbed down to the reading level of an imbecile.

      Again all you’re doing is opening your mouth to change socks, that’s what idiots do.

      I suppose I went too far with my opinion here too; but I did give little Martha Webb a new target to spew her vomit comments at; and I’ll be loaded for bear with my vomit comment replies.

  11. María

    I do not believe on this articule, Elijah Berg. Is a cheater,
    Who stater this petition, but is not true.

    He try to have people to donate money. Hungry tiger.

  12. Rick M.

    This thread is a waste of internet ink unless one wishes to pummel the obnoxious and clueless that started the petition. Trump will be elected and the electors will do as they always have since the 1830s. The EC is a beautifully devised protection unless, of course, you are Veruca Salt.

  13. Rich in CT

    Even the Huffington Post agreed that it was ridiculous to expect the Electoral College to vote against its mandate. Strange times…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s