Evidence for God from Science

Yes, it Does appear to be that way at times. It's been said that This could be the craziest election Ever.

Faithless electors are now showing up: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12 ... llege.html

Just shoot 'em! They are rejecting the will of the people. But the technicalities of the law in some states allows for this to happen. This needs to be taken away in such states. Because these idiots could decide an election, as opposed to those they are to otherwise represent.

Let's not forget the immense rejection of liberal policies and actions by millions who did NOT vote for Trump because while they hate what the progressives have done and can't stand the Clintons, they just couldn't manage to vote for Trump, while with another, far-more civil, less volatile conservative, they certainly would have. And the millions who DID vote for Trump, so many of them have many problems with him - which reveals just how bad they see they see progressives/liberals and Democrats' policies and their overall track record. These faithless electors have deluded themselves to believe that the country really needs the Clintons, but they just don't know it. Idiots!

We should shoot people for exercising their legal rights? So you're a terrorist now?

Phil, like it or not we have an electoral college. If it's fair that a guy can lose by 2 million votes and still get to be President then how could anyone reasonably complain about a movement to convince 30-something electors to flip the script? They're playing by the rules. Quit the griping.

edwardmurphy wrote:We should shoot people for exercising their legal rights? So you're a terrorist now?

Phil, like it or not we have an electoral college. If it's fair that a guy can lose by 2 million votes and still get to be President then how could anyone reasonably complain about a movement to convince 30-something electors to flip the script? They're playing by the rules. Quit the griping.

After how the left made a big deal in that last debate when Trump said he'd wait until the election and the left explained how wrong it is to contest an election and now they themselves are doing it? The left is just continuing to hurt itself with these shenanigans trying to steal this election just like they did to Bernie in the primaries. They are not playing by the rules.

You are not informed and don't know that the left already tried to steal this election from Trump with election fraud and vote fraud allowing illegals who do not have constitutional rights drivers licenses so that they can vote,plus election fraud with computers,this is why they over sampled Democrats in their polls showing Hillary will win,but Trump won in a landslide which is the only thing that can defeat election fraud. If it had been a close election Hillary would have won because of the election fraud and voter fraud but it wasn't close.This is why the left doesn't want to accept Trump because they cheated and still lost and can't believe it.

Ed: We should shoot people for exercising their legal rights? So you're a terrorist now?

So, Eddie, you're now a literalist? C'mon! It's just that the electors should reflect the majority in their sectors. Else, you have appointed elites surpassing the population.

Ed: Phil, like it or not we have an electoral college. If it's fair that a guy can lose by 2 million votes and still get to be President

Ed, I'm not sure I like the electoral college - while I do know it has merits. But I damn sure don't want one person's personal opinions to negate the will of the majority he is supposed to be reflecting. I know this is legal in some state - and it is dangerous and needs to be changed. So, Ed, I'm only griping that someone is bypassing votes of so many - that's just wrong. I'd certainly be open to arguments that the electoral college is a bad idea - or that it has outlived its usefulness.

Ed: how could anyone reasonably complain about a movement to convince 30-something electors to flip the script?

Ed, I would be upset if even ONE was unwilling to enact the will of the majority of voters he is supposed to reflect. These people should be committed to political neutrality. Why vote for a CANDIDATE, if you knew an elector is going to ignore your vote and cast for the other man/woman? This legality was born out of an educated elite frightened that some lesser educated areas might not have enough of their population sophisticated enough to understand complex issues, that a well-educated elector could override - as a supposed safeguard. It may have been helped into being approved by some with nefarious motives. Really, it's like saying there should be an education level, issues awareness, political self-evaluation assessment made of all people before they are given the right to vote - and that those that don't meet some elite's criteria for such should not be allowed to vote.

Ed, seriously, what if you'd had electors where the voters in their sector overwhelmingly voted for Clinton, but then the elector simply decided to negate all of those votes, per his own conservative sensibilities, and voted for Trump instead. That makes a mockery of calling ourselves a democracy. Surely you see that? This is NOT a Republican vs. Democrat issue - or it shouldn't be! I thought even you wouldn't be so biased as to think that an elector shouldn't reflect the will of the majority he is supposed to reflect, based on some technical legality loophole.

There once was a kingdom long ago and far away where the cities ruled the land and the farmers had no voice in the laws enacted upon that stopped their farming, stripped them of their land, told them they were inferior ignorant people who reject the cities enlightened views of equality and fairness for all.

After many years had passed those in the cities began to riot over the food shortages and lack...

There is a reason for the USA's Electoral College after all...
-
-
-

No one ever seems to have a problem with any method, until they are on the losing side.