...then Trump still might have won. Here's something for you Bernie Bros to digest: Bernie DIDN'T win the nomination despite the opposition you complain about. Trump DID win the nomination despite massive amounts of opposition on every level. Your confidence in Bernie's victory is misplaced, and again, a part of the reason we're in this mess. Congrats on getting what you wanted, you earned it.

Like it or not, our system has evolved into a two party system for a reason. Those who forget that, stand a real good chance of being reminded when the third party they support results in their least desired outcome.

Take it to http://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/

Clinton lost because of… Clinton. "Bernie or Bust" wasn't a threat, it was a warning.

If the "Bernie Bros" now say "Tulsi or Bust Again." Is that a threat or a warning?

Scot Dutchy wrote:Can EC delay the vote and wait for the investigation?

No, but congress can.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Can EC delay the vote and wait for the investigation?

No, but congress can.

They can? I'd be interested in a reference to that, if it's not too much trouble?

PensivePenny wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Can EC delay the vote and wait for the investigation?

No, but congress can.

They can? I'd be interested in a reference to that, if it's not too much trouble?

I'm not sure exactly what OS was referring to, but at a minimum congress could pass necessary amendments to delay - or entirely change - how/when the EC votes. As unlikely as that would be to happen it's certainly one path.

purplerat wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Can EC delay the vote and wait for the investigation?

No, but congress can.

They can? I'd be interested in a reference to that, if it's not too much trouble?

I'm not sure exactly what OS was referring to, but at a minimum congress could pass necessary amendments to delay - or entirely change - how/when the EC votes. As unlikely as that would be to happen it's certainly one path.

That could be what he meant, I suppose. It's unprecedented. Any action short of confirming trump except for extraordinary reasons will result in a YUGE SCOTUS battle. A potential constitutional crisis. "Putin!" <said in the manner of Jerry Seinfeld's "Neuman!">

PensivePenny wrote:

purplerat wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

No, but congress can.

They can? I'd be interested in a reference to that, if it's not too much trouble?

I'm not sure exactly what OS was referring to, but at a minimum congress could pass necessary amendments to delay - or entirely change - how/when the EC votes. As unlikely as that would be to happen it's certainly one path.

That could be what he meant, I suppose. It's unprecedented. Any action short of confirming trump except for extraordinary reasons will result in a YUGE SCOTUS battle. A potential constitutional crisis. "Putin!" <said in the manner of Jerry Seinfeld's "Neuman!">

If the EC doesn't give him 270, there is nothing unconstitutional about that. About the only constitutional issue that could arise is if he's denied 270 on the backs of unfaithful electors from states which have laws requiring them to vote for the winner of that state's popular vote.

Other than that, the EC doing what it was designed to do wouldn't be much of an issue for SCOTUS. Trump not liking and wanting to change how it works after the fact would be about as fruitful as wanting the EC done away with in favor of the popular vote. Those ships have sailed, at least until the next election.

PensivePenny wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Can EC delay the vote and wait for the investigation?

No, but congress can.

They can? I'd be interested in a reference to that, if it's not too much trouble?

Aritcle 2 section 1 clause 4 of the US Constitution:

"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

"Chusing"?

purplerat wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

purplerat wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

They can? I'd be interested in a reference to that, if it's not too much trouble?

I'm not sure exactly what OS was referring to, but at a minimum congress could pass necessary amendments to delay - or entirely change - how/when the EC votes. As unlikely as that would be to happen it's certainly one path.

That could be what he meant, I suppose. It's unprecedented. Any action short of confirming trump except for extraordinary reasons will result in a YUGE SCOTUS battle. A potential constitutional crisis. "Putin!" <said in the manner of Jerry Seinfeld's "Neuman!">

If the EC doesn't give him 270, there is nothing unconstitutional about that. About the only constitutional issue that could arise is if he's denied 270 on the backs of unfaithful electors from states which have laws requiring them to vote for the winner of that state's popular vote.

Other than that, the EC doing what it was designed to do wouldn't be much of an issue for SCOTUS. Trump not liking and wanting to change how it works after the fact would be about as fruitful as wanting the EC done away with in favor of the popular vote. Those ships have sailed, at least until the next election.

The constitution outlines the states are to direct electors how they are to vote?

I was unaware of that.

Acetone wrote:

purplerat wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

purplerat wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what OS was referring to, but at a minimum congress could pass necessary amendments to delay - or entirely change - how/when the EC votes. As unlikely as that would be to happen it's certainly one path.

That could be what he meant, I suppose. It's unprecedented. Any action short of confirming trump except for extraordinary reasons will result in a YUGE SCOTUS battle. A potential constitutional crisis. "Putin!" <said in the manner of Jerry Seinfeld's "Neuman!">

If the EC doesn't give him 270, there is nothing unconstitutional about that. About the only constitutional issue that could arise is if he's denied 270 on the backs of unfaithful electors from states which have laws requiring them to vote for the winner of that state's popular vote.

Other than that, the EC doing what it was designed to do wouldn't be much of an issue for SCOTUS. Trump not liking and wanting to change how it works after the fact would be about as fruitful as wanting the EC done away with in favor of the popular vote. Those ships have sailed, at least until the next election.

The constitution outlines the states are to direct electors how they are to vote?

I was unaware of that.

No it doesn't. But states have passed laws requiring electors to vote for the winner of said states popular vote and those laws have been upheld by SCOTUS.

However, I don't believe any states have any real mechanism in place to actually force electors to vote a certain way. Rather these laws would only impose some sort of penalty on an unfaithful elector while their vote would stand. That is where I presume a SCOTUS battle may take place; whether an elector from a state with such a law, violating that law, would have their vote stand or if the state could force it to be what they want.

As far as I'm aware it's never been tested.

@purplerat... yes, and that is what I meant. The expectation is for trump. If he isn't confirmed for whatever reason, there will be pissed off people suing whether or not it's justified.

Adrinius wrote:Clinton lost because of… Clinton. "Bernie or Bust" wasn't a threat, it was a warning.

If the "Bernie Bros" now say "Tulsi or Bust Again." Is that a threat or a warning?

Clinton lost because not enough people voted for her. Fact. That includes you, Bernie Bros. You could have taken the mature route that Bernie did, but you didn't. Trump was a warning to all you guys, but you didn't listen. You were too busy trying to warn the world about the Bernie Bros. The result is Trump. Happy?

Not enough people voted for her because not enough people wanted to vote for her. Either that or because the voting rights act being overturned made it impossible for the people who would have voted for her to vote. That second issue is more serious than the first IMO.

Make no mistake, I think she ran a shit campaign and was not a good choice for the dems. But when you're up against Trump, none of that really matters. Either you've got at least one brain cell and can see what he's saying and doing and realize you need to vote against him, or you're a fucking idiot and you don't. All this stuff about blaming everyone except the voters is just idiotic, this vote should not have been close even if Clinton did totally fuck her campaign. Boo hoo, she called Trump supporters names! If your neighbor sees you playing around with a gun in your back yard and calls you a fucking idiot, it's not the neighbor's fault when you shoot yourself in the foot, and you're still a fucking idiot.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Clinton lost because not enough people voted for her. Fact. That includes you, Bernie Bros. You could have taken the mature route that Bernie did, but you didn't.

Do you have data for that?

Edit: not judging, just curious - I've looked for data on how Sanders' primary voters voted for Clinton/Trump/other/stayed home in the general, but I didn't find any.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Make no mistake, I think she ran a shit campaign and was not a good choice for the dems. But when you're up against Trump, none of that really matters. Either you've got at least one brain cell and can see what he's saying and doing and realize you need to vote against him, or you're a fucking idiot and you don't. All this stuff about blaming everyone except the voters is just idiotic, this vote should not have been close even if Clinton did totally fuck her campaign. Boo hoo, she called Trump supporters names! If your neighbor sees you playing around with a gun in your back yard and calls you a fucking idiot, it's not the neighbor's fault when you shoot yourself in the foot, and you're still a fucking idiot.

I am not sure that very many people who voted for Trump are sorry that Hillary lost. I too am baffled by her loss but it happened. It seems more productive to me to address this new reality than to blame the people who voted for the person who won.

Although, I do have to admit, it is harder than I would have thought it would be for me to continue extending the values associated with humanity to people who voted for Trump. I am also very sad that Bernie didn't win the nomination. That is a rare opportunity in a world like ours and we failed to take advantage of it.