- Joined
- Jan 24, 2015
lol enjoy wasting your fucking time; oh but what am I saying, John won't move his lazy ass to DC.
Brianna Wu / John Walker Flynt - "Biggest Victim of Gamergate," Failed Game Developer, Failed Congressional Candidate
- Thread starter Jaimas
- Start date
captn_kettle
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
It says "women" John, not mentally ill trannies.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
>Wu
>protest walk
just remembered this tweet. guess I need to pick up more brain bleach:
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2016
I don't know why these people plan on doing this. What are they going to do? Un-elect him? The inauguration will probably be invite only anyway, so one can get their 15 minutes of fame
captn_kettle
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
Wu in heels? I'm surprised he didn't get altitude sickness.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
there is a lot of
over this:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-electoral-college-texas-chris-suprun-227422
as if that guy isn't on the recieving end of 9001 tons of death threats if he doesn't jump back in line, since his name and picture are out there.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2016
Frank holds this title.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2015
there is a lot of
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-electoral-college-texas-chris-suprun-227422
as if that guy isn't on the recieving end of 9001 tons of death threats if he doesn't jump back in line, since his name and picture are out there.
There's a whole shitload of
in this. There is a petition going around on change.org (like that has a snowballs chance in hell) to try and convince electors to vote for Clinton. Electors like this are the ones fanning the flames of optimism in Clinton's camp, and there have been several others threaten to vote for Clinton (or abstain from voting entirely) if Trump doesn't "fall into line."I doubt that this electoral college will set a new precedent by voting against the president elect based on a bunch of whining from Clinton's supporters, a bunch of soc-jus warriors, and one Sasquatch-esque troon.
Quasar
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
Wasn't Wu supposedly attending Hillary's going away party using press credentials from Bustle (lol)? Did I miss her insightful and thought provoking article? Or are a few tweets and then radio silence for the first time in years her idea of "journalism"?
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
Can that even happen anyway considering Hilary already conceded?There's a whole shitload of
I doubt that this electoral college will set a new precedent by voting against the president elect based on a bunch of whining from Clinton's supporters, a bunch of soc-jus warriors, and one Sasquatch-esque troon.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
I think the article was predicated on Hillary winning, and Wu's too
to even half-ass something like:
Quasar
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
Technically, yes. The popular vote doesn't actually choose the president. The actual vote that elects the President takes place in January, when the designated electors cast their votes. They are supposed to do so in the manner with with their states voted, but for many states there is no penalty if they actually vote against their party when it comes down to it. They're referred to as "Faithless" when they do this.
So, it is actually possible, however unlikely, that come January Hillary Clinton could become the President if enough of the designated electors flipped their votes. I don't recall if any have done so in recent history, but I do know that some have abstained, though it had no effect on the outcome of the elections.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2015
That would require way, way too much effort from Wu. She'll never do it.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2016
The funniest part in this delegate strife is that Hillary will be the one who will lose a vote:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/washington-elector-hillary-clinton-rejection-229647
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/washington-elector-hillary-clinton-rejection-229647
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2016
Well there's also nothing saying that Hillary won't just give it back to Trump if they vote for her so as to not cause a nationwide meltdown. Then again this senario has never happened before so who knows
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2016
No. Once someone concedes, it's over.
And if for some reason the electoral college ever did turn its back and vote against its district's results en masse, it would start a chain reaction that would likely lead to all out civil war that would lead to the union imploding.
But this whole petition thing is great. It's like a two-for. We get to see the SJWs cry over the election results, and then come December, we get to see them cry again when this idiotic scheme that they concocted fails miserably.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2015
Technically yes, but it's never happened before, and even if it did, I can't imagine Clinton would even want a Presidency that started out on a flip from the electoral college. That would play way too much into the whole "Crooked Hillary" thing Trump's been spouting. Most people (including Democrats) consider her to be at least somewhat untrustworthy, taking office based on a decision the electors made against their states would be a monumentally stupid thing to do.
Faithless electors (ones who vote against their state) have never had a significant impact on any election in recent memory, neither have abstainers. They only time either have had any meaningful impact on an election was in 1836 and it was for Martin van Buren's vice presidential running mate, Richard Mentor Johnson. All 23 of the electors from Virginia abstained from voting for Johnson in protest of his open relationship with a slave woman who was his mistress. This put Johnson below the necessary number of votes to take office, Van Buren got the votes required, and therefor the office of president. There wasn't any real alternative, and no precedent for how to deal with such an action, so the Senate elected Johnson to be vice president anyway.
So I guess the short answer is, even if the college did something really dumb, the Senate can over ride them.
And the types hoping their final fallback (LET'S START A CIVIL WAR CAUSE WE DIDN'T GET OUR WAY!) is gonna happen are just huffing their own jenkem.
We almost had this happen a grand total of once, when it came down to the election of Rutherford B. Hayes.
At the time, Reconstruction was on its last legs, but there were still some states with Reconstruction government, and both the Republican who controlled the military governments running those states and the Democrats hoping to get rid of them sent in two different sets of electors.
The Constitution doesn't allow for this, but neither side was going to back down on assuming their electors were legit, so a special commission was held to decide whose electoral votes would count, and Hayes eventually won out.
The Democrats still weren't going to accept that and were prepared to stonewall the process as much as possible, to the point we nearly had another civil war.
At the last minute, sanity prevailed, a deal was struck, and Hayes was elected with the proviso he finished taking down what remained of Reconstruction, and the Democrats would be happy with that.
As applied to modern day, the Democrats don't have any leverage to use like they did then, and even then common sense won out over feels and they did the smart thing, and this time round, they will be making the Trump supporters just as rabid as the sore losers on the Hillary side if they decide to go full retard, so there is no way the salt spewers are getting Trump out via the electoral vote process.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2016
It's the same shit as Brexit. People don't want to admit that they lost, and that sometimes the system won't work in your favor.
Also, a Change.org petition? Did they not learn anything from the Brexit one? Trolls will start spamming votes from Uzbekistan any moment now.
Also, a Change.org petition? Did they not learn anything from the Brexit one? Trolls will start spamming votes from Uzbekistan any moment now.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2016
I love how she's always ticking literal boxes when she does that shit.