Fox News: John Brennan Suppressed Intel Saying Russia Wanted Hillary Clinton to Win

Yeah, in his wet wild dreams he be putting them away.

 

How is it not? They specifically let it up to the states.

sure they did or they’d gone with a popular vote...they specifically did not Hamilton wrote about it in the federalist papers

 

That might be a wet dream of libs...to put innocent people in prison because they are political rivals...as we saw them do with flynn...but I assure you Durham will only follow the law

 

Thanks for the Tom Clancy special ops fantasy.

 

Flynn was never put away dream on..

 

Sorry...attempt to do with Flynn before the evidence the mueller team was hiding came forward.

 

Hamilton specifically stated that the electors were supposed to be learned civic leaders/responsible and educated men to choose the nominee.

The electorate would choose the electors, but it is the electors, (who today comprise the EC) not the electorate, who choose the president.

In fact, there is no mention in the constitution of an 'electoral college'. But, it's just the term for the body of electors.

Today, ( and since the 19th century ) that design has been hijacked where the electors merely rubber stamp what the the electorate chooses. This is NOT the original design, as Hamilton so states, very clearly in unambiguous terms.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

However, since that paper was written, since the 19th century, some 30 or more states have made laws penalizing "faithless" electors, so the common practice today, against the will of the framers, is to bind the electors to the popular vote. My only point was, despite all this, it was not Hamilton's concept of the 'elector'.

Whether the binding is a good thing or not, one thing is clear, to me, anyway, that with the election of Trump, if the EC had retained Hamilton's design, a reality show huckster of whom PT Barnum would approve, would never have been nominated.

 

I want to respond to this...in detail...I just have my 10 year old nephew over at the moment, we are about to play catch...in hopes that his little league team I sponsor plays at some point....let me get back to you tomorrow

 

Yeah, right.

Flynn [to audience after they chant 'locker her up' ] "damn right, lock her up"



Such hypocrisy that exists on the right. Oh yeah, 'she's not innocent' you say?.
Flynn was on Turkish payroll WHILE being National Security advisor. He pleaded guilty twice. He failed to file papers for his foreign agent, and did it knowingly, which was illegal. He lied to Pence and was fired for it.
Show me were Hillary was charged with anything and pleaded guilty.
I"m waiting.

 

This is partially correct but mostly incorrect. The framers probably had in mind the qualifications for the electoral college as you describe, but they consciously put no qualifications in the constitution. The constitution merely says the states will select their members of the EC, to wit, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors...... " The EC was, as you say, created to avoid "mob rule" but on the basis of populace states not running roughshod over less populated states -- which is essential for a republic, not on the basis of the total popular vote as you describe.

Your conclusion is bass ackwards. An EC chosen with all of your qualifications would have most certainly, given they had a choice, selected Trump over Clinton. (The EC has nothing to do with choosing candidates.)

Contrary to your "never," the EC was in fact totally intended that it would countermand the popular vote. The most populace state today (CA) has 39 times the population of the least populated states; the second largest (NY) has 20 times the population of the smallest states. When the Constitution was written the most populace state (VA) was 20 times larger than the least populated states (GA and DE). This is not a vast difference; it is hardly different at all. Secondly, most of the framers that purposefully designed protection of small states against large populace states actually came for the largest states.

 

I bet that made sense in your head before posting. You did nothing to refute that Obama laughed at the notion that Russia was a threat to us.

Who was President in 2016 when the election was hacked?

 

Russia is not a threat to the US just ask Pootin.

 

Yes, the Russians would have preferred Hillary Clinton. She was a puppet, much like Obama, would be easily bought or bullied into anything they wanted to do.

They took The Crimea under Obama and likely wanted to take more but the election of Trump kept Ukraine largely intact.

With a real President in the WH, one that can't be bullied or willing gives money to terrorists, Putin has been kept in check.

The only danger Obama presented turned out to be his own country. Feeling embarrassed and humiliated at losing the election for Hillary Clinton, he spied on and sabotaged his country to cause irreparable harm and to go after innocent men and women. Oddly, this exactly what Putin and the rest of hostile nations wanted him to do. Obama isn't only corrupt and petty, he is a traitor to his own country.

Obama should be held accountable for not only his disastrous polices, but also his attempts to cause harm to his own country. So should his everyone in his Administration who took part.

 

I don't have to ask Putin. Obama's the one who laughed at the notion and said "The cold war is over!".

lol

 

The EC is working exactly as the Founders intended.

 

You haven't refuted my post which counters that premise with quotes from Hamilton in #federalist 68. You need to back up simple declarations or explain why my counter argument is wrong. SImply declaring it is not a competent refutation.

 

No, he was not.

 

Since Flynn was NSA only for 24 days, and he received over $500k from a foreign entity , whom I believe was a Turkish oligarch ( oligarchs are often fronts for dictators ) just before he was appointed, which was during Trump's campaign ( which Flynn did not disclose) arguing whether or not he was technically an employ of a foreign entity ( for which he failed to register ) during the NSA tenure, it is kind of a silly point to argue " no he was not", considering the timeline. The issue is 'undue foreign influence' and given the timeline, the answer is yes.

 

Although you song and dance around and parse your words to justify your assertion, it is satisfying to know that you agree with my retort that "no, he was not" on a foreign payroll while National Security Advisor.