Sore Loser Celebrities Beg Electors to Vote Against Trump

[jimnyc]

Now THIS is some funny stuff.

---

Sore Loser Celebrities Beg Electors to Vote Against Trump

A group of Hollywood celebrities are calling on Republican electors in the Electoral College to disregard their states’ voting results and deny Donald Trump the presidency when the group casts their official ballots on December 19.

n a star-studded video PSA released Wednesday, actors Martin Sheen, Debra Messing, Richard Schiff, Bob Odenkirk, BD Wong and others urge Republican electors to be “American heroes” and ensure Trump doesn’t reach the 306 electoral votes he earned in November’s election. It would take 37 so-called “faithless” electors to prevent Trump from reaching the required 270 electoral votes.

“Republican members of the Electoral College, this message is for you,” Sheen, who played a fictional President on the political drama The West Wing, opens the video. “As you know, our Founding Fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue, and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is to an ’eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.’”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z0iuWh3sek

Rest here - http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/12/15/sore-loser-celebrities-beg-electors-vote-trump-video/

[Abbey Marie]

Darn, did Martin Sheen take that duct tape off his mouth?

[KarlMarx]

I really love the "vote your conscience" bullshit these guys are urging electors to follow

Really???? Follow your conscience to do what? Go back on your word? Invalidate the will of the American voter?

They sit in their mansions and flatter themselves into believing that they're in touch with the American people.

A conscience is about as familiar to these blowhards as snow is to a bushman from the Kalahari Desert

(I really wanted to use REALLY some bad words here, but Santa, with the help of the Russians, is monitoring this message board)

[aboutime]

Now THIS is some funny stuff.

---

Sore Loser Celebrities Beg Electors to Vote Against Trump

A group of Hollywood celebrities are calling on Republican electors in the Electoral College to disregard their states’ voting results and deny Donald Trump the presidency when the group casts their official ballots on December 19.

n a star-studded video PSA released Wednesday, actors Martin Sheen, Debra Messing, Richard Schiff, Bob Odenkirk, BD Wong and others urge Republican electors to be “American heroes” and ensure Trump doesn’t reach the 306 electoral votes he earned in November’s election. It would take 37 so-called “faithless” electors to prevent Trump from reaching the required 270 electoral votes.

“Republican members of the Electoral College, this message is for you,” Sheen, who played a fictional President on the political drama The West Wing, opens the video. “As you know, our Founding Fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue, and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is to an ’eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.’”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z0iuWh3sek

Rest here - http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/12/15/sore-loser-celebrities-beg-electors-vote-trump-video/



Sheen played an Imaginary person in THE WEST WING, when the real name of the show...could have, and should have been...THE LEFT WING.
Anybody who thinks CHARLIE...his son is nuts...
"Proves the nut didn't fall far from the tree"

Question? If all the big mouths in Hollywood who hate Trump are so smart. Why are they celebrity Liars, and not Professors in Liberal Colleges?
Something to think about???

One more thing. Compared to OBAMA? Who is more qualified to LEAD HONESTLY?

[Elessar]

Sheen played an Imaginary person in THE WEST WING, when the real name of the show...could have, and should have been...THE LEFT WING.
Anybody who thinks CHARLIE...his son is nuts...
"Proves the nut didn't fall far from the tree"

Question? If all the big mouths in Hollywood who hate Trump are so smart. Why are they celebrity Liars, and not Professors in Liberal Colleges?
Something to think about???

One more thing. Compared to OBAMA? Who is more qualified to LEAD HONESTLY?

There is a huge percentage of Hollywood celebs who did not even finish college, and a few who did not
even complete high school.

Intellectual? I think not.

[aboutime]

There is a huge percentage of Hollywood celebs who did not even finish college, and a few who did not
even complete high school.

Intellectual? I think not.


Elessar. They are Intellectuals....In their own limited, tiny minds. And they believe they wield a lot of celebrity power, just as most Democrat politicians do....as they patronize a large percentage of Americans who have been intimidated, and even extorted into always believing the Democrats are JESUS LIKE, while they claim Republicans are evil, and want children, and old people to starve, or Die.
So..Hollywierd merely follows the lead of the Nancy Pelosi's, and Harry Reids who...IN REALITY, would have no problem DESTROYING ANY CELEBRITY who doesn't tow the Liberal, Democrat lie lines.

[Elessar]

Elessar. They are Intellectuals....In their own limited, tiny minds. And they believe they wield a lot of celebrity power, just as most Democrat politicians do....as they patronize a large percentage of Americans who have been intimidated, and even extorted into always believing the Democrats are JESUS LIKE, while they claim Republicans are evil, and want children, and old people to starve, or Die.
So..Hollywierd merely follows the lead of the Nancy Pelosi's, and Harry Reids who...IN REALITY, would have no problem DESTROYING ANY CELEBRITY who doesn't tow the Liberal, Democrat lie lines.

Hell...my cat is more intellectual than the majority of Hollywood or NYC celebrities are.:laugh:

[fj1200]

I really love the "vote your conscience" bullshit these guys are urging electors to follow

Really???? Follow your conscience to do what? Go back on your word? Invalidate the will of the American voter?

That is there right is it not?

[CSM]

That is there right is it not?

It is their right up to a point. Some states are "all or nothing" and the electors of those states KNEW that when they accepted the position. If they decide they do not like the outcome because "their" candidate did not win does not justify compromising the trust the citizens of that state have put in their hands. I suspect that there will be some who have little or no integrity and will violate the trust placed in them. They will, of course, get their 15 minutes of fame and be declared heroes....

[fj1200]

It is their right up to a point. Some states are "all or nothing" and the electors of those states KNEW that when they accepted the position. If they decide they do not like the outcome because "their" candidate did not win does not justify compromising the trust the citizens of that state have put in their hands. I suspect that there will be some who have little or no integrity and will violate the trust placed in them. They will, of course, get their 15 minutes of fame and be declared heroes....

But it's not trump supporters voting for hrc or vice versa, Republican electors have their right based on whatever and even the CO Dem electors sued to vote against hrc for whatever reason. If "their" candidate didn't win it's because they supported Cruz/Kasich/Bush/Rubio...

[CSM]

But it's not trump supporters voting for hrc or vice versa, Republican electors have their right based on whatever and even the CO Dem electors sued to vote against hrc for whatever reason. If "their" candidate didn't win it's because they supported Cruz/Kasich/Bush/Rubio...

That is not the point. The point is that the majority of electors represent States that are all or nothing. Those electors knowingly assumed their position KNOWING that was the case. If they cannot now agree, they should not have taken that seat. Because the election results did not go as they and many others anticipated is not justification for any moral dilemma now. Fortunately, despite assertion from the media and all the talking heads, the election was NOT a forgone conclusion!

[jimnyc]

That is there right is it not?

They don't necessarily have the right to invalidate the will of the American voter. In some areas they must vote accordingly, where others they are free to vote.

[fj1200]

That is not the point. The point is that the majority of electors represent States that are all or nothing. Those electors knowingly assumed their position KNOWING that was the case. If they cannot now agree, they should not have taken that seat. Because the election results did not go as they and many others anticipated is not justification for any moral dilemma now. Fortunately, despite assertion from the media and all the talking heads, the election was NOT a forgone conclusion!

I think it is. And the slate is elected all or nothing but each elector can vote as they please, I'm not aware of any other argument or requirement. Each elector is appointed hoping that their party's candidate wins and that's been true for 200+ years with the same option of having a "moral dilemma" any particular cycle. Anticipation of results is not the question, if you like the EC because it chose trump over hrc then you should like it because the electors have the requirement to vote as the may. I've been told the FFs are really smart and we shouldn't change our mind half way through.

[fj1200]

They don't necessarily have the right to invalidate the will of the American voter. In some areas they must vote accordingly, where others they are free to vote.

The Constitution says that they do.

[jimnyc]

The Constitution says that they do.

So in the states where there is law that states they must vote with what the voters voted - they can ignore that and vote Hillary anyway? Interesting.

[jimnyc]

For example:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-says-electors-must-vote-for-statewide-winner/ar-AAlu2t5

He should have decided based on the COTUS I suppose.

[jimnyc]

Why would these states even make unconstitutional law, and stand behind it?

[jimnyc]

I have to wonder then - since these types of laws are un-constitutional - will the Dems then fight any states that uphold their laws, and simply fight them after the fact since they run against the COTUS? This will be interesting. I had no idea they didn't need to follow these laws, and that these laws don't count. This changes everything.

[jimnyc]

I'm reading the 12th, and I simply don't see anything that talks specifically about the voting. In the states where they don't have laws on the books, sure, the electors are free to override the will of the people. So I'll go back to my original statement, which is 10000000% correct.

They don't necessarily have the right to invalidate the will of the American voter. In some areas they must vote accordingly, where others they are free to vote.

[Kathianne]

It really is a very confusing system, deliberately so. Here's something:

http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967



State Control of Electors

There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. The states with legal control over their electors are the following 29 and D.C.:

Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2)
Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)
California (Election Code §6906)
Colorado (CRS §1-4-304)
Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)
Delaware (15 Del C §4303)
District of Columbia (§1-1312(g))
Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1))
Hawaii (HRS §14-28)
Maine (21-A MRS §805)
Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505)
Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8)
Michigan (MCL §168.47)
Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785)
Montana (MCA §13-25-104)
Nebraska (§32-714)
Nevada (NRS §298.050)
New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9)
North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212)
Ohio (ORC Ann §3505.40)
Oklahoma (26 Okl St §10-102)
Oregon (ORS §248.355)
South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80)
Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c))
Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304)
Vermont (17 VSA §2732)
Virginia (§24.2-203)
Washington (RCW §29.71.020)
Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75)
Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108)

Most of these state laws generally assert that an elector shall cast his or her vote for the candidates who won a majority of the state’s popular vote, or for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector.

Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of electors have violated their state’s law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely. In fact, in the 2000 election, Barbara Lett-Simmons, an elector for the District of Columbia, cast a blank ballot for president and vice president in protest of the District’s unfair voting rights. Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to vote for whom they personally prefer, despite the general public's desire.

[jimnyc]

This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote.

But wouldn't this be unconstitutional - since the constitution states they have the right to invalidate the will of the voters? :)

[Kathianne]

This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote.

But wouldn't this be unconstitutional - since the constitution states they have the right to invalidate the will of the voters? :)

The last paragraph explains-they can fine, but doesn't change the vote.

[jimnyc]

The last paragraph explains-they can fine, but doesn't change the vote.

I know, I knew from the get go that these laws were on the books AND constitutional - so they DO NOT necessarily have that right, as stated, before I was incorrectly corrected. :) :)

[Kathianne]

I think the real agenda here from the left is not to change the results of the election, but to destroy the electoral college. Many on the right will likely join in, thinking it could have been used against them.

[jimnyc]

I think the real agenda here from the left is not to change the results of the election, but to destroy the electoral college. Many on the right will likely join in, thinking it could have been used against them.

And to further de-legitimize Trump. If they can get some to change, then they can scream about that. And then if they can get a bunch to change, and actually make it close, then they'll scream louder.

[Kathianne]

And to further de-legitimize Trump. If they can get some to change, then they can scream about that. And then if they can get a bunch to change, and actually make it close, then they'll scream louder.

Yep, a win/win for them, though still ignoring in large measure why they lost the election.

[fj1200]

So in the states where there is law that states they must vote with what the voters voted - they can ignore that and vote Hillary anyway? Interesting.

It would appear:


Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of electors have violated their state’s law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely. In fact, in the 2000 election, Barbara Lett-Simmons, an elector for the District of Columbia, cast a blank ballot for president and vice president in protest of the District’s unfair voting rights. Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to vote for whom they personally prefer, despite the general public's desire.
http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

I would agree that the restrictions would be found unconstitutional but I doubt it's been tested.

[jimnyc]

It would appear:


http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

I would agree that the restrictions would be found unconstitutional but I doubt it's been tested.

And opinion that IF challenged it would be unconstitutional, doesn't nearly make it unconstitutional. There are a shitload of things out there that folks complain about and state it's unconstitutional, but it's simply not. So the "Constitution says that they do" is wrong.

[Elessar]

It would appear:


http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

I would agree that the restrictions would be found unconstitutional but I doubt it's been tested.

It's about time it was.

Amazing that it comes to this, when the christened Dem candidate gets hammered in the EC
by voice of the people in how many states....then the EC becomes an issue.

The dems had their chance to try and overturn the 14th back in 2000...now it is
an issue?

Sour grapes.

[fj1200]

I'm reading the 12th, and I simply don't see anything that talks specifically about the voting. In the states where they don't have laws on the books, sure, the electors are free to override the will of the people. So I'll go back to my original statement, which is 10000000% correct.

They don't necessarily have the right to invalidate the will of the American voter. In some areas they must vote accordingly, where others they are free to vote.

Not exactly, the 12th doesn't address electors as it didn't change the EC process IIRC. And it appears only two states actually have provisions to replace a faithless elector.


And opinion that IF challenged it would be unconstitutional, doesn't nearly make it unconstitutional. There are a shitload of things out there that folks complain about and state it's unconstitutional, but it's simply not. So the "Constitution says that they do" is wrong.

Of course it's an opinion. This appears as close to a SCOTUS opinion as there's been that only validates the Constitutionality of enforcing a pledge prior to the election:


U.S. Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector)The constitutionality of state pledge laws was confirmed by the Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) in 1952 in Ray v. Blair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_v._Blair)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#cite_note-:0-7) in a 5–2 vote. The court ruled states have the right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate whom their party supports, and the right to remove potential electors who refuse to pledge prior to the election. The court also wrote:

However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional (emphasis added).[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#cite_note-:0-7)
The ruling only held that requiring a pledge, not a vote, was constitutional and Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Douglas, wrote in his dissent, "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text – that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices."[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#cite_note-8) More recent legal scholars believe "a state law that would thwart a federal elector’s discretion at an extraordinary time when it reasonably must be exercised would clearly violate Article II and the Twelfth Amendment."[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#cite_note-9)
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote.

I think I read that right that there is at least some SCOTUS support confirming the right of an elector to vote as they choose.

[fj1200]

It's about time it was.

Amazing that it comes to this, when the christened Dem candidate gets hammered in the EC
by voice of the people in how many states....then the EC becomes an issue.

The dems had their chance to try and overturn the 14th back in 2000...now it is
an issue?

Sour grapes.

That faithless electors have a Constitutional freedom to vote as they choose? It doesn't appear to have been tested.

[jimnyc]

Not exactly, the 12th doesn't address electors as it didn't change the EC process IIRC. And it appears only two states actually have provisions to replace a faithless elector.



Of course it's an opinion. This appears as close to a SCOTUS opinion as there's been that only validates the Constitutionality of enforcing a pledge prior to the election:



I think I read that right that there is at least some SCOTUS support confirming the right of an elector to vote as they choose.

Understood, but my point all along was only that they didn't have a constitutional right to defy the will of the people, at least not in all states, as plenty of them have laws in place to prevent them from doing so. I honestly have no clue how the SC would go if it were brought to them. I'm surprised, based on history, that it hasn't been addressed yet then, and especially so if at least 2 federal judge has ruled that the law must be upheld. (I haven't searched beyond page one yet).

[fj1200]

Understood, but my point all along was only that they didn't have a constitutional right to defy the will of the people, at least not in all states, as plenty of them have laws in place to prevent them from doing so. I honestly have no clue how the SC would go if it were brought to them. I'm surprised, based on history, that it hasn't been addressed yet then, and especially so if at least 2 federal judge has ruled that the law must be upheld. (I haven't searched beyond page one yet).

IMO of course they do. States rarely have power over a Federal function. I think there are at least two lines in the linked decision that upholds that opinion.

[jimnyc]

IMO of course they do. States rarely have power over a Federal function. I think there are at least two lines in the linked decision that upholds that opinion.

Up until and if the SC gets the case, and rules on the current laws, right now they are not unconstitutional. You have an opinion about others opinions. And that very well may turn out to be a victory at the SC, but until such time, the law is the law right now. If someone were to violate the law, they would get that fine, and the vote would still have to be in accordance with the law - unless said person then challenged it. But until such time, we don't just get to declare things as we wish.

[fj1200]

Up until and if the SC gets the case, and rules on the current laws, right now they are not unconstitutional. You have an opinion about others opinions. And that very well may turn out to be a victory at the SC, but until such time, the law is the law right now. If someone were to violate the law, they would get that fine, and the vote would still have to be in accordance with the law - unless said person then challenged it. But until such time, we don't just get to declare things as we wish.

I'm just declaring my opinion which has some support. And being on the books doesn't mean it's Constitutional. ;)

[jimnyc]

I'm just declaring my opinion which has some support. And being on the books doesn't mean it's Constitutional. ;)

Ok.

[fj1200]

:)

[fj1200]

I do hope it gets challenged. That would be fun.

[aboutime]

Namely. Everybody seems to be under the impression that all of the Electors will vote their conscience for HILLARY. But, as we have seen on election day. Perhaps there are more Electors who will do as requested...and VOTE FOR TRUMP, rather than Hillary?
I put nothing past anything that could possibly happen on Monday.
And isn't it fun to imagine how DOWN IN THE MOUTH all of those Sore Losers will be after the Electors finally give it to TRUMP???
Just a humorous thought.:laugh:

[Elessar]

Let the whining celebrities leave.

Many threatened to do so, so let's help them put their bags on the plane
and moon them as they take off to a more liberal - allowed society.

I can't understand why these idiots get so much air and print time. None of them
have done anything positive to support this nation in time of need. You don't see
conservative celebrities whining and crying to leave, do you? Even with the abortion
that was the last 8 years.