Nor does it deal with the societal division & unrest it would cause to have a president who was pardoned instead of acquitted (or not charged in the first place).gljjt wrote:Bitter Clinger wrote:Prof. Banzhaf: Nothing Prevents Hillary Clinton from Pardoning Herself After Inauguration
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/11/ ... rt+News%29
Pardon doesn't cover impeachment however.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “An Obama Pardon for Hillary?”
- Sat Nov 05, 2016 4:16 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?
- Replies: 41
- Views: 6441
Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?
- Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:16 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?
- Replies: 41
- Views: 6441
Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?
We have an electoral college because it's the states who elect presidents... The people merely tell their state how to vote. This is why its possible for some states to award their votes proportionally to how their citizens voted, and for other states to be "winner takes all".Mxrdad wrote:And it all boils down to the Electoral votes. Does anybody else think this "Electoral Vote" system needs to be reassessed? It may have made sense in the old days but now, with the ease of access to voting methods, does it make sense any more? Its hard for me to understand why the Popular Vote doesnt take precedence these days. Dunno, maybe its just me?
- Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:13 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?
- Replies: 41
- Views: 6441
Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?
Because the House represents the people and the Senate represents the states.ScottDLS wrote:I think it is an important component of our (small r) republican form of government. How does a pure popular vote work? Can you win with a plurality so 17 people can run and one guy gets 15% of the vote then the other 16 split the 85%. Good way to guaranteed that 85% of the country hates the POTUS.Mxrdad wrote:And it all boils down to the Electoral votes. Does anybody else think this "Electoral Vote" system needs to be reassessed? It may have made sense in the old days but now, with the ease of access to voting methods, does it make sense any more? Its hard for me to understand why the Popular Vote doesnt take precedence these days. Dunno, maybe its just me?
And why does Alaska get the same number of Senators as California? Shouldn't we just go with a unicameral House with proportional representation? Or a European style Prime Minister elected by the Representatives? While Bush was not the popular vote winner in 2000, I have to wonder if every illegal alien, convicted felon, and dead person that voted for Gore wasn't counted he would have...
