An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

Topics that do not fit anywhere else. Absolutely NO discussions of religion, race, or immigration!

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


Mxrdad
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 4:55 pm

Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

#16

Post by Mxrdad »

ScottDLS wrote:
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?
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.

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... :grumble
Those are good points Scott and obviously some bugs would need to get worked out. I just think the Electoral Votes have too much power in too little of hands. I know it probably would never happen, and I'm not sure I even want it to happen, but seems like there could be a better way. But who knows, after this election, and based on the last few years, there have been stranger things happening for sure. :cheers2:
Just some guy's opinion.
User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4811
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

#17

Post by bblhd672 »

bdgyeah wrote:I've thought about this recently quite a bit. The reason he is on the road so much campaigning for her to win the Presidency is because then he is not face with that question. It will be a legal mess for all the constitutional scholars to figure out if he pardons her can she still take office? Does he even have to? That mess is what he is hoping for. If DT wins, he will have to pardon 10+ maybe 20+ high ranking State Dept. officials, DOJ officials, All of the Clintons and their advisors, and any other Clinton foundation employee tied up in the mess.

So he's caught. He can be the first African American President known for passing the worst healthcare law, authoring the worst nuclear deal in history, blowing up the middle east, etc., and still say I tried and walk away with some integrity. Or he can be the first African American President that did all the afore mentioned failures and be involved in and pardon the most corrupt enterprise that infected our Government in the history of our nation.

I don't think he'll do it.
You underestimate the evil that is Barack Hussein Obama and the Clintons.
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager

Dave2
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:39 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

#18

Post by Dave2 »

ScottDLS wrote:
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?
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.

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... :grumble
Because the House represents the people and the Senate represents the states.
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.

Dave2
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:39 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

#19

Post by Dave2 »

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?
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".
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 26851
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

#20

Post by The Annoyed Man »

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?
Because if the electoral college goes away, then states with smaller populations will lose any influence in presidential elections. THAT was the reason for the electoral college to begin with - to level the playing field a bit between states with large populations, and states with small populations, in the selection of a president. The population of the US is 321,418,820 people, as of 07/01/2015. In order of population size, the states of California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and North Carolina make up 51% of the population of the country. In three of those ten states, California, New York, and Illinois, you can count the number of republicans on your fingers and toes - and they are in the top 5 for population. (SOURCE)

Of those 10 states, here is the 2014 partisan split:
  • D - California voters split 43.3% democrat to 28.1% republican
  • R - Texas voters split 41% Republican to 37% democrat (only a 4% advantage for republicans)
  • D - Florida voters split 38.8% Democrat to 35% republican
  • D - New York voters split 49.4% Democrat to 23.9% republican
  • D - Illinois voters split 47% Democrat to 35% republican
  • D - Pennsylvania voters split 49.5% Democrat to 36.7% republican
  • R - Ohio voters split 42% Republican to 41% democrat (only a 1% advantage for republicans)
  • R - Georgia voters split 43% Republican to 39% democrat (only a 4% advantage for republicans)
  • D - North Carolina voters split 41.7% Democrat to 30.4% republican
You might note that of the top 10 states, which make up 51% of the nation's population, INCLUDING TEXAS, republicans are barely holding on in the states where they have majorities, but the democrats are doing just fine in the states where they have majorities. Democrats are working hard to flip Texas......they're only 4% behind. Would you rather have ALL of Texas's electoral college votes go to the not-democrat, or would you rather have the 37% of Texans who are democrats vote directly for Clinton?

Now, let's take a look at the bottom 10 states by population, with their partisan splits...........

The bottom 10 states by population, in descending order are:
  • R - New Hampshire, population 1,330,608, 30.1% Republican to 27.2% democrat (only a 2.9% advantage for republicans)
  • D - Maine, population 1,329,328, 31.9% democrat to 27.1% republican
  • D - Rhode Island, population 1,056,298, 41.5% democrat to 10.9% republican
  • R - Montana, population 1,032,949, 51% republican to 33% democrat
  • D - Delaware, population 945,934, 47.5% democrat to 28% republican
  • R - South Dakota, population 858,469, 46.2% republican to 33.8% democrat
  • R - North Dakota, population 756,927, 47% republican to 36% democrat
  • R - Alaska, population 738,432, 26.7% republican to 13.8% democrat
  • D - Vermont, population 626,042, 47% democrat to 31% republican
  • R - Wyoming, population 586,107, 66.7% republican to 19.8% democrat
The fact is, eliminating the electoral college will most favor those voters who want to eliminate significant parts of the Bill of Rights, turn this country irrevocably into a socialist "paradise", and who don't care much if the country survives as a nation or not, because they hate the country. Further, the states are not likely to willingly give up their sovereignty in the matter.
  • Article II - The Executive Branch
    • Section 1 - The President

      The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

      Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

      (The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

      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.
    -----------------------

    Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804.

    The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

    The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

    The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

    The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
To get rid of the electoral college (even if it were a good idea, which it isn't), you'd have to pass a constitutional amendment which reverses both Article II, Section 1, and the 12th Amendment. And once the individual voter realizes that there are no more dampening influences between him, and any kind of foolhardy largess he votes for himself, this nation is finished as a Constitutional republic, and all state sovereignty will vanish.

It's a horrible idea. Fortunately, not only where the Founders more wise than most people today, including most politicians and the majority of voters, but they made it deliberately difficult for opportunists to alter the text of the Constitution. We still exist today as a nation because of that wisdom.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar

karder
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:14 pm
Location: El Paso

Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

#21

Post by karder »

:iagree:
You beat me to it TAM
“While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” ― Samuel Adams

Mxrdad
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 4:55 pm

Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

#22

Post by Mxrdad »

Wow, thanks for that great detailed post. I dont think I've ever had it explained like that before. But ya know, someone has to ask the dumb questions around here. :oops: Now where did I put that Dunce hat??? I admit I never was interested in the mechanics of how it works but as I aged, that changed thankfully.

Thanks again TAM.
Just some guy's opinion.

Mxrdad
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 4:55 pm

Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

#23

Post by Mxrdad »

I just heard on Fox News regarding a possible scenario where the election is a tie and it would then go to the House. Whats yalls thought s on that if it does end up a tie?
Just some guy's opinion.
User avatar

rbwhatever1
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1434
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Paradise Texas

Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

#24

Post by rbwhatever1 »

Mxrdad wrote:I just heard on Fox News regarding a possible scenario where the election is a tie and it would then go to the House. Whats yalls thought s on that if it does end up a tie?
President Trump

...and the shortest Civil War in the History of the planet when unarmed socialists attack a basket of heavily armed deplorables
III
User avatar

Bitter Clinger
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:16 pm
Location: North Dallas

Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

#25

Post by Bitter Clinger »

Prof. Banzhaf: Nothing Prevents Hillary Clinton from Pardoning Herself After Inauguration

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/11/ ... rt+News%29
"You may all go to H3ll, and I will go to Texas." - Davy Crockett
"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." - Wyatt Earp
NRA Life Member
לעולם לא תשכח

gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

#26

Post by gljjt »

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.

Dave2
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:39 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

#27

Post by Dave2 »

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.
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).
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.
User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

#28

Post by KLB »

The Wall wrote:Doesn't she have to be convicted first before he pardons her.
Nixon had not been convicted of anything when Ford pardoned him.

The Wall
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:59 am

Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

#29

Post by The Wall »

KLB wrote:
The Wall wrote:Doesn't she have to be convicted first before he pardons her.
Nixon had not been convicted of anything when Ford pardoned him.
Not sure how that works, but I don't think jeopardy would apply if they would have decided to go ahead with it. Of course there's the statute of limitations also. Only time will tell.
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 26851
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: An Obama Pardon for Hillary?

#30

Post by The Annoyed Man »

The Annoyed Man wrote:
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?
Because if the electoral college goes away, then states with smaller populations will lose any influence in presidential elections. THAT was the reason for the electoral college to begin with - to level the playing field a bit between states with large populations, and states with small populations, in the selection of a president. The population of the US is 321,418,820 people, as of 07/01/2015. In order of population size, the states of California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and North Carolina make up 51% of the population of the country. In three of those ten states, California, New York, and Illinois, you can count the number of republicans on your fingers and toes - and they are in the top 5 for population. (SOURCE)

Of those 10 states, here is the 2014 partisan split:
  • D - California voters split 43.3% democrat to 28.1% republican
  • R - Texas voters split 41% Republican to 37% democrat (only a 4% advantage for republicans)
  • D - Florida voters split 38.8% Democrat to 35% republican
  • D - New York voters split 49.4% Democrat to 23.9% republican
  • D - Illinois voters split 47% Democrat to 35% republican
  • D - Pennsylvania voters split 49.5% Democrat to 36.7% republican
  • R - Ohio voters split 42% Republican to 41% democrat (only a 1% advantage for republicans)
  • R - Georgia voters split 43% Republican to 39% democrat (only a 4% advantage for republicans)
  • D - North Carolina voters split 41.7% Democrat to 30.4% republican
You might note that of the top 10 states, which make up 51% of the nation's population, INCLUDING TEXAS, republicans are barely holding on in the states where they have majorities, but the democrats are doing just fine in the states where they have majorities. Democrats are working hard to flip Texas......they're only 4% behind. Would you rather have ALL of Texas's electoral college votes go to the not-democrat, or would you rather have the 37% of Texans who are democrats vote directly for Clinton?

Now, let's take a look at the bottom 10 states by population, with their partisan splits...........

The bottom 10 states by population, in descending order are:
  • R - New Hampshire, population 1,330,608, 30.1% Republican to 27.2% democrat (only a 2.9% advantage for republicans)
  • D - Maine, population 1,329,328, 31.9% democrat to 27.1% republican
  • D - Rhode Island, population 1,056,298, 41.5% democrat to 10.9% republican
  • R - Montana, population 1,032,949, 51% republican to 33% democrat
  • D - Delaware, population 945,934, 47.5% democrat to 28% republican
  • R - South Dakota, population 858,469, 46.2% republican to 33.8% democrat
  • R - North Dakota, population 756,927, 47% republican to 36% democrat
  • R - Alaska, population 738,432, 26.7% republican to 13.8% democrat
  • D - Vermont, population 626,042, 47% democrat to 31% republican
  • R - Wyoming, population 586,107, 66.7% republican to 19.8% democrat
The fact is, eliminating the electoral college will most favor those voters who want to eliminate significant parts of the Bill of Rights, turn this country irrevocably into a socialist "paradise", and who don't care much if the country survives as a nation or not, because they hate the country. Further, the states are not likely to willingly give up their sovereignty in the matter.
  • Article II - The Executive Branch
    • Section 1 - The President

      The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

      Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

      (The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

      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.
    -----------------------

    Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804.

    The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

    The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

    The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

    The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
To get rid of the electoral college (even if it were a good idea, which it isn't), you'd have to pass a constitutional amendment which reverses both Article II, Section 1, and the 12th Amendment. And once the individual voter realizes that there are no more dampening influences between him, and any kind of foolhardy largess he votes for himself, this nation is finished as a Constitutional republic, and all state sovereignty will vanish.

It's a horrible idea. Fortunately, not only where the Founders more wise than most people today, including most politicians and the majority of voters, but they made it deliberately difficult for opportunists to alter the text of the Constitution. We still exist today as a nation because of that wisdom.
As it turns out, if we had gotten rid of the electoral college, we'd be congratulating Hillary Clinton on her win this morning. Instead, the system worked, and the size of Hollywood's population is about to shrink: http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in ... -trump-won
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”