Digest then Discuss

[Billyd]

There are a number of posters here that believe that the Jr. Senator from Illinois is the President-Elect of the United States of America. However, this is incorrect. We have only endured the popular vote and have not completed the Constitutionaly mandated process for electing the President and the Vice-President of the United States.

While we have endured the first step, there is still a couple of steps to go. The first being the Electors of the several states convening and casting there votes, which by the way, do NOT have to be cast for the winner of the popular vote, except in 4 cases where the laws of the state require them to do so. Those votes are then signed, certified, and sealed then sent to the seat of government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. Then, in a joint session of Congress, those certificates will be opened, and provided that the person with the most votes has a majority of the Electors appointed (in our case 270) that person shall then become the President of the United States.

So, while we bemoan the results of the populous vote, the Jr. Senator for the state of Illinois, is still that. The Jr. Senator for the state of Illinois. While extrememly unlikely, The Sr. Senator for the state of Arizona, John S. McCain could still become President of the United States. In fact, for that matter HairyEyeball could become President of the United States.

So, until the votes of the Electoral College are opened by the President of the Senate on January 6, 2009, there is no President-Elect.

[PaulR]

Even if Senator McCain ceded to the results as they were?

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

So, even though John McCain conceded, and Obama won in a HUGE victory in the popular and electoral college votes, McCain, against the majority of America's wishes, could become President... and what are the realistic chances of McCain becoming President with a Democrat controlled Senate and House?

[Billyd]

So, even though John McCain conceded, and Obama won in a HUGE victory in the popular and electoral college votes, McCain, against the majority of America's wishes, could become President... and what are the realistic chances of McCain becoming President with a Democrat controlled Senate and House?

Re-read my original post. Senator Obama has NOT won the Electoral College vote as the EC has NOT yet voted. There are a number of steps to the White House and only one has been completed.

Dig out your copy of the Constitution of the United States and read Article 2 and the 12th Amendment. That's the great thing about our system is that the rule book is available to all who care to read it.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Ah!

Very interesting how this Government has instituted a complex system of checks and balances...

[flyBoy2010]

Originally, the electoral collage was created because the founding fathers feared putting the power to elect their leaders directly. This gave a distinct advantage to the upper class. For a long time, only the House was elected directly by the people.

[ang1sgt]

So, even though John McCain conceded, and Obama won in a HUGE victory in the popular and electoral college votes, McCain, against the majority of America's wishes, could become President... and what are the realistic chances of McCain becoming President with a Democrat controlled Senate and House?

Cadet, Once again you show ignorance of the facts. A HUGE popular vote win? To me that would suggest at least a 2 to 1 vote garnered for the Winner and this was just NOT the case. Believe what you may, but look at the facts. I'll grant you that the Electoral Votes were a Huge Victory, but not the PEOPLES Vote.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Well sir, it was bigger than the last few popular vote victories... 66 million to 57 million... there's an 8,000,000 vote difference there... and the only lead that was that long was in Clinton vs. Dole.

[CAPSmith]

Even more disturbing though:

Total Votes for Both Candidates: 122,253,619

According to the US census population estimates (subtracting those under 18 and those who voted) the number of people who didn't vote but were over 18 were 105,465,805. It makes you wonder how an election would turn out if the other 35% of people decided to vote.

[SlightlyCatholic]

It makes you wonder how an election would turn out if the other 35% of people decided to vote.

Personally, I think that if the Christian faith-based turnout had been larger and more authentic (true to what their Christian faith teaches about the sanctity of human life), we would have had a different election. From my own faith, I know that Catholicism doesn't permit me to vote for a candidate who is pro-choice. In my own state of RI, we have approximately 650,000 Catholics out of our just over 1 million residents. If they had all voted for McCain, it would have easily been a red state. Just something else to think about.

[CAPSmith]

Unrelated discussion on abortion moved to: http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=662

[Billyd]

This is not a question of who voted or not, or who voted for whom. This is a discussion about the calling a man the President-Elect, when he technically is NOT the President-Elect. Look back at my original post and pay attention to the detail.

While Senator Obama has won the popular vote, he has not garnered the required 270 Electoral Votes to be the President-Elect. Until the Electors meet in their state capitols and actually cast their votes, and submit them IAW with the 12th Amendment of Constitution of the United States, the Jr. Senator for the State of Illinois is nothing more than the Jr. Senator for the State of Illinois.

Cadets, a number of you are considering a career in the military. When you enter the military, either enlisted or officer, you will take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States of Amerika..." Don't you think it might be a good idea to actually read and understand what the Supreme Law of the Land actually says and means?

[Drill for life]

Well our country is real great, if something happens we always have a itty-bitty scapegoat ready to come out. Personally I don't think America is ready for a President with the views of Senator Barock Obama, he belivies in Socialism and is a Active Marksist. I do believe in Karl Marks origianl Communist Manifesto but not for our country. Come on EC vot Mccain in.

[TruBlu]

While the Jr. Senator is not officially the "President-Elect," what are the chances of the Sr. Senator claiming that title? I'd say very low. But I suspect that is not the purpose of this thread. The purpose is the realization that neither senators (namely the former than the latter) are the "President-Elect," and that they coining of their names as such is out of line and premature.

Well our country is real great, if something happens we always have a itty-bitty scapegoat ready to come out. Personally I don't think America is ready for a President with the views of Senator Barock Obama, he belivies in Socialism and is a Active Marksist. I do believe in Karl Marks origianl Communist Manifesto but not for our country. Come on EC vot Mccain in.

Do you have any evidence as to the Senator believing in Socialism or being an "active Marxist?" Has he ever admitted or admit to being a Socialist or Marxist? Yes, he has some ideas with socialist elements and has made some socialist statements as in "spreading the wealth," but that does not mean he is a socialist or an "active Marxist."

You saying that you "believe in Karl Marx's ("x" not "k") original Communist Manifesto" and then you accuse another man of being a Marxist. Maybe I will condemn you a Marxist because of that statement, regardless of you saying not for our country (I guess for some other country right?). Does this mean that you are a Marxist? Think about it...

[03_SHOOTER]

Well sir, it was bigger than the last few popular vote victories... 66 million to 57 million... there's an 8,000,000 vote difference there... and the only lead that was that long was in Clinton vs. Dole.

The Junior Senator from Illinois won 52% of the popular vote. So perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain how that constitutes a "huge majority", yet in the 2000 election when (now) President Bush won 51% of the popular vote, he "stole" the election?

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Sir, Bush didn't win with 51%... he won with 47%, and Gore had 48% (If you round the percentages, they both equal 48%)

Bush won because he had the electoral college on his side...

*How this relates back to Mr. Obama being President elect -- On how the states went for the popular vote, Obama has both (Popular and Electoral) votes on his side...

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/elecpop.htm

[03_SHOOTER]

Sir, Bush didn't win with 51%... he won with 47%, and Gore had 48% (If you round the percentages, they both equal 48%)

I stand corrected. I was going from memory, and confused the 2000 election and the 2004 election, in which he did get 51% of the popular vote. The point still remains though that in the lamestream media when President Bush won 48% and 51% of the popular vote in 2000, and 2004 respectively, he was accused of "stealing" the elections, but when the "Messiah" wins 52% of the popular vote, largely due to the completely biased reporting and flat out lies conveyed by the DNC sycophants in the lamestream media, it's a "clear mandate" for America?

Bush won because he had the electoral college on his side...

Perhaps you'd care to expound on that? The way you have crafted your statement makes it sound as if there was some illicit activity on the part of the Electoral College

*How this relates back to Mr. Obama being President elect -- On how the states went for the popular vote, Obama has both (Popular and Electoral) votes on his side...

Firstly, because until the Electoral College casts their votes on December 15th, Obama is nowhere close to being the "President Elect". In fact, until the votes of the Electoral College are opened (scheduled for January 6, 2009), and certified (whenever that happens, depending on any objections) by a joint session of Congress, he has not in fact been elected, and thus remains the Junior Senator from Illinois.

You really need to understand that We The People DO NOT vote for POTUS, we vote for our members of the Electoral College, and it is THEY who cast their votes for POTUS. In fact, and just to be perfectly clear, there is no Constitutional "right" to vote in any Federal election, and doing so is a privilege that is granted to us by our States.

[Machine]

Personally, I think that if the Christian faith-based turnout had been larger and more authentic (true to what their Christian faith teaches about the sanctity of human life), we would have had a different election. From my own faith, I know that Catholicism doesn't permit me to vote for a candidate who is pro-choice. In my own state of RI, we have approximately 650,000 Catholics out of our just over 1 million residents. If they had all voted for McCain, it would have easily been a red state. Just something else to think about.

Perhaps, Padre, the portion of the electorate that identifies themselves as Christians stood more authentic than you presume. When you speak of the Christian view toward the sanctity of life, are referring strictly to unborn American kids, or do you take the more authentic view of human life as a whole? I know for me, for a very long time, I was in the first category. After some years and really reading, I find out that we as Americans do not corner the market. In other words, I have settled on the idea that all parents love their kids, regardless of race, religion, or creed. I think, and this is only opinion here, that like me, a lot of American Christians were taken aback by John McCain's battle cry of "Country First". Tell me, does that not raise your eyebrows, coming from a belief that we are to first glorify the Almighty, love him with all our heart, and seek no others before him?
McCain represents a government of Country First, implying statism above one's faith, family, and property. He didn't represent me, so true to my faith, I marked the box for Chuck Baldwin.
The government that owns us today is so far removed from what the founders intended, that it is pure silliness to argue over the details of selection of the chief executive.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

I stand corrected. I was going from memory, and confused the 2000 election and the 2004 election, in which he did get 51% of the popular vote. The point still remains though that in the lamestream media when President Bush won 48% and 51% of the popular vote in 2000, and 2004 respectively, he was accused of "stealing" the elections, but when the "Messiah" wins 52% of the popular vote, largely due to the completely biased reporting and flat out lies conveyed by the DNC sycophants in the lamestream media, it's a "clear mandate" for America?

True, I see how the media spins everything to their liking... and to some people, 46% to 52% seems like a huge lead...



Perhaps you'd care to expound on that? The way you have crafted your statement makes it sound as if there was some illicit activity on the part of the Electoral College


I meant that although Gore had more of the popular vote, the states that Bush carried had a denser population (and so, more electoral college votes) than Gore.


Firstly, because until the Electoral College casts their votes on December 15th, Obama is nowhere close to being the "President Elect". In fact, until the votes of the Electoral College are opened (scheduled for January 6, 2009), and certified (whenever that happens, depending on any objections) by a joint session of Congress, he has not in fact been elected, and thus remains the Junior Senator from Illinois.

You really need to understand that We The People DO NOT vote for POTUS, we vote for our members of the Electoral College, and it is THEY who cast their votes for POTUS. In fact, and just to be perfectly clear, there is no Constitutional "right" to vote in any Federal election, and doing so is a privilege that is granted to us by our States.

Sir, what I'm gathering is that our right to vote is... meaningless, so to speak... and in turn, voting for the President of the United States isn't really doing anything, which means that those University Students who said that they would trade their right to vote for one million dollars were the smartest people alive.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Perhaps, Padre, the portion of the electorate that identifies themselves as Christians stood more authentic than you presume. When you speak of the Christian view toward the sanctity of life, are referring strictly to unborn American kids, or do you take the more authentic view of human life as a whole? I know for me, for a very long time, I was in the first category. After some years and really reading, I find out that we as Americans do not corner the market. In other words, I have settled on the idea that all parents love their kids, regardless of race, religion, or creed. I think, and this is only opinion here, that like me, a lot of American Christians were taken aback by John McCain's battle cry of "Country First". Tell me, does that not raise your eyebrows, coming from a belief that we are to first glorify the Almighty, love him with all our heart, and seek no others before him?
McCain represents a government of Country First, implying statism above one's faith, family, and property. He didn't represent me, so true to my faith, I marked the box for Chuck Baldwin.
The government that owns us today is so far removed from what the founders intended, that it is pure silliness to argue over the details of selection of the chief executive.

I see what you're saying, and it's understandable. I think many were torn between a pro-choice candidate and a candidate who wants to further what the Catholic Church has called an unjust war. Catholics (I'm not speaking for all Christians) are taught to place the unborn child on the top of the ladder, but the spectre of war for one's children is a very scary thing and I don't doubt that many Christians voted for Mr. Obama to safeguard their children. From a standpoint of morals and values, it was a tough election. Then again, what election isn't hard for a voter?

[03_SHOOTER]

Sir, what I'm gathering is that our right to vote is... meaningless, so to speak... and in turn, voting for the President of the United States isn't really doing anything, which means that those University Students who said that they would trade their right to vote for one million dollars were the smartest people alive.

Again, there is NO "right" to vote for POTUS, but that does NOT mean that your vote is in any way meaningless. What you are voting for is the electors of the Electoral College, so the more people who vote for one or the other party determine how many electors there will be who are apt to (or required to in some states) cast their vote for the candidate you chose.

The fact that a University student would say that they'd trade their ability (note I did not say 'right' to vote) to vote for a million dollars only serves to prove the observation that I, and others here, have oft repeated, that being that the Amerikun Skuul Sistum, and Institooshuns of Hi-er Indoctrunashun have succeeded in producing yet another generation of drooling morons who have not the first clue, who shouldn't be trusted with anything more complicated than wedge, and should NEVER be allowed anywhere near the voting booth again.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Ah, I see now.

About the University students -- I believe it was at the University of New York (Don't quote me on this), that they had a poll (it was actually covered by the news), that most of the students there would rather have 1,000,000 dollars than their right to vote.

I believe it was posted on the old forum (I'm not sure whether or not it was the Cadet forum or the Grunt forum, however.)

[03_SHOOTER]

Ah, I see now.

About the University students -- I believe it was at the University of New York (Don't quote me on this), that they had a poll (it was actually covered by the news), that most of the students there would rather have 1,000,000 dollars than their right to vote.

I believe it was posted on the old forum (I'm not sure whether or not it was the Cadet forum or the Grunt forum, however.)

I recall seeing it, and my statement still stands, they're MORONS, who aren't intellectually developed enough to be trusted with anything more complicated than a wedge, and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a voting booth,...EVER! As the 14th Amendment very clearly lays out the results of a State denying anyone their ability to vote, perhaps it would be best to locate the individuals who answered in the affirmative in that poll and inform them that they may not vote, and they don't get the million either!

[TruBlu]

I recall seeing it, and my statement still stands, they're MORONS, who aren't intellectually developed enough to be trusted with anything more complicated than a wedge, and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a voting booth,...EVER! As the 14th Amendment very clearly lays out the results of a State denying anyone their ability to vote, perhaps it would be best to locate the individuals who answered in the affirmative in that poll and inform them that they may not vote, and they don't get the million either!

Indeed. Why anyone would pass up and deny their self the liberty of choosing, or aiding in choosing, their leader, the one who represents them and everyone else in the country? For a couple bucks? You can't put a price on freedoms or rights, no matter how much the amount...