Fucking Pussies

[InsightRiot]

The only time Congress has any say is when nobody receives a majority of the electoral votes. This has happened, but rarely and not for a long time. In 1960, some Democrats made an effort to bring this about, but failed, largely thanks to the patriotism of Richard Nixon. The same people had tried and failed in 1948 and they did much the same in 1968, but failed that time too.

This is one of the advantages of the two-party system - that coalitions are not usually needed.

Ooooh, good stuff.
Especially that last sentence. That's a question that has been rolling around in my head: Which is a more system stable strategy, two-party, three-party, multi-party?

 

[InsightRiot]

Just guessing, but probably from a wild ass imagination.

I'm glad you and Box were able to decipher my post. Y'all are very resourceful!

 

[phrodeau]

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says the opposite of what the Phraud is saying.

The Constitution does not specify how Congress deals with the Electoral votes. However, this does: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html#15

 

[Rightguide]

House votes 332 to 95 to kill Rep. Al Green's resolution to impeach Trump.

https://apple.news/AUs9ARYWCTl6GjUK1Sc4-vQ

Al Green is a nationally recognized dope.

 

[InsightRiot]

The Constitution does not specify how Congress deals with the Electoral votes. However, this does: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html#15

This does not support your claim that Congress has final say. All it says is that they tally the votes, and if any congress person objects to the validity of some votes then they have to submit proof, not argument.

You are correct in saying that fraudulent votes will be discounted, but Congress doesn't get final say on the votes, the Electors do.

 

[Rightguide]

Meanwhile, Republican senators kill a bill to compensate 9/11 first responders.

How many first responders were compensated after Pearl Harbor attack?

 

[Kantarii]

This does not support your claim that Congress has final say. All it says is that they tally the votes, and if any congress person objects to the validity of some votes then they have to submit proof, not argument.

You are correct in saying that fraudulent votes will be discounted, but Congress doesn't get final say on the votes, the Electors do.

I think you neutered his brain the way you did Sean’s.

 

[Rightguide]

This does not support your claim that Congress has final say. All it says is that they tally the votes, and if any congress person objects to the validity of some votes then they have to submit proof, not argument.

You are correct in saying that fraudulent votes will be discounted, but Congress doesn't get final say on the votes, the Electors do.

He lives far away in a place called the Shire. So, he's quite often fucked up on his facts.

 

[Luk]

How many first responders were compensated after Pearl Harbor attack?

Just when we think you cannot morph into an even bigger waste of human flesh.

 

[phrodeau]

This does not support your claim that Congress has final say. All it says is that they tally the votes, and if any congress person objects to the validity of some votes then they have to submit proof, not argument.

You are correct in saying that fraudulent votes will be discounted, but Congress doesn't get final say on the votes, the Electors do.

Sure, except when they don’t, then Congress makes the call.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Sure, except when they don’t, then Congress makes the call.

This has only happened once, in 1824, when no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes. In accordance with the Constitutional, the House of Reps voted and they elected J. Q. Adams over Andrew Johnson. Johnson had won a plurality of the popular vote and of the electoral college votes, but not a majority of either.