I've given you cites, quotes and the vote. You have presented nothing to refute it. Still waiting........ Nadler ""Mr. Speaker, the case against the president has not been made," Nadler said. "There is far from sufficient evidence to support the allegations, and the allegations, even if proven true, do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses."" Speakers from both sides of the aisle repeated their parties' respective mantras: Republicans insisted Clinton forfeited his right to the presidency when he violated the rule of law. Democrats countered that the offenses did not rise to level of impeachment and pleaded for a censure resolution. https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/19/impeachment.01/ Refute it
ROFL I'm not the one being obtuse. The Electors get one vote some don't get more than others. Because he lost the state election for their electors only getting 36.5% of the votes, the STATE said it would vote for Clinton.
Why is that a big deal to anyone.. I always thought the Democrats welcome the entire world with there sanctuary cities and states????
When did ‘States” become people ? So your saying LAND is the basis for votes ? You keep digging that hole tho.....
If you are unable to see the difference between "this conduct does not rise to the level of impeachment" and "they claimed that they thought/think perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury and/or witness tampering does not warrant impeachment"...you might do better discussing movies, television, or sports rather than law or politics.
Do explain the difference then, the conduct was perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering and the Democrats said that didn't rise to the level of impeachment and removal from office as I have demonstrated over and over. They in fact wanted to censure him for those acts but in the Senate trial that is not a judgement made. So they admit he committed the acts but they did not rise to impeachment and removal.
You never learned we have entities in this country call STATES and that the Constitution makes the distinction between the STATES and the PEOPLE? You never learned that the STATES elect the President not the PEOPLE. You started in a hole. Show me where the Constitution says the People shall elect the President.
No, the majority, that is the 51% means there is no even split. And the moment you bring in someones interpretation of the result it stops being a true democracy, because it's then open to abuse and manipulation.
yes, the right sees no issue with trump trying to cheat to win the 2020 election via bribing a foreign government to go after his political opponent, we get it
Interesting twisted definition of democracy. Our founding fathers made the Supreme Court the final arbiter in cases involving minority protections against the majority. It hasn't been perfect, but it has made progress in that mission over time. I don't see how the EC has done any better job here than the Supreme Court has. Can you?
I sure did. Just like you. And everyone else. That you do not like this fact in no way means it is not a fact.
So then you can explain the 2 million voters in New York who voted for Trump, and he got ZERO votes from New York
Yes. The exact same way the 2,207,602 people who voted for Marc Molinaro got nothing. One person, one vote. That you do not like this fact in no way means it is not a fact.
So those who got nothing is still “one person one vote” in your mind ? Just WOW Show me again why the framers choose a winner take all EC?
The 2,207,602 people who voted for Marc Molinaro got nothing - in a 'one person, one vote' election. Not sure why you think the fact you get nothing for losing an election means the system is not 'one person one vote' - I'd ask you to explain, but I suspect you cannot. YOU argued the framers had a specific intent for the means of selecting of the electors. YOU have failed to demonstrate any such thing. So... YOU first.
