RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Should Michael Moore Face ...


A criminal investigation. He committed a felony.
  4% (1)
Exile. He was fomenting insurection/sedition.
  4% (1)
A firing squad. He's a traitor.
  9% (2)
Nothing. What he did was "protected free speech".
  33% (7)
A boycott of all his financial enterprises.
  14% (3)
A medal ceremony for being such a patriot.
  33% (7)


Total Votes : 21
(last vote on : 12/23/2016 6:16:37 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message


WhoreMods -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 10:42:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Worse. The states are refusing to accept their vote, replacing them with someone on the spot who will do the state's bidding.

Isn't that unconstitutional and a massive breach of the state rights thing the Republicans are queer for if they think they can use it to undermine Federal law on a state by state basis?




Nnanji -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 11:41:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Worse. The states are refusing to accept their vote, replacing them with someone on the spot who will do the state's bidding.

Isn't that unconstitutional and a massive breach of the state rights thing the Republicans are queer for if they think they can use it to undermine Federal law on a state by state basis?

Hum, another case of speaking up with no facts. Let's point out just one. It's the States making and enforcing the laws.mhow is that a "massive breach of the states rights?"




Musicmystery -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 12:23:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Worse. The states are refusing to accept their vote, replacing them with someone on the spot who will do the state's bidding.

Isn't that unconstitutional and a massive breach of the state rights thing the Republicans are queer for if they think they can use it to undermine Federal law on a state by state basis?

Yes. But someone has to challenge it, and not before a politically stacked court.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 12:46:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
If it is wrong for Moore to offer to pay fines for people because that is attempting to influence their decision, then threatening to fine the person if he doesn't vote your way is just as wrong because it is still trying to influence their decision. Goose - gander, pot - kettle etc.

It's not the same, igor. The laws (of most states) state that Electors have to vote according to the popular vote in that state. That's the rule. If you break the rule, there are (or may be, as it seems faithless electors haven't always been punished for breaking the rule) consequences. In most states, Electors are, pretty much, just rubberstampers.
What Michael Moore did was quite different.
All that being said, Moore didn't try to bribe people to vote for his candidate. What he did was offer to accept their consequences if they felt compelled to violate the rules. This wouldn't result in financial benefits to the Elector if he changes his vote. The elector would be no better off than if he didn't follow the rules.
I don't think Moore didn't anything illegal.

We actually agree!


'Bout time you started thinking right! [8D]

[:D][:D][:D]




DesideriScuri -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 12:48:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Worse. The states are refusing to accept their vote, replacing them with someone on the spot who will do the state's bidding.

Isn't that unconstitutional and a massive breach of the state rights thing the Republicans are queer for if they think they can use it to undermine Federal law on a state by state basis?


I'm not sure what you're going on about with this, WM.




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 2:09:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Worse. The states are refusing to accept their vote, replacing them with someone on the spot who will do the state's bidding.

Isn't that unconstitutional and a massive breach of the state rights thing the Republicans are queer for if they think they can use it to undermine Federal law on a state by state basis?

Dafuq?
I'm afraid you are not making much sense here




BamaD -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 2:10:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


18 U.S. Code � 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

The U.S. Code disagrees, Bama:

quote:


(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.

(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;


I think he deserves some D.O.J. attention, based upon this law.



Michael


Ok, o think that he has no doubt stepped across the line offering to pay the fines for faithless electors. I consider him to be an anti American POS who should have his assets confiscated an shipped of to live in Cuba, but I hate to give him the attention.




BamaD -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 2:13:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Michael Moore tweeted:

quote:


Republican electors - my offer remains: If u vote your conscience & u are fined 4 doing this, I will pay your fine. U should not be punished


Traitor? Potential felon? Patriot?



Michael


He is an idiot who deserves no attention.


well IMO that idiot published in 1 movie more facts than u have the entire time u've been on this site.... so by ur logic we should pay u even less attention.



He has been proven to twist the facts in all of his movies. He is nothing more than a socialist propagandist.




BamaD -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 2:16:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Worse. The states are refusing to accept their vote, replacing them with someone on the spot who will do the state's bidding.

Isn't that unconstitutional and a massive breach of the state rights thing the Republicans are queer for if they think they can use it to undermine Federal law on a state by state basis?

No




Edwird -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 6:10:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Michael Moore tweeted:
quote:


Republican electors - my offer remains: If u vote your conscience & u are fined 4 doing this, I will pay your fine. U should not be punished


Traitor? Potential felon? Patriot?
Michael


Should Americans face trial for treason if voting for Hillary? For Trump?

Good argument from prosecution, either way.

But wait ....

Good gosh, boy, if you ever heard Reagan Radio from 1979, you'd know what treason truly is.

So yeah, here we go. "For the people!"

Bye bye millions of jobs. Bye bye millions of homes. Hello a few more billionaires. As last time.

What unmitigated fuckwits, the lot of you.

If nature still had anything to do with it, your kind would be off the cliff before breakfast.









BamaD -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 6:14:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Worse. The states are refusing to accept their vote, replacing them with someone on the spot who will do the state's bidding.

Isn't that unconstitutional and a massive breach of the state rights thing the Republicans are queer for if they think they can use it to undermine Federal law on a state by state basis?

Each state having their own rules is a violation of states rights???????????????




Musicmystery -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 7:09:53 PM)

When those rules go against the Constitution, yes. That's what un-Constitutional means.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 7:48:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
When those rules go against the Constitution, yes. That's what un-Constitutional means.


While true in general, I don't believe there is any Federal laws regarding how electors of a State must vote.

So, in general, yes, but in this specific case, I don't think there is anything unConstitutional about a State making it's own rules up.




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 8:32:49 PM)

quote:

I consider him to be an anti American POS who should have his assets confiscated an shipped of to live in Cuba, but I hate to give him the attention.

Don't you just love how the folks who harp on about how the love and revere the Constitution the most, are always the first to attack anybody who exercised the rights guaranteed under that Constitution for anything they don't happen to approve of.

One would almost be led to think that either they were total hypocrites, or they didn't really understand the document they claim to honour. Personally I am of the opinion that it is a particularly toxic combination of the two.




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 8:37:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
When those rules go against the Constitution, yes. That's what un-Constitutional means.


While true in general, I don't believe there is any Federal laws regarding how electors of a State must vote.

So, in general, yes, but in this specific case, I don't think there is anything unConstitutional about a State making it's own rules up.


And you are 100% correct, as the Constitution specifically grants the states to appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". the Constitution makes it perfectly clear that it entirely up to each state how they do it.




BamaD -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 9:11:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
When those rules go against the Constitution, yes. That's what un-Constitutional means.


While true in general, I don't believe there is any Federal laws regarding how electors of a State must vote.

So, in general, yes, but in this specific case, I don't think there is anything unConstitutional about a State making it's own rules up.


There isn't anything, the states are allowed to make their own rules concerning electors. Not only this but it was his response to my question about how allowing states to make their own rules in any way reduces states rights. Even if it was unconstitutional (which it isn't) it wouldn't by any stretch be on the basis of violating states rights.




BamaD -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/20/2016 9:14:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

I consider him to be an anti American POS who should have his assets confiscated an shipped of to live in Cuba, but I hate to give him the attention.

Don't you just love how the folks who harp on about how the love and revere the Constitution the most, are always the first to attack anybody who exercised the rights guaranteed under that Constitution for anything they don't happen to approve of.

One would almost be led to think that either they were total hypocrites, or they didn't really understand the document they claim to honour. Personally I am of the opinion that it is a particularly toxic combination of the two.

I never said the law could do that.
I have particularly nasty inclinations concerning child molesters but they are unconstitutional.




WickedsDesire -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 5:07:01 AM)

Who the hells Michael Moore? No sarcasm this time I aint got a clue, and whats the naughty rascal been up to....

Thinks - something to do with a film and south park...thats all I know...hmm wait who did an inconvenient truth not that i am watching it...hmm fill jumble....the one about towers or tower 5 7.

Anyway whats he done now - Moore's written and cinematic works criticize topics such as globalization, large corporations, assault weapon ownership, U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton[4] and George W. Bush, President-elect Donald Trump,[5] the Iraq War, the American health care system, and capitalism. In 2005, Time magazine named Moore one of the world's 100 most influential people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRNpYLoSx_E watch the follow on clip too :)

Team America is actually a really good Film




bounty44 -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 5:28:49 AM)

I suspect one of the electors might be hinting at the "unconstitutionality" of laws mandating the electors vote in a particular way.

ironically, the left is all about the "will of the people" as determined by the popular vote, completely missing the idea that a faithless elector disenfranchises the votes of all the people he is representing. yeah, there is no loss of the "will of the people" there!




bounty44 -> RE: Should Michael Moore Face ... (12/21/2016 5:32:35 AM)

Michael moore and the truth do not cohabitate.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.140625