ZOMG AT A GROUP GATHERING A PHOTO WAS TAKEN OF TWO OF THEM, THE PHOTOGRAPHER PROVED A CONSPIRACY THEORY!!11!!!!!
>https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-electoral-college_n_5f033201c5b612083c5f60d8?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvL1RQRDZZRkRwcXo_YW1wPTE&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFL_wBEQzwy5_y50COcQ01Hkb1sFwFYzjA35y5frmwWUnsJelT07h79AWCNYA9JUn5k1118TGDLtNKgV0Lyy0DJljMWnWxotKCd0azt9bLarRtIMdUKvaFW-QX-DlrezMV4_OyYP-7mEWP2JbptMjZfPsv3ItJRlWUcuHj231cu8
"The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College."
NOT the 'national' popular vote. The STATE'S popular vote.
It's obfuscating to write that the SCOTUS just permitted these 18 states to force electors to vote for the national popular vote.
>I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Yes you do.
You wrote:
>This article indicates the 18 States who passed laws to back the National popular vote is legal.
That is FALSE. The Supreme Court DID NOT run that states that pass national popular vote constraints on electors is now legal. It ruled that states can force electors to vote for the STATE LEVEL popular vote.
In other words, they ruled that states can prohibit 'faithless electors' at the state level.
Stop obfuscating and just admit you fucked up.
Don't worry, this board is anonymous so it's not like anyone will know who you are.
>There are no 'national electors' so…not quite sure what you're getting at.
Consensus crack shilling commencing?
I never said nor implied nor suggested the existed 'national electors.'
The article anon linked to did not say that the SCOTUS just ruled that states can force electors to vote for the national popular vote winner. It said states can force electors to vote for the STATE POPULAR VOTE winner.
Anon falsely wrote that SCOTUS just ruled that states can force electors to vote for the NATIONAL popular vote:
>This article indicates the 18 States who passed laws to back the National popular vote is legal.
That's wrong. That's not what the ruling was and that's not what the article said.
Clear as mud now?
It's the difference between state level and national level.
BINGO.
In terms of politics, this ruling may end up going against Trump because there are more pro-Trump faithless electors than there are anti-Trump faithless electors (2016 broke the record for electors voting against D vote majorities. I think it was 2 or 3 ele
I disagree. This ruling is SCOTUS telling states "You can each force your respective electors to vote for the state winner, and we as SCOTUS will not stop you."
This is putting more power in the voters' hands.
nO, bUt iT DiD 'aDvAnCe aN iMPoRtAnT cOnVeRsAtiOn' cabal narrative to divide us by race, sO iT dOeSn'T mAtTeR tHiS eVeNt wAs a LiE.
>projection
Yes, yes, divide the children by bloodlines.
Pit them against each other.
Sacrifice yourselves to your masters.