ITS HAPPENING

ITS HAPPENING

MOORE WILL PAY ELECTORS TO STOP TRUMPF

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/MMFlint/status/810701092141015040
youtube.com/watch?v=ZMVh3RBOZeE
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Post source.

The fine is only $1000 kek. Drumpf is finished

twitter.com/MMFlint/status/810701092141015040

Would be awesome if he did it bc I'm pretty sure he and everyone who accepted bribe would be thrown in prison.

How is his hrt coming along?

They'd also greatly increase their chances of getting assassinated.

I donated.

I want his retarded voters to rise up and get shot. Or at least jailed.

lmao that hair makes him look like a bitter lesbian

MADAM PRESIDENT

>implying this will happen

This may as well be fucking bribery. Hope this fat fuck dies of a heart attack.

>Setting baits against yourself
O-Ok
Go on.

is he transitioning into a woman?

these people are so fucked up

Will he pay their medical frees though?

Is he trying to copy Trump's hair style?

that would be bribery

Likely illegal for him to do.

>Any person, who offers, gives, lends or promises to give or lend, or attempts to procure anything of value or any office or employment or any privilege or immunity to, or for, any elector, or to or for any other person, in order to induce any elector to.....

24 USC 1973i

>I will help you break the law and encourage you

Throw his fat ass in prison

Moore really is a human piece of garbage.

That's how he's always looked. Fat and old.

FLOOD FBI WITH BRIBERY REPORTS AGAINST MICHAEL MOORE

what a fat fuck

Hillary has 3M more votes. If they vote for her, no one can blame them.

MAKE SURE YOU CITE HIS TWEET AND 24 USC 1973i SPECIFICALLY.

this is completely illegal for him to offer

UGLIEST LESBIAN SINCE GERTRUDE STIEN

He really fucking thinks this is about money?

He really fucking things GOP electors are going to defect from their party because MICHAEL FUCKING MOORE wanted them to? Over maybe $1,000?

What the fuck is wrong with this man (besides obesity and chronically low testosterone)?

This is surely illegal

What in the fuck is Michael Moore's problem with Trump? He's everything that Roger and Me era Michael Moore could have ever wanted out of a candidate. The guy obviously still identifies with blue collar workers and has a decent grasp on how they think, yet he still chooses to be a shithead coastal liberal faggot who hates people who don't hold liberal arts degrees.

I actually thought this man was against corruption.

Surely this is literally illegal, right guys?

I'm ok with that fat fuck getting killed.

It's not corruption if it's good for me.

VMD SnBR = Weapons of Mass Destruction Sniper
Apperently not

The real problem here is that faithless electors get fined.

The constitution has given them the responsibility of voting however the fuck the want to. If they believe the state made a reasonable choice then they should vote in concert with the people. But if they believe the people fucked up they have an obligation to vote with their conscience.

The only thing here that should be "illegal" or even immoral is that faithless electors are bullied by some states into being voiceless puppets. We have a representative democracy and the founders intended for those representatives to be a check against the ignorance of the people. Micheal Moore is in the right here for once, and these types of fines should never have been implemented in the first place.

Michael Moore is just mad that his movie was used to get support for Trump.

He should hire all-powerful Russians to hack the electors.

>The only thing here that should be "illegal"
Good thing you will never again win an election, nevermind 3/4 of state legislatures required for a constitutional amendment, thanks to upcoming voter id laws deemed legal by our based SCOTUS and further justified by election """hackers"""

JABBA THE MOORE FINAL BOSS?

lol what a retard

No you din't, virtue signaling beta fag.

Why is the de facto liberal problem-solving method to throw money at it until it disappears?

That thing just looks like a morbidly obese tranny now.

By the look of that hair I'm giving Michael another six months before he 'transitions'.

Source of real intentions:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZMVh3RBOZeE

But will he pay their funeral expenses?

>Remember the fat weird girl from school nobody wanted to talk to?
>Remember the fat weird girl from high-school nobody wanted to talk to?
>Remember the fat weird girl from college nobody wanted to talk to but the professor gave her time at the feminism/gender studies seminars?
That disgusting awkward and fallacious cunning hoe is Michael Moore.
Subversive and always shilling.

this

That's not really an argument.

Saying "Hahaha you can't do it!" doesn't change the fact that it should be done. If you view this with its intended purpose it's saying that no one should be allowed to influence electors. The promise to not be fined if you vote a certain way constitutes "immunity". So essentially, the state is illegally promising immunity if the electors close their eyes and vote how they're told to.

Michael Moore is rectifying that injustice by telling the electors they can vote however they believe they should, which is how the system was intended to work all along.

Ah, so he's trying to bribe the electors? Isn't this against the law?

Lol bribery is not how the system was meant to work user...

When is he going to transition?

Has he fully transitioned into a female yet.

I expected Michael Moore to offer blowjobs like Madonna to be quite honest famalams

Funny coming from the man who gave the best pro trump speech ever. I swear he won the election for trump.

It's not bribery.

Bribery means that the electors get money. Micheal Moore is saying "I will ensure you are not unjustifiably fined for carrying out your job as the constitution intended."

The state is getting money because they wrongly imposed fines. Not the electors. So it's not a bribe. It levels the playing field and allows the electors to vote how they wish with no consequences on either side.

I'll pay for the bullets

I would pay him to shut up but I can't afford that many donuts.

How is he to make a documentary of his own murder?

He's literally offering to pay, there's no way to dig out of that hole.

He's offering to pay their bills, with money or something worth money, bribery. If I said "murder this guy and I'll pay your legal fees" am I in the clear, or is that called conspiracy to commit murder?

but will he pay for their funeral too?

You're not listening, which is understandable because you don't want to.

He's offering to pay a fine that should not be imposed in the first place. Electors are supposed to be able to vote free from influence on either side. With the threat of a fine there is influence on one side, removal of that fine removes the influence.

He's not paying the fines to force them to the left, he's paying them to remove the unjustifiable and unconstitutional influence that is attempting to pull them to the right.

So it's not a bribe. If anything it's an offer to pay a ransom.

Quit grasping at straws and quit being a sore loser. If you don't like the results of this election, you better have the skills Canada wants so you can move there.

this bargaining stage is going on too long.

((((((Democraty))))))

Not even remotely an argument.

I don't think this offer is going to make a difference. I'm arguing that he has a point and stated shouldn't be allowed to fine faithless electors. As of yet not one of you has attempted to argue that point with any semblance of intelligence.

You're not reading correctly it seems. If I offer to pay the legal fees of someone who kills Manson for example, something most everyone would be fine with (your "unjust law"), I'm still fucking culpable for having done so. You're missing the second half, the consequences, of the "break unjust laws" argument.

GET READY DRUMPFKINS HERE COMES MICHAEL MOORE

>influence of one side
The state's voters that elected the elector? God forbid an elected official does what their constituency wants.

Killing Manson is justifiably illegal and immoral. The two are not comparable. Your comparison doesn't strengthen your point, it just betrays your delusion that voting for Hillary is on par with murder.

If he took this to the Supreme Court he would have a chance at winning because there's a constitutional argument to be made. If you hired someone to murder another person there is no constitutional defense.

Fine, it was only Hamilton's position that it should be to prevent populism and was actually adopted as a compromise to the 3/5ths propositions and a system to encourage new territories to join so they'd have better representation.

There's your intelligent view on it, fuck off.

They don't have to, and the constitution does not intend for them to be coerced into doing so by the state legislature.

Voting against the wishes of people that elected you is immoral.

>electors wont have to pay a thousand dollar fine
shit its over, drumpf is finished.

It's an extreme example to show why you're a retard, the "intelligent" view is above.

Thank you for the irrelevant history lesson.

if your mate got a speeding fine and you paid it I'm pretty sure under US law you are giving him the money to pay it which is considered an incentive

Ok Kek

>the constitution does not intend...
That's a strong, and easily verifiable argument.

Can you point me to the passage in the constitution that reinforces that viewpoint?

sorry I should have said
>as far as US law is concerned

I was thinking the same thing.

He's a fat drama queen, not a principled ideologue. If you were ever fooled by this blob, you're the idiot.

came here to post expressly this

Is this a suicide attempt by Michael Moore?

>make documentary supporting Hillary
>ends up being used to promote Trump

Like anything that fat fuck says matters. I sense an incoming flood of liberal tears.

That sounds like an Oligarchy, not a Republic.

It's relevant when you're discussing the intent of it being in the Constitution. You're seeking to remove the incentive of smaller states by allowing faithless electors. The arguments being used to justify it are "demagogue" prevention, which was only the position of one drafter and ratifier.

Yeah, they should be locked up. Twenty years hard labor ought to do it.

This is just like the time Mark Puerto Rico offered to pay the fine for anyone willing to leak private tapes of things Teflon Don said.

Manson was also sentenced to death I should have added since you didn't understand the analogy. Not exactly unjustifiable.

AHAHAHA GET READY FOR HER TODAY

Checked, but that's bon Scott, not Moore.

This is the sole reason why the EC was created, can't believe there are butthurt stormweenies in this thread whining about government people doing their jobs.

If they want to elect Hillary that's their damn right to do so.

Reporting then to their Fbi for doing their assigned roles only shows that trumpfags are a lot of micro dick politically active children

Must be why so many states, including die hard dem ones have faithless elector laws Juanita.

Won't work in Michigan, any elector who doesn't for the candidate that won the state is immediately replaced with someone who will. Moore is a joke who doesn't even know the laws of his own state

> its intended purpose it's saying that no one should be allowed to influence electors.

This is how it should be. Nobody should be allowed to influence electors except for the fucking citizens of the state that have already clearly voiced their will.

Are celebrities not citizens of the state? Did citizens not voice their will by voting for Hillary in a landslide majority?

So what if they have to pay a fine? What's the point in adding such laws if you can get around it with a fine or it can't be enforced nation wide

The relatively small fine is there to incentivise electors to fulfill their role which is to vote on behalf of the people they actually represent (millions of them in fact). Moore removing this incentive is essentially encouraging people to shirk their duties

>Ray v. Blair 343 u.s. 214 (1952)
>The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern the process of choosing electors.
>The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court

You make it seem like fines are unconstitutional (or atleast there is a consensus about it) when it isn't.

this literally boils down to

>go break a law and I'll cover the fine

this isn't a victimless crime either like go park illegally and I'll pay your fine, this may as well be fucking treason