https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/02/01/cnn-falsely-promotes-virginia-democrat-governor-ralph-northam-as-republican-hes-not/

(One picture is worth a thousand column inches..)

And they wonder why President Trump calls them Fake News.

Sorry Boss…not trying to hijack your site…just wanted to go have a look over at AD. 😉

So how does that work? Suppose your assets total $100 million. Tax 2 percent, that leaves you with $98 million – still way above the $50 million threshhold. When do they stop the tax? Do they keep taking money away until you’re down to $50 million? Suppose you gain assets – or lose assets. How do they tax that? Do you get a refund if you lose assets? My guess is no. What is the difference between gaining and losing assets, and just plain income, or loss?

https://freebeacon.com/columns/the-democrats-lose-their-minds/

But Schultz is also a democratic capitalist who attributes his phenomenal success—his fortune from Starbucks is around $3 billion—at least in part to America’s culture of entrepreneurial risk-taking, minimal government interference in commerce, individual responsibility, and rule of law. He worries that the Democratic Party, radicalized by the presidency of Donald Trump, is in the process of abandoning support for the very aspects of American life that made his life possible.
…
Harris’s rival, Elizabeth Warren, has endorsed a tax of 2 percent on assets above $50 million and 3 percent on assets above $1 billion. Now, Warren would like to raise taxes on incomes, capital gains, dividends, and corporations, too.
…
Presumably, then, Gates and Buffet are safe, existentially speaking. But the “system” of relatively free enterprise that allowed them to grow rich—and finance or innovate remarkable advances in technology and productivity that have benefited the world—should be altered drastically. Hence AOC’s call for a 70-percent marginal tax rate—backed by the same genius from Berkeley who designed Warren’s expropriation of wealth.

It would never happen. There is no Constitutional way to bind Electors. There are laws that can punish them after the fact for voting wrong, but they don’t change the vote.

In the scenario you describe, the Colorado electors would have no qualms whatever about breaking their state law. The EC votes would count against Trump, and the electors would never be prosecuted for being faithless electors, and if they were no jury would convict.

Even Schultz isn’t really a “moderate.” He’s just somewhat less crazy than the standard Democrat these days.