Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Protect from what? He's doing a great job; a better job than the last two Presidents combined. We haven't had an economy with this low of unemployment in 49 years. So obviously the Electoral College got it right.
Eben a fucking moron .....like you.....should understand that Obama inherited an unemployment rate of OVER 10.2%..........Obama lowered it to 4.7% and your orange lard asshole has managed to NOT interfere with the progression and the rate is down to 3.9%
Ask a 10 year old to explain those facts to you.
^^ peak trump cultismHe's doing a great job; a better job than the last two Presidents combined.
There have been only FOUR presidents who LOST the popular vote but managed to WIN based on the Electoral College decision.......Bear in mind that we are the ONLY representative republic/democracy who utilize the decision of the EC.
Want to guess which party the FOUR electoral college presidents belonged in?
Benjamin Harrison
Rutherford Hayes
George W. Bush
The Donald......
Except for twice. Damn son,you will vomit ANYTHING.BillyBoy Clinton never won the popular vote.
Name me one thing that anti-business clown did to help the economy. Just one. He had nothing to do with it. He was the most anti-business President of our lifetime. You are giving him credit for what the private market solved.
Name me one thing that anti-business clown did to help the economy. Just one. He had nothing to do with it. He was the most anti-business President of our lifetime. You are giving him credit for what the private market solved.
Moron....just address the facts.....
Did Obama take the unemployment rate from over 10% to 4.7% YES or fucking NO???
What makes you think that ? The U.S. Constitution states that Electors shall be appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" , it doesn't put any restrictions on how they're appointed beyond the number that each State receives and that among electors "no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector".Working on itIf you don't like the law, then change the law, pretty damn simple
National Popular Vote
Funny how commies come up with unconstitutional schemes to try to nullify the Constitution and gain permanent power.
.
It's not unconstitutional (the States can allocate their EC's in whatever manner they want to) it's just very unlikely to ever be implemented.
Only based on the votes in their State, no State legislature has the authority to nullify votes within their State based on votes in another State or groups of States.
Obama did the right thing. He stayed out of the way and allowed the Fed to pour $4.5 TRILLION into markets. It was ugly, but given the circumstances, it had to be done.No.Did Obama take the unemployment rate from over 10% to 4.7% YES or fucking NO???
Obama did the right thing. He stayed out of the way and allowed the Fed to pour $4.5 TRILLION into markets. It was ugly, but given the circumstances, it had to be done.No.Did Obama take the unemployment rate from over 10% to 4.7% YES or fucking NO???
Does this make Obama an economic genius? Nope. Did the recovery happen on his "watch" (very important with wingers) and does he get "credit" for that? Yep, sure.
He took over a fucking disaster. Bush admitted it. Greenspan admitted it. But, like a quarterback, a President gets too much credit and too much blame.
Silly stuff.
.
There have been only FOUR presidents who LOST the popular vote but managed to WIN based on the Electoral College decision.......Bear in mind that we are the ONLY representative republic/democracy who utilize the decision of the EC.
Want to guess which party the FOUR electoral college presidents belonged in?
Benjamin Harrison
Rutherford Hayes
George W. Bush
The Donald......
To prevent too much democracy in the form of mob rule, Shirley?The EC was initiated to APPEASE slave states and smaller (by population) ones.....
Name me one thing that anti-business clown did to help the economy. Just one. He had nothing to do with it. He was the most anti-business President of our lifetime. You are giving him credit for what the private market solved.
Moron....just address the facts.....
Did Obama take the unemployment rate from over 10% to 4.7% YES or fucking NO???
No.[/QUOTE]
Is that a "NO" regarding Obama taking the UE rate down......OR, is it a "NO" that nitwits like you will NOT answer the question?..................LOL
Fascinating, congresspeople will be very interested to hear your little fantasy. Or not.Only State representatives are directly elected.
What makes you think that ? The U.S. Constitution states that Electors shall be appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" , it doesn't put any restrictions on how they're appointed beyond the number that each State receives and that among electors "no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector".Working on itIf you don't like the law, then change the law, pretty damn simple
National Popular Vote
Funny how commies come up with unconstitutional schemes to try to nullify the Constitution and gain permanent power.
.
It's not unconstitutional (the States can allocate their EC's in whatever manner they want to) it's just very unlikely to ever be implemented.
Only based on the votes in their State, no State legislature has the authority to nullify votes within their State based on votes in another State or groups of States.
From looking at the U.S. Constitution it would appear that the States are free to devise whatever system of appointment that they desire subject to the restrictions (if any) placed on the process by each State Constitution.
Wrong again, the president is not a representative. He is chief executive.Because it is irrelevant, and I have said all I needed to say . No amount of equivication on your part is going to suddenly make you correct.why did you ignore the rest I said???Which was false, as we democratically choose our federal legislators.the states do, but the fed gov is as I stated,
Sorry dude, you're just wrong, not much else I can say.
reality is what makes it correct
I should have added in that the EC is also another example of being a rep repub,,,a pop vote would make us a dem repub
Sorry guys,but you're both wrong, obviously and clearly.
Only way Republicans can win todayThere have been only FOUR presidents who LOST the popular vote but managed to WIN based on the Electoral College decision.......Bear in mind that we are the ONLY representative republic/democracy who utilize the decision of the EC.
Want to guess which party the FOUR electoral college presidents belonged in?
Benjamin Harrison
Rutherford Hayes
George W. Bush
The Donald......
True, my friend,................but in a few years when the old, racist farts in Texas die out AND the hispanic /Latino population gains the majority......
Without TX the repubs will only see the oval office as tourists.....maybe......LOL
Which is the Democrat plan: to wipe out the white race. After they do that, we will be a single-party government followed by Socialism and quickly Communism. What we are witnessing is the end of the Great Experiment.
Wrong again, the president is not a representative. He is chief executive.Because it is irrelevant, and I have said all I needed to say . No amount of equivication on your part is going to suddenly make you correct.why did you ignore the rest I said???Which was false, as we democratically choose our federal legislators.
Sorry dude, you're just wrong, not much else I can say.
reality is what makes it correct
I should have added in that the EC is also another example of being a rep repub,,,a pop vote would make us a dem repub
Sorry guys,but you're both wrong, obviously and clearly.
And the job description of the chief executive includes representing the people of the United States and their interests.
Are you aware of any precedent that supports your "you'll lose" conclusion? Because it doesn't appear there is any U.S. Constitutional language that supports your assertion.What makes you think that ? The U.S. Constitution states that Electors shall be appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" , it doesn't put any restrictions on how they're appointed beyond the number that each State receives and that among electors "no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector".
Funny how commies come up with unconstitutional schemes to try to nullify the Constitution and gain permanent power.
.
It's not unconstitutional (the States can allocate their EC's in whatever manner they want to) it's just very unlikely to ever be implemented.
Only based on the votes in their State, no State legislature has the authority to nullify votes within their State based on votes in another State or groups of States.
From looking at the U.S. Constitution it would appear that the States are free to devise whatever system of appointment that they desire subject to the restrictions (if any) placed on the process by each State Constitution.
Take it to court, you'll lose, a current state legislature has no more right to bind the future votes of their citizens, than they do the future decisions of subsequent legislatures. If my State ever passed such a ridiculous law, I'd damn sure challenge it in court.
.
Are you aware of any precedent that supports your "you'll lose" conclusion? Because it doesn't appear there is any U.S. Constitutional language that supports your assertion.What makes you think that ? The U.S. Constitution states that Electors shall be appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" , it doesn't put any restrictions on how they're appointed beyond the number that each State receives and that among electors "no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector".Funny how commies come up with unconstitutional schemes to try to nullify the Constitution and gain permanent power.
.
It's not unconstitutional (the States can allocate their EC's in whatever manner they want to) it's just very unlikely to ever be implemented.
Only based on the votes in their State, no State legislature has the authority to nullify votes within their State based on votes in another State or groups of States.
From looking at the U.S. Constitution it would appear that the States are free to devise whatever system of appointment that they desire subject to the restrictions (if any) placed on the process by each State Constitution.
Take it to court, you'll lose, a current state legislature has no more right to bind the future votes of their citizens, than they do the future decisions of subsequent legislatures. If my State ever passed such a ridiculous law, I'd damn sure challenge it in court.
.
As far as "bind the future votes of their citizens" doesn't every allocation system currently in place already do that? Not to mention the citizens of each State can change the practice(s) of their States by voting to change the State Constitution.
