Interesting factoid about EC winners who lost the popular vote....

[Dana7360]

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.

Big deal. trump has lowered the unemployment rate by about 1%.

Obama took the bush boy's 10% unemployment and reduced it down to 4.7%. That's a decrease of at least 5.3%. trump has lowered it at the most 1%.

When trump lowers the unemployment rate 5.3% I'll be impressed.

But it's impossible for trump to do that. Obama already did the hard work and took it much too low for trump to be able to reduce it much more. He can increase it. If things keep going as they are, trump will increase the unemployment rate. A lot and very soon.

 

[nat4900]

Big deal. trump has lowered the unemployment rate by about 1%.

Obama took the bush boy's 10% unemployment and reduced it down to 4.7%. That's a decrease of at least 5.3%. trump has lowered it at the most 1%.

When trump lowers the unemployment rate 5.3% I'll be impressed.

But it's impossible for trump to do that. Obama already did the hard work and took it much too low for trump to be able to reduce it much more. He can increase it. If things keep going as they are, trump will increase the unemployment rate. A lot and very soon.

It is rather "amazing" that NOT ONE Trump acolyte would ever admit to the difficult task faced by Obama in early 2009; hell, we were losing half to three-quarter of a million jobs PER MONTH.....

But, its to be expected from the Trump cult mentality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

why did you ignore the rest I said???

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.

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

Wrong again, the president is not a representative. He is chief executive.

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.

if that were true you can provide where in the constitution that is stated...

Because logic doesn't work for you? That's what all elected officeholders do: they represent the people who elected them and their interests. That's WHY they're elected.

There's also the fact that Article 2, by investing him with the power to make treaties (subject to concurrence by the Senate) and to meet with ambassadors and other public ministers, perforce makes him the chief diplomat of the United States. He is, essentially, the face of America, ie. representing us.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

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

Wrong again, the president is not a representative. He is chief executive.

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.

if that were true you can provide where in the constitution that is stated...

Because logic doesn't work for you? That's what all elected officeholders do: they represent the people who elected them and their interests. That's WHY they're elected.

There's also the fact that Article 2, by investing him with the power to make treaties (subject to concurrence by the Senate) and to meet with ambassadors and other public ministers, perforce makes him the chief diplomat of the United States. He is, essentially, the face of America, ie. representing us.

he represents the country not the people,,,thats why we have a house of representatives

 

[NightFox]

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.

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".

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.

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.

No State has so far allocated their electors base on the votes of another State/s. A State has the authority to determine how to allocate electors based on the votes within their State, not the votes of other States.

What language in the U.S. Constitution are you basing that supposition on ? I haven't found anything in the U.S. Constitution that imposes such restrictions on how the States allocate their electors, what am I missing that supports your original assertion that it's "Unconstitutional"?

But even though the courts haven't ruled on this particular situation, they have ruled that no current legislature can bind the actions of a future legislature,

.

How is altering the allocation of electors "binding the actions of a future legislature" ? The individual States already have laws on the books that specify the procedure for how electors get allocated, right? So you're saying they can't change those laws and use some other method?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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".

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.

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.

No State has so far allocated their electors base on the votes of another State/s. A State has the authority to determine how to allocate electors based on the votes within their State, not the votes of other States.

What language in the U.S. Constitution are you basing that supposition on ? I haven't found anything in the U.S. Constitution that imposes such restrictions on how the States allocate their electors, what am I missing that supports your original assertion that it's "Unconstitutional"?

But even though the courts haven't ruled on this particular situation, they have ruled that no current legislature can bind the actions of a future legislature,

.

How is altering the allocation of electors "binding the actions of a future legislature" ? The individual States already have laws on the books that specify the procedure for how electors get allocated, right? So you're saying they can't change those laws and use some other method?

You delete a portion of my quote and think you're cute. The scheme to impose a tyranny of the majority will never withstand a constitutional challenge, period. Test it, you'll see. We're done.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Wrong again, the president is not a representative. He is chief executive.

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.

if that were true you can provide where in the constitution that is stated...

Because logic doesn't work for you? That's what all elected officeholders do: they represent the people who elected them and their interests. That's WHY they're elected.

There's also the fact that Article 2, by investing him with the power to make treaties (subject to concurrence by the Senate) and to meet with ambassadors and other public ministers, perforce makes him the chief diplomat of the United States. He is, essentially, the face of America, ie. representing us.

he represents the country not the people,,,thats why we have a house of representatives

I could argue that the people ARE the country. The purpose of Representatives in the House is to represent the people of their district and what they want to the rest of the people in the country. The purpose of the President - in the role of diplomat - is to represent the people of his country and what they want to the rest of the world.

The two are not exclusionary.

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong again, the president is not a representative. He is chief executive.

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.

if that were true you can provide where in the constitution that is stated...

Because logic doesn't work for you? That's what all elected officeholders do: they represent the people who elected them and their interests. That's WHY they're elected.

There's also the fact that Article 2, by investing him with the power to make treaties (subject to concurrence by the Senate) and to meet with ambassadors and other public ministers, perforce makes him the chief diplomat of the United States. He is, essentially, the face of America, ie. representing us.

he represents the country not the people,,,thats why we have a house of representatives

I could argue that the people ARE the country. The purpose of Representatives in the House is to represent the people of their district and what they want to the rest of the people in the country. The purpose of the President - in the role of diplomat - is to represent the people of his country and what they want to the rest of the world.

The two are not exclusionary.

you can argue all you want but if thats true you should be able to point to that in the constitution,,,

its very specific what his job is, if its not there then according to the 10th amendment it falls elsewhere

besides which people is he representing,,,liberals, conservatives or americans

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Interesting factoid about EC winners who lost the popular vote....

They were all President.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Big deal. trump has lowered the unemployment rate by about 1%.

Obama took the bush boy's 10% unemployment and reduced it down to 4.7%. That's a decrease of at least 5.3%. trump has lowered it at the most 1%.

When trump lowers the unemployment rate 5.3% I'll be impressed.

But it's impossible for trump to do that. Obama already did the hard work and took it much too low for trump to be able to reduce it much more. He can increase it. If things keep going as they are, trump will increase the unemployment rate. A lot and very soon.

The problem is Hussein didn't do anything but waste money. It's the private sector that came back. Ears was the most anti-buinsss President in our lifetime.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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......

Only way Republicans can win today

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.

Yeah, I'm not sure if the Democrats actually want to wipe out the white race. If they do, they'll have to find some other boogeyman to blame everything on and demonize to keep power.

Not at all. Once we are the minority in this country, they will have unchallenged power. Republicans may still run, but it will be fruitless. Every other group outside of whites vote Democrat.

 

[nat4900]

Ears was the most anti-buinsss President in our lifetime.

...."........and Hannity will be right back after these commercials....".............LOL

 

[Rustic]

Thank god for the electoral college

 

[Dana7360]

Big deal. trump has lowered the unemployment rate by about 1%.

Obama took the bush boy's 10% unemployment and reduced it down to 4.7%. That's a decrease of at least 5.3%. trump has lowered it at the most 1%.

When trump lowers the unemployment rate 5.3% I'll be impressed.

But it's impossible for trump to do that. Obama already did the hard work and took it much too low for trump to be able to reduce it much more. He can increase it. If things keep going as they are, trump will increase the unemployment rate. A lot and very soon.

It is rather "amazing" that NOT ONE Trump acolyte would ever admit to the difficult task faced by Obama in early 2009; hell, we were losing half to three-quarter of a million jobs PER MONTH.....

But, its to be expected from the Trump cult mentality.

We were losing up to 850 thousand jobs a month thanks to the bush boy and republican economic policies.

Those policies are back.

They will end with the same results as with the first bush and the bush boy. The only reason Reagan survived the recession he caused was to go on a massive spending spree. He more than tripled the national debt and exploded the deficit.

None of the republican economic policies end with good results.

 

[Rustic]

Big deal. trump has lowered the unemployment rate by about 1%.

Obama took the bush boy's 10% unemployment and reduced it down to 4.7%. That's a decrease of at least 5.3%. trump has lowered it at the most 1%.

When trump lowers the unemployment rate 5.3% I'll be impressed.

But it's impossible for trump to do that. Obama already did the hard work and took it much too low for trump to be able to reduce it much more. He can increase it. If things keep going as they are, trump will increase the unemployment rate. A lot and very soon.

It is rather "amazing" that NOT ONE Trump acolyte would ever admit to the difficult task faced by Obama in early 2009; hell, we were losing half to three-quarter of a million jobs PER MONTH.....

But, its to be expected from the Trump cult mentality.

We were losing up to 850 thousand jobs a month thanks to the bush boy and republican economic policies.

Those policies are back.

They will end with the same results as with the first bush and the bush boy. The only reason Reagan survived the recession he caused was to go on a massive spending spree. He more than tripled the national debt and exploded the deficit.

None of the republican economic policies end with good results.

Lol
Says a socialist

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Big deal. trump has lowered the unemployment rate by about 1%.

Obama took the bush boy's 10% unemployment and reduced it down to 4.7%. That's a decrease of at least 5.3%. trump has lowered it at the most 1%.

When trump lowers the unemployment rate 5.3% I'll be impressed.

But it's impossible for trump to do that. Obama already did the hard work and took it much too low for trump to be able to reduce it much more. He can increase it. If things keep going as they are, trump will increase the unemployment rate. A lot and very soon.

It is rather "amazing" that NOT ONE Trump acolyte would ever admit to the difficult task faced by Obama in early 2009; hell, we were losing half to three-quarter of a million jobs PER MONTH.....

But, its to be expected from the Trump cult mentality.

We were losing up to 850 thousand jobs a month thanks to the bush boy and republican economic policies.

Those policies are back.

They will end with the same results as with the first bush and the bush boy. The only reason Reagan survived the recession he caused was to go on a massive spending spree. He more than tripled the national debt and exploded the deficit.

None of the republican economic policies end with good results.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Big deal. trump has lowered the unemployment rate by about 1%.

Obama took the bush boy's 10% unemployment and reduced it down to 4.7%. That's a decrease of at least 5.3%. trump has lowered it at the most 1%.

When trump lowers the unemployment rate 5.3% I'll be impressed.

But it's impossible for trump to do that. Obama already did the hard work and took it much too low for trump to be able to reduce it much more. He can increase it. If things keep going as they are, trump will increase the unemployment rate. A lot and very soon.

It is rather "amazing" that NOT ONE Trump acolyte would ever admit to the difficult task faced by Obama in early 2009; hell, we were losing half to three-quarter of a million jobs PER MONTH.....

But, its to be expected from the Trump cult mentality.

We were losing up to 850 thousand jobs a month thanks to the bush boy and republican economic policies.

Those policies are back.

They will end with the same results as with the first bush and the bush boy. The only reason Reagan survived the recession he caused was to go on a massive spending spree. He more than tripled the national debt and exploded the deficit.

None of the republican economic policies end with good results.

We were losing up to 850 thousand jobs a month thanks to the bush boy and republican economic policies.

Those policies are back.

Which policies were there under Bush, gone under Obama and back under Trump?

Be as specific as you can.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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......

So in a nutshell you've whined yourself out and this is what's left.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And the job description of the chief executive includes representing the people of the United States and their interests.

if that were true you can provide where in the constitution that is stated...

Because logic doesn't work for you? That's what all elected officeholders do: they represent the people who elected them and their interests. That's WHY they're elected.

There's also the fact that Article 2, by investing him with the power to make treaties (subject to concurrence by the Senate) and to meet with ambassadors and other public ministers, perforce makes him the chief diplomat of the United States. He is, essentially, the face of America, ie. representing us.

he represents the country not the people,,,thats why we have a house of representatives

I could argue that the people ARE the country. The purpose of Representatives in the House is to represent the people of their district and what they want to the rest of the people in the country. The purpose of the President - in the role of diplomat - is to represent the people of his country and what they want to the rest of the world.

The two are not exclusionary.

you can argue all you want but if thats true you should be able to point to that in the constitution,,,

its very specific what his job is, if its not there then according to the 10th amendment it falls elsewhere

besides which people is he representing,,,liberals, conservatives or americans

I just did. You can say, "Fuck your logic! If those EXACT WORDS don't appear, it's not true! Stop interpreting English and thinking!" until your face turns blue; won't change reality.

As for your vain attempt at cleverness, the President represents every legal resident of the United States. Would that more of them actually remembered that and did it well.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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......

Only way Republicans can win today

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.

Yeah, I'm not sure if the Democrats actually want to wipe out the white race. If they do, they'll have to find some other boogeyman to blame everything on and demonize to keep power.

Not at all. Once we are the minority in this country, they will have unchallenged power. Republicans may still run, but it will be fruitless. Every other group outside of whites vote Democrat.

Yes but those other groups vote Democrat BECAUSE the Democrats vilify white people as the eevil, oppressive enemy from which they need protection. If white people were no longer around for leftists to beat their gums about, how are they going to distract people from how noxious they are?