Elected by Constitutionally-mandated, completely valid processes that have been comfortably in-place for over two hundred years! The rejection? By "free-stuff"-sucking, wanna-be-Socialist, radical Democrats? Oh, it breaks my heart that these useless parasites are so unhappy.... You hyperlibs don't like the Electoral College? Fine! AMEND THE CONSITUTION! And if you won't do that, then shut the f*ck up! All this endless bitching about the Electoral College is really getting to be maddening as hell! Pack up and go to North Korea, or Iran -- neither of those shitholes have an Electoral College! The hyperlib mob would be thrilled to be in such places... right?!
You know what always amazes me? How incredibly wealthy these life-long Democrats are. Sanders is worth over $2.5 million, Warren over $12 million, and Hillary over $45 million. Yet they attack somebody who had been involved in real estate his entire life, and leads a company started by his Grandfather which was worth close to half a billion dollars by the time he took charge in 1982. Has published 19 books (12 of them New York Times Best Sellers), was the producer and star of one of the most popular shows on TV, and has been on dozens of TV shows. His SAG-AFTRA retirement payments are almost $100k per year from that alone now that he is no longer performing. And yea, I can't see Iran ever electing a female to anything other than the legislature. They rank 149 out of 144 in women's rights. Their participation in the labor force is less than 20%, and they must have the permission of their husband to even work at all. And as recently as 2004, all women were banned from running in their legislative elections by the all male Council of Guardians (and had all reforms they had passed in the prior years revoked). And literally, this could be repeated at any time. The Council of Guardians has supreme oversight over their Legislative bodies, and is akin to the US Supreme Court. But instead of jurists, it is made up of Islamic Scholars, and it even has supreme oversight on who can run for office. They can arbitrarily simply state somebody can not run for office, and there is no appeal. They have even disqualified incumbents (specifically women and reformers) from running for re-election, and only allowing those more "Politically Correct" to the regime to even run for office. Yes, women can run for the legislature now. If they are suitably Conservative. And they could be stripped of that right again at almost any time.
Lol is this where I post trumps comments sbout how awful the EC is? Damn man don’t be so triggered by the facts. Elected by the states, rejected by the people. And yes, he won.
Snap! You are talking about when Hillary bought a Russian government supplied disinformation dossier on Trump by way of Steele through Fusion GPS? Yes that was a perfect example of both Russian meddling and collusion. Good point.
Imagine if everyone who votes for a candidate sends that person a Jackson. The candidate wouldn't have to depend on the major party donors.
Yeah I've never seen a democrat field like this. Its both cringe worthy and entertaining. And its hard to argue with Trump's lifetime of success. Iran is a backwoods place and isn't going to change anytime soon.
Oh, we have had wealthy Democrats before. FDR and the Kennedy clan come immediately to mind. However, both of those families gained their wealth in the private sector long before they entered politics. I however have a great deal of distrust in those who gain a great deal of wealth while in politics. Bernie for example only worked in the private sector for a few years in the 1960s before be became an activist. Then a politician in 1980. In the last 40 years he has gone from Mayor, to Representative, to Senator. And his wealth kept growing and growing. He owns 3 very expensive houses, and for several years has had an income of over $1 million a year. And Iran is not "backwoods", as much as xenophobic and withdrawn. They have some rather advanced universities and other institutions, and are able to do some rather remarkable things when it comes to engineering. But it is their antagonism to other nations that largely sets them apart. Not unlike North Korea, which at one time was the dominant nation economically when compared to South Korea. But in the 1980's when S. Korea started to advance N. Korea started a slide which has only grown worse over the decades.
I thought the claim in 2015 was that Trump was a liberal posing as a conservative. Now they are hating mad that he is so conservative. What is he doing that is not in line with the "old principles" that you seem to think should be conservative?
Read the Constitution = https://ballotpedia.org/Article_II,_United_States_Constitution Look at these two maps = https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president The only Blue state where all of the counties went Blue was Hawaii. Other States had more Red counties but the State went Blue.
That is actually the problem I believe. I think the EC should be decided county by county, and each elector votes exactly as their constituency voted. Not by state ("Winner Take All"), nor this insane and anti-democratic idea of whoever wins the popular vote wins automatically. Our country is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. And any attempts to change it away from that only go to harm and disenfranchise the less populous states. All it really attempts to do is to turn all power over to the most populous states, and ignore all of the others. In fact, at this time a candidate need only win 11 states to be elected President. Only 2 states (Nebraska and Nevada) allow their electors to vote with their district, and not where a difference of 1 vote can force a state where the majority vote one way by area, but it can swing another. And because of this, a candidate can literally win only 11 states and 27% of the vote, and still become President.
I think Warren defending Amy only made her look worse. When you're running for prez you should be able to articulate your own answers and not have to have big sis jump in and rescue from the little bully.
If each elector votes exactly as their constituency voted, are they electors-or simply agents of the state transmitting results? Electors are just the delegated individuals to vote as they see fit-not to simply pass on results.
Vote "as they see fit"? Each party has a Slate of Electors. These "slates" are made up of hard-core partisans. Whichever party wins a state, it is That Party's Slate of Electors that Vote in the EC. So yes, a Group of Hard-Core Partisans will vote "as they see fit".
Even if we take your "rejected by the people" meme at face-value, do you seriously hold the opinion that support by ~50% of the "people" is nothing but "rejection"...?! Approximately half the people voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016... and approximately half the people voted for Trump. But the people who voted for Trump amount to nothing of any proportion, or worth, and so the candidate they voted for is to be dismissed as a product of "rejection" and (following the lib-logic inferred in this kind of un-American idiocy) therefore his presidency should also be 'rejected'...? *Snap*...GOT IT!
As has Sanders who is not a Democrat. Many in the Dem establishment are getting desperate to find someone else to run besides the angry socialist.