Does the will of the American people mean anything?

Only if it happens to benefit your political party?

It is only fitting of a rapist to not give two shits about the consent of the governed. Donald Trump intends to take power, irregardless of the American people soundly rejecting him. His is an illegitimate usurper, and not the president. He is a dictator.

Then treat him like that. Your will counts if you make it count. Treat Trump in the manner you believe he deserves to be treat. Ridicule his every buffoonish act.

#NotMyPresident is a very good start. Band with others of like-mind.

Resistance and disdain IS your will.

Make it count.
 
Then treat him like that. Your will counts if you make it count. Treat Trump in the manner you believe he deserves to be treat. Ridicule his every buffoonish act.

#NotMyPresident is a very good start. Band with others of like-mind.

Resistance and disdain IS your will.

Make it count.

laughing at liberals.jpg
 
Then treat him like that. Your will counts if you make it count. Treat Trump in the manner you believe he deserves to be treat. Ridicule his every buffoonish act.

#NotMyPresident is a very good start. Band with others of like-mind.

Resistance and disdain IS your will.

Make it count.
Except of course if the president is black and a Democrat.
 
Well, mostly because ... we're not a democracy. Our founders didn't want a democracy.
Not entirely true. Our founding fathers didn't want direct democracy. They saw that as rule by mob. Considering that the French Revolution was was now occurring and they were deeply concerned. They also saw the pitfalls of a Republic. Thus our founding fathers decided that indirect representation was a better compromise.

Thus they thought a democratic republic would be a good compromise. A practical one too in a frontier society where people needed practical government institutions.
 
Not entirely true. Our founding fathers didn't want direct democracy. They saw that as rule by mob. Considering that the French Revolution was was now occurring and they were deeply concerned. They also saw the pitfalls of a Republic. Thus our founding fathers decided that indirect representation was a better compromise.

Thus they thought a democratic republic would be a good compromise. A practical one too in a frontier society where people needed practical government institutions.
So maybe it would make more sense in a modern age to apportion Electoral College votes based on the popular vote in an individual state?

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
you mean something like one vote per representative based upon the population of said state?
I mean the EC votes should be divided according to the popular vote. So if it was 50/50, for the sake of argument, then somewhere like California would have 29 votes for each candidate.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top