President Minority-Elect Of The United States

[screen glare]

Trump = PMEOTUS.

Not PEOTUS.

Important to remember: No mandate.

[Plate Cap]

Trump = PMEOTUS.

Not PEOTUS.

Important to remember: No mandate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS7nqwGt4-I

[audiophile]

Trump = PMEOTUS.

Not PEOTUS.

Important to remember: No mandate.

I didn't vote for T Rump, but I say give it a rest...

I will pray for him, because that is one thing a person can do...

[bmw]

Trump = PMEOTUS.

Not PEOTUS.

Important to remember: No mandate.

So who do you think was legitimately elected as President of the United States? Hillary didn't receive a majority vote either. Nobody did.

[Bryce]

Trump = PMEOTUS.

Not PEOTUS.

Important to remember: No mandate.

Hillary didn't receive a majority vote either. Nobody did.

I must disagree with that statement. The United States is just that, a collection of states. Someone did receive a majority of votes of that collection of states. A rather large majority at that.

A map provided by the ultra conservative New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

All these people that say they support the popular vote and we should do away with the Electoral system are really full of shit. The minute the majority of state voters decide to put limits on abortion or regulate who can get married, they run off to the supreme court to overturn the will of the majority of the people of that state.

What about honoring the popular vote in those cases?

[Deleted User 8570]

Trump = PMEOTUS.

Not PEOTUS.

Important to remember: No mandate.

Hillary didn't receive a majority vote either. Nobody did.

I must disagree with that statement. The United States is just that, a collection of states. Someone did receive a majority of votes of that collection of states. A rather large majority at that.

A map provided by the ultra conservative New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
What about letting cities and counties decide issues on their own? I thought that was a big point conservatives loved about federalism???
All these people that say they support the popular vote and we should do away with the Electoral system are really full of shit. The minute the majority of state voters decide to put limits on abortion or regulate who can get married, they run off to the supreme court to overturn the will of the majority of the people of that state.

What about honoring the popular vote in those cases?

[audiophile]

NS8401 wrote:

Best comment ever NS!

[Deleted User 8570]

NS8401 wrote:

Best comment ever NS!

Sometimes silence is the best commentary

Not sure why it did that... I typed a message... oh well.

[Calvert DeForest]

All these people that say they support the popular vote and we should do away with the Electoral system are really full of shit. The minute the majority of state voters decide to put limits on abortion or regulate who can get married, they run off to the supreme court to overturn the will of the majority of the people of that state.

What about honoring the popular vote in those cases?

I'm all for states' rights and the electoral college, but there's one factor I believe you're overlooking:

Had the extent of states' rights not been challenged 50-60 years ago, southern governors like George Wallace would have been allowed to prevail in their unconstitutional policies. Drinking fountains and public universities would have continued to be segregated. There comes a point where the Constitution trumps (pardon the expression) states' rights, and that is the primary reason why the Supreme Court exists. Granted, whether or not a state law truly violates the Constitution is a matter which will continue to be debated in the court of public opinion, and no matter what the SCOTUS rules on any one issue, someone is going to be disappointed.

It's easy in 2017 to look back on the absurdity of state-sanctioned segregation, but there were enough people supporting such policies in the 1950's and 1960's that they may have continued to exist much longer than they did had it not been for landmark cases like Brown vs. Board of Education.

[Bryce]

All these people that say they support the popular vote and we should do away with the Electoral system are really full of shit. The minute the majority of state voters decide to put limits on abortion or regulate who can get married, they run off to the supreme court to overturn the will of the majority of the people of that state.

What about honoring the popular vote in those cases?

I'm all for states' rights and the electoral college, but there's one factor I believe you're overlooking:

It's easy in 2017 to look back on the absurdity of state-sanctioned segregation, but there were enough people supporting such policies...

There sure enough were. I believe they called themselves Democrats.

Segregation is a pretty easy constitutional call. It flew in the face of one of our basic concepts at the founding in that "All men are created equal".

I'm not judging the validity of constitutional issues here. I've done that a plenty. What I tried to bring to light is all these folks that contend we should have a mobocracy and have the popular vote decide the presidency instead of the Electoral College, are quick to challenge other popular vote outcomes when it doesn't go their way.

[Deleted User 8570]

All these people that say they support the popular vote and we should do away with the Electoral system are really full of shit. The minute the majority of state voters decide to put limits on abortion or regulate who can get married, they run off to the supreme court to overturn the will of the majority of the people of that state.

What about honoring the popular vote in those cases?

I'm all for states' rights and the electoral college, but there's one factor I believe you're overlooking:

It's easy in 2017 to look back on the absurdity of state-sanctioned segregation, but there were enough people supporting such policies...

There sure enough were. I believe they called themselves Democrats.

Segregation is a pretty easy constitutional call. It flew in the face of one of our basic concepts at the founding in that "All men are created equal".

I'm not judging the validity of constitutional issues here. I've done that a plenty. What I tried to bring to light is all these folks that contend we should have a mobocracy and have the popular vote decide the presidency instead of the Electoral College, are quick to challenge other popular vote outcomes when it doesn't go their way.

What about a city or state that wants to pass a tax on say soft drinks or such? Would you apply Federalist local autonomy to things you disagree with as well? Some Republicans are looking to reign in cities now that Republicans are a national level party and Democrats control medium and large cities... they've changed their tune to suit the situation they are in because they disagree with what the cities want to do...

[Bryce]

I would be happy to comment on a specific scenario, but your brush is a bit too wide.

[Deleted User 8570]

I would be happy to comment on a specific scenario, but your brush is a bit too wide.

Ok the sugared drink tax in Philly... nanny state overreach or local control?

[Calvert DeForest]

There sure enough were. I believe they called themselves Democrats.

Segregation is a pretty easy constitutional call. It flew in the face of one of our basic concepts at the founding in that "All men are created equal".

Back then there were two flavors of Democrat - northeastern liberal and southern conservative. The southern conservative Democrats were a holdover from the slavery days. The GOP of Lincoln was a much more federalist party, while the southern Democrats were all about states' rights (including, at the time, the rights of the states to sanction slavery). John Kennedy, being of the northern liberal flavor, chose Lyndon Johnson as his running mate in 1960 because he knew he needed a conservative southern Democrat to carry the southern states. Despite LBJ's more liberal stance after he took office, he was regarded as quite the conservative throughout the 1940's and 50's. Despite having Johnson on the ticket, Kennedy barely carried Texas in 1960 because southern conservative Democrats didn't care much for a northeastern liberal. A main purpose for his 1963 Texas trip was an attempt to bring opposing sides of the DNC together if he had any hope of carrying the state again in 1964. Moot point (at least for him) after November 22nd.

When Johnson pushed through Kennedy's civil rights bill in 1964, a lot of southern conservative Democrats were pissed. They viewed LBJ as a "traitor" to their ideologies. The GOP saw a golden opportunity to court disenfranchised Democrats to their party, and it worked. Democrats like George Wallace continued to run on DNC tickets, but by 1968 it was clear that the southern conservative Democrat was becoming a thing of the past. Over 100 years, the two major parties had basically switched roles on issues such as states' rights and the authority of the federal government.

The DNC and GOP as we know them today bear little resemblance to what they were even 50 years ago. If Ike Eisenhower and John Kennedy were to magically reappear tomorrow, I doubt either of them would recognize their respective parties as they currently exist.

[Bryce]

What about a city or state that wants to pass a tax on say soft drinks or such? Would you apply Federalist local autonomy to things you disagree with as well? Some Republicans are looking to reign in cities now that Republicans are a national level party and Democrats control medium and large cities... they've changed their tune to suit the situation they are in because they disagree with what the cities want to do...

States and some cities have been taxing consumables for years. It is certainly within their purview to do so. Beer has been taxed by various government bodies as long as I can remember. Frankly, a "sin tax" on soda makes as much sense as one on beer. A 12oz can of Mountain Dew is much worse for your overall health than a 12oz can of beer.

Cities and states that are breaking federal law however, do need to be reigned in.