Seems like you want to have it both ways here. You cannot acknowledge that 2 of the most admired, respected people in the world don’t fit in your worldview. You’re a bigot plain and simple.
OcelotRex
wangrex
No ones inventing iPhones or Tesla’s in west Virginia .
That diminishes the checks of power by a third. The logical system is quite simple for being nearly 250 years old.
A 2007 poll found that 72% favored replacing the Electoral College with a direct election, including 78% of Democrats, 60% of Republicans, and 73% of independent voters.[7] Gallup polls dating back to 1944 have shown a consistent majority of the public supporting a direct vote.[8]”
... and the vast majority of Americans agree.
It should be.
Why do you assume that I am claiming that the outcome will be the same?
It’s a fact that 2 of the last 3 Presidents took office after losing the popular vote...
Yes the system would change and yes more people would then vote, why is that a bad thing again?
The system we have has failed miserably twice with the last 3 Presidents. And you’re afraid fixing it might not be foolproof?
Why would a president who won the popular vote be unable to act as a check on the legislative branch?
What’s the penalty for not following the compact though? The first time a State doesn’t agree with the winner of the popular vote they are free to back out and switch back to their own legislature’s rules for allocating EC votes with no penalty. In a 2016 situation neither candidate will concede to the other putting…
We don’t have the EC in federal elections, though. It’s only in one election,
A friendly reminder that the State and Federal Governments are not the same. Neither is the President of the USA the same as a Governor.
300 Million >>> you anecdotal evidence.
Clearly? Clearly it was a no-call, hence why the refs didn’t call it....
Now playing
Yes I am insulting your intelligence, mainly because you’re wasting my life with your banal attempt to argue.
Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which in the United States is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
Again an emotional appeal. That’s very weak, without support, and basically meaningless.
No. if a person is in need of health care a provider cannot turn them away. It’s against the law in the USA.