I pit the useless fucking Electoral College

[MindsEye_Watering]

@Lumpy

Do you walk up to huge hulking bikers in bars and tell them how stupid, dirty and smelly they are? If you haven’t been, please start doing so.

Why?

[Ludovic]

Because conservatives need safe spaces.

[Gyrate]

@asahi

I think Trump’s a disaster but we need to eliminate the faithless elector once and for all in a constitutional amendment. The Enlightenment era brainchild seemed a logical one but more than two centuries later we see it for what it actually is: a failed Federalist thought experiment.

America has become more democratic over the years, so the idea that there is some body of wise men (and women) who should have the divine power to override the electorate seems dated to say the least. Moreover, if you take even a cursory look at some of these electors, it’s not like we’re talking about paragons of erudition. Some of these characters are little more than barely employed career civic activists.

There is a legitimate case to be made for dealing with an emergency in which we have valid reason to conclude that the president-elect has, in some rare set of circumstances, proven himself to be worthy of a collective second thought, but even in such cases, the guidelines would need to be very clearly prescribed and include both legislative and judicial branches at minimum.

In the end, I’m just not in favor of overturning the will of voters, regardless of however distasteful I find a candidate to be.

In which case it’s better to get rid of all electors than to split hairs and bar faithless ones.

[RTFirefly]

@penultima_thule

Most of the 2yos I know have better behaviour.

Than our President-elect. Which is kinda why many of us are upset about the election.

Zaphod Beeblebrox would be a more sane and responsible President than this guy.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@septimus

A question for Hillaryists: What would your feelings be if Trump had won the popular vote but Hillary had won the electoral vote?

“Whew, dodged a bullet there. Guess the founders were prescient about their warnings of demagogues gaining the popular vote, and the need for the electoral college”.

Y’see, in that case, we wouldn’t have the sole real, beneficial reason for the electoral college to continue to exist (a check on what could happen if we succumbed to radical demagogues) being utterly thrown in the trash can, so it’s a slightly different situation.

[k9bfriender]

@Lumpy

Do you walk up to huge hulking bikers in bars and tell them how stupid, dirty and smelly they are? If you haven’t been, please start doing so.

Only the stupid, dirty, smelly ones.

I am surprised though, that you would encourage such, I thought they were your pepes.

[Ludovic]

@Lumpy

Do you walk up to huge hulking bikers in bars and tell them how stupid, dirty and smelly they are? If you haven’t been, please start doing so.

@k9bfriender

I am surprised though, that you would encourage such, I thought they were your pepes.

I do. Feels good, man.

[Bricker]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

He wants SC Justices like Antonin Scalia, who was virulently anti-gay, and one member at the top of his shortlist, Pryor, doesn’t just consider Obergfell a mistake, but also Loving.

I want Justices like Antonin Scalia.

You see him as “anti-gay,” because he failed to support expanding the Constitution to include gay rights.

But the correct way to expand the Constitution (in my view) is to amend it.

Repeat after me: the courts should not make substantive changes to the law. That job is for the legislature. The courts should not make substantive changes to the law. That job is for the legislature. The courts should not make substantive changes to the law. That job is for the legislature.

Get it?

Now, you may not agree. That’s fine – certainly another view can be that the courts should indeed help shape the law and change it when the legislature does not. I don’t agree, but that’s just my opinion, absolutely correct though it may be.

But it’s not anti-gay. It’s pro-judicial restraint.

You view every decision through the lens of, “Does it advance my goals?” I suggest the correct lens is, “Does it follow from the text of the law?”

But if you love the idea that unelected lifetime judges can have such power . . . . then I invite you to watch the next few years and see how much you like it when the judges are not in favor of your preferred outcomes. Perhaps you’ll rediscover a love of judicial restraint.

More importantly: perhaps you’ll discover a more fundamental principle: the rules must be the same for both sides. You can’t demand that judicial restraint apply only to judges who oppose your preferred outcomes.

[Bricker]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

“Whew, dodged a bullet there. Guess the founders were prescient about their warnings of demagogues gaining the popular vote, and the need for the electoral college”.

Y’see, in that case, we wouldn’t have the sole real, beneficial reason for the electoral college to continue to exist (a check on what could happen if we succumbed to radical demagogues) being utterly thrown in the trash can, so it’s a slightly different situation.

You cannot usefully craft rules that start with the proposition that they only apply when they help you.

If nothing else, what shall we do when you die? Who shall we turn to to tell us which rules to apply and which to ignore in each circumstance?

[pulykamell]

@Fenris

Better to have 4 years of Trump than to have the kind of chaos you were hoping for. Now go sit in a corner and suck your thumb and let the rest of us adults try to figure out a legal way to limit the damage our Cheeto-In-Chief may cause.

This. I hate Trump and am proud to identify as a moderate liberal, but there’s no way in hell I wanted the results overturned here. You think the us vs them mentality is bad now, just imagine what would have happened had the EC overturned the results. To be blunt, I think it’s fucking crazy to wish the EC overturned this and I feel an electoral coup like that would be more destructive than whatever the next four to eight years bring us.

[billfish678]

@Bricker

But if you love the idea that unelected lifetime judges can have such power . . . . then I invite you to watch the next few years and see how much you like it when the judges are not in favor of your preferred outcomes. Perhaps you’ll rediscover a love of judicial restraint…

I LOLed on that one

PS. I seem to recall you saying somebody here had called you a hispanic Uncle Tom at some point.

May I suggest you run with that moniiker…

You are now proudly our own Uncle Juan.

And I say that in good humor…as a fellow “conservative”…don’t always agree with you or your exact process or even conclusions…

But when it comes to people around here that argue in good faith…doing their best to minimize personal bias…you are right up there dude.

Double PS…how’s that light saber thingy with your kid going?

[octopus]

@Bricker

I want Justices like Antonin Scalia.

You see him as “anti-gay,” because he failed to support expanding the Constitution to include gay rights.

But the correct way to expand the Constitution (in my view) is to amend it.

Repeat after me: the courts should not make substantive changes to the law. That job is for the legislature. The courts should not make substantive changes to the law. That job is for the legislature. The courts should not make substantive changes to the law. That job is for the legislature.

Get it?

Now, you may not agree. That’s fine – certainly another view can be that the courts should indeed help shape the law and change it when the legislature does not. I don’t agree, but that’s just my opinion, absolutely correct though it may be.

But it’s not anti-gay. It’s pro-judicial restraint.

You view every decision through the lens of, “Does it advance my goals?” I suggest the correct lens is, “Does it follow from the text of the law?”

But if you love the idea that unelected lifetime judges can have such power . . . . then I invite you to watch the next few years and see how much you like it when the judges are not in favor of your preferred outcomes. Perhaps you’ll rediscover a love of judicial restraint.

More importantly: perhaps you’ll discover a more fundamental principle: the rules must be the same for both sides. You can’t demand that judicial restraint apply only to judges who oppose your preferred outcomes.

Well crazier things have happened. The left is now a fan of states’ rights.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@septimus

A question for Hillaryists: What would your feelings be if Trump had won the popular vote but Hillary had won the electoral vote?

I was alive in 1992 so I kinda know what it was like since the GOP tried to remind us every 2.4 seconds.*

• The situation was not the same, of course, Clinton got the most popular votes and the electorate, while the rest of the popular votes were split between Bush the Elder and Perot. GOP never shut up about ‘Clinton didn’t get the most votes’ (because they felt the Perot votes were rightfully theirs) for 4 years untilt he 1996 election shut them up.

[E-DUB]

Originally Posted by septimus View Post
A question for Hillaryists: What would your feelings be if Trump had won the popular vote but Hillary had won the electoral vote?

A more relevant question would be how the trumplodytes would be feeling. Judging by comments I’ve seen elsewhere they would be far less accepting of the results than the “Hillaryists” are, and that’s saying something.

[Gyrate]

@E-DUB

A more relevant question would be how the trumplodytes would be feeling. Judging by comments I’ve seen elsewhere they would be far less accepting of the results than the “Hillaryists” are, and that’s saying something.

Don’t be silly - we’ve been told repeatedly how liberals are so much more violent than conservatives. I’m sure Trump supporters would restrain themselves to expressing their dismay via strongly-worded missives to their local newspapers.

As for the original question, I probably *would *feel that we’d dodged a bullet but I still wouldn’t be happy with the outcome for three main reasons:

1. I don’t like the idea that the EC can overrule the popular vote;
2. It would mean a majority (or at least a plurality) of Americans thought Trump was a preferable choice for president; and
3. It would severely taint the presidency that followed (as indeed this one will be tainted by the lack of mandate).

[Ludovic]

So now the liberals want to force man-dates on us.

[Frank]

@Lumpy

Is there any truth to the claim that the Interstate Highway System was a Cold War project, originally intended to evacuate cities and give bombers emergency runways?

Not really. It is partly designed for military transport–supplies, personnel, etc.–but that was not the main driver of the project. The military was asked for input on what national highway layouts would be important for defense as far back as the 1920s. And, of course, Eisenhower had first hand experience crossing the nation on the Lincoln Highway as part of a military convoy. So while military use was taken into account, that was only part of the purpose.

[septimus]

@Bricker

I want Justices like Antonin Scalia.
You see him as “anti-gay,” because …

Repeat after me: the courts should not make substantive changes to the law. That job is for the legislature.

I have a question where your expertise might be useful.

Many Supreme Court decisions involve a right-wing agenda (suppressing civil rights, favoring corporations over humans, giving more power to wealthy donors and malicious politicians, spoiling the environment, etc.) vs centrist or left-of-center agenda. Usually the right-wing side is also the side of strict judicial construction.

***Are there good examples where it was the centrists who wanted strict construction and the right-wing wanted an “activist” verdict?

---

For the best examples of this you come up with, I am curious how the Justices voted. Did Scalia and the other Scumbugs go activist when it suited their agenda, or did they stay strict?

[Tread]

@MindsEye_Watering

How’s that “Drain-y Swamp-y” thing going for you goobers? Doesn’t look too good, does it?

How about “Lock Her Up!” Think that’s going to happen?

What about that Wall? Seen any plans yet?
No? Why not?

Well… he’s only been in office for -31 days

[jz78817]

@Morgenstern

I think that’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read here. It ranks right up there with tinfoil hats and underwater yoga.

But not as high as Calexit.