You evidently haven’t read your own posts.
Have you ever heard of the selectorate theory? It says, basically, and I’m really over simplifying here, that you can product the behavior of a government based on the composition, and even more, the size, of the group that puts and keeps the government on power. North Korea is a lot different from the US, and a lot worse for its people, not just because Kim Jong Un is a nastier person than Barack Obama, but because he just has to keep a small group of people happy with him to stay in power, a group that doesn’t include the regular North Korean citizen, while the President of the US relies on a much bigger base of support, and has to at least try to keep them happy.
If Trump gets elected, he will no doubt do a bunch of stuff you won’t like, but if we adopt your idea, and have some sort of select council who decides who can be president or not, they then become the essential population the President will depend on to get and stay in power, they will be the people he will have to please, and your interests will be irrelevant in governance.
Shodan, this is not a usual thing for me to say, but I completely agree with almost everything you’ve posted in this thread. Thanks.
Except for the various GOP officials who have suggested armed insurrection over the past eight years, you mean.
Trump only wins when the Electoral College votes for him, sometime in December, I think. I believe that they don’t have to vote for the person the state election tells them to. And I seem to remember that in some past election some didn’t, although it didn’t affect the election. So this is where the anti-Trump people could move against the will of the people and still claim to have a legal reason for doing so.
29 states have faithless elector laws that require an elector to vote for the candidate (s)he is pledged to, but it’s doubtful that those laws are enforceable.
They could, but won’t. Electors are specifically chosen from among yes-men and yes-women loyal to the candidate. People likely to NOT vote the way they’re supposed to aren’t sent as electors. They choose only party loyalists who do what they’re told without question.
“Faithless elector” is the term of art for someone who doesn’t, and they’re very, very rare indeed and have generally always been protest votes where they knew it wouldn’t matter, or someone died or something. The last one was in 2004 when someone voted for “John Ewards” instead of John Kerry presumably by accident (and also voted for Edwards for VP, hence the likelihood it was just a mistake.)
Party loyalists. Who might like the idea of President Romney.
Exactly. Even if you’re one of the people who thinks there’s no significant difference between the Democrats and the Republicans and it doesn’t matter which party is in power, you have to remember it matters a great deal to the politicians whether they’re in power or not. So as long as we have the power to vote somebody out of office - even if it’s just to replace them with somebody who’s essentially identical - politicians have to be concerned about our approval.
If some shadowy group gained the power to remove a President from office and appoint a new President to replace him, then our Presidents would be more concerned about getting the approval of that shadowy group than the general public.
Well, looks like we’ll get to test your theory.
I’m generally a fan of “testable claims should be tested,” but this is a little over the line for my preference.
President Obama served two terms in a country full of deplorable gun nuts, redneck hicks, right wing bigots, some who thought he was a Kenyan Muslim, and had no credible assassination attempts on him.
I bet dollars to donuts that some left wing nut job takes a shot at Trump. He hasn’t even been sworn in yet and “Kill Trump” graffiti is popping up at the anti-Trump protests.
That’s nice. But let’s not bring up the “Second Amendment solutions” at all. YOUR new president even brought that up at LEAST once, in front of witnesses.
I could bring it up but I won’t. That would just be rude. 
He might be the President Elect of MY country, but I didn’t vote for him.
Neither did I. I was addressing “this esteemed group” as a whole, not you. The YOUR was also a preemptive strike against the “normalization” attempts going on now, as in “he is the president of all of us”. I reject that.
OK, who is YOUR President Elect? If you are even in the US, I might have missed that part.
I am in the US. He may have been elected, and it was done legal and proper, I may have to recognize it, but I am not required to like it.
Regular people being called names like these by liberal assholes like you is why Trump won. Congratulations liberal retards you got Trump elected. 
The whoosh is strong with this one.
FWIW, I was just parroting what the actual liberals have said - I’m one of the gun toting redneck hicks.
But I still didn’t vote for Trump, and have posted that several times going back far before the actual election.
The double standard is just so blatant. Right wingers call liberals names all day long, including a lot of really creatively vulgar and depraved ones, and apparently get rewarded for it by getting full control of national government, and of state government in most states. But then they have the gall to lecture us “maybe you’d do better if you weren’t so mean”. Seriously, you guys? :dubious: