Because the Department heads carry out the laws and implement them and work out all the details. They do have power, just not ultimate power.

This is like saying "I don't know what the big deal is about having John the garbageman be in charge of the doctors here at the hospital. True, he knows absolutely nothing about medicine but let's give him a try."

Think of whatever job you can imagine -- and then ask yourself if you want someone to be the boss who has no experience whatsoever in whatever it is your job does and, in fact, has spent their entire life doing whatever the opposite of your job is and has stated that she hopes your business fails.

Why in the world would you want this person to be in charge of your business?

That's what DeVos is. That's why we object to her.

Why is the cabinet appointed instead of elected? Say what you will about Trumps experience, but at least he won the electoral college, so a lot of people wanted him as president regardless of experience.

The cabinet is appointed because they are supposed to carry out the president's desires. It doesn't make sense to force the President to work with a bunch of people he didn't get to pick, who may be working against him. But at the same time, he can't just appoint idiots and unqualified people, which is why the Senate has to approve them. The only way to get idiots and unqualified people approved would be to, I don't know, donate millions of dollars to Republican Senators who will then vote for you to be approved.

Winning the electoral college is a loophole, an old provision in the Constitution that no longer makes sense. Millions more voted against Trump than for him. Clearly, without a doubt, the majority of Americans didn't want him, and that's seen by the fact that within 8 days, he already had a negative rating, something no President has ever had that quickly.

We voted NOT to have him, and now he's acting like he has our support when he clearly doesn't.
Is it any wonder people are protesting? We've been given a guy most of us didn't want, and he's doing all the things most of us don't want.

Here's the latest poll, showing that a significant majority of Americans don't want Trump and disagree with him on every major issue.

Of COURSE we are mad. The guy we don't want snuck in and is doing what we don't want. Shouldn't we fight him back? Shouldn't we say "You're supposed to represent ALL of us"?

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-de ... aseID=2428

Technically I believe that the electoral college prevents NY and LA from picking the president each time. But I wouldn't be against abolishing it. But it's too late for this election. Maybe by 2020.

Trump was guaranteed to have the worst rating ever since he won the election. Hillary's rating wouldn't be as bad as Trump obviously, but I'd guess it would be significantly lower than Obama and maybe even Bush.

Trump won due to years of mud slinging by the GOP that ruin Hillary'a chances. Try and criticize Trump and most people lash out with Killary comments

Also Bernie Sanders split the base much like Ralph Nader. Despite what the tin foil wearing brainwashed Info Wars guzzling Alex Jones zombies might be delusional enough to think, there are more Independent thinkers inclined to vote for the Democrat party. Thing is, there is little unity amongst the Democrats. The GOP voter base will always vote GOP even if Donald Trump ran for...president...wait...

I have a feeling most of the people who voted Trump are the one's on low incomes. So even if you look beyond the popular vote disparity, and consider that a richer person person vote would be more valuable than a poorer person (which I'm not saying it should be, but just for this interesting argument sake I think), might we then get some results that would be something like 65-70% voted Hillary and 30-35% voted Trump?

Not sure if that makes sense what I'm saying, I might not be exactly finding the right (economic) words to describe my point.

But basically what I mean is that among the people who contribute more to the GDP of the country the vote discrepancy is even higher.

Yes the blue collar vote has gone more and more to the GOP due the populist movement that brewed under them in the last couple of years. The Social Justice Warriors are frustratingly defeating themselves

I don't see how this is fair though. The electoral college takes voting power away from people in large states (California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc) and gives more voting power to people in smaller states (Delaware, the Dakota's, Wyoming, etc). Why should a vote from someone in Alaska count way, way more than a vote from someone in Sacramento? Besides, it allows a shocking imbalance in a lot of states where either the large cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, New York, Chicago shift a state's vote completely in one direction and the rural population get shafted or does the opposite in states like Texas or Georgia where strong democratic hubs like Houston, Austin, Dallas and Atlanta may as well not even vote because the state as a whole leans heavily towards the other party.

Don't you guys already have state elections? Like, aren't senators and such supposed to represent state interests? I don't get why the national leader shouldn't be elected by the national populace.

YAll would love the electoral college if the situation was flipped.

See this is the annoying thing. This has never happened. Democrats have hated the EC for YEARS. Hell, TRUMP hates the EC.

If you want to keep it, fine. But then you need to get rid of gerrymandering. You need to adjust the Electoral votes to match the POPULATION of the counties.

(this would INCREASE CA/NY votes, because they SHOULD have more votes, because there are more PEOPLE there)

I don't really give a shit whether we have it or not.

As long as "your team" wins, right?

That would make a good synopsis of 90% of the arguments in this thread.

"My team" loses all the time lol.

With Ohio (which he nearly won) Kerry would have won the presidency without winning the popular vote as well.

My team vs their team mentality is the defines American politics and we need to fix this

YUP

No, what it does is prevent the majority of people -- many of whom live in NY and LA -- from choosing their President. Here, I've blogged about it many times and this particular post goes into the reasons why we should get rid of it, and there's a huge discussion in the comments: https://ventrellaquest.com/2013/04/09/t ... l-college/



It's not going to happen, because we'll need 3/4 of the states to ratify it and all the small states that force the rest of us to live by their choices won't do that.



Well, I agree with that. I was a Bernie supporter, but Hillary would still be a far better President than Trump. Almost anyone would be. At least Hillary is qualified, unlike Trump and the people he is placing in charge of things.

Ironically, the Dems have better policies for the blue collar workers but the GOP is good at convincing them with issues like gay rights and abortion on demand and scary black people and so on, and then the blue collar workers vote that way instead of ways that could actually help them.

The Democrats don't make it any better, because they tend to ignore the rural parts of the country, insult them as rubes and bigots and religious fanatics, and laugh at them on their TV shows. That doesn't help, guys.

It's never just one thing.

When our country was formed, we were much more a collection of independent states, sort of like how the European Union is now. States had a lot more power, and it took weeks to travel from one state to another. So the EC made a lot more sense back then, as the President was chosen to represent the interests of the states rather than the people.

We no longer live in that world, but we're stuck with the laws written 250 years ago.

Getting rid of the Electoral College would help that. No more "red states" and "blue states". It wouldn't matter who won each state -- all that would matter is who won overall.

A twitter from Trump

Big increase in traffic into our country from certain areas, while our people are far more vulnerable, as we wait for what should be EASY D!


Easy D!

from urban dictionary

Easy D
A girl that is very easy to get with and has Double Ds
Jeremy was dating Easy D only cause she is so easy to get with

fucking shameless

She is unbelievable.