Can we push back against this "dully elected" BS

[D_Master81]

I’ll put aside millions more Americans wanted Clinton and just say this. When Americans vote, they also expect that their leader won’t act corruptly. By the current GOP logic the president has carte blanche to do whatever because he was merely elected. Drives me insane to hear this.

[beachbumbob]

1. a president welds lots of power BUT he is not above the law. He won the election as set forth in

the constitution and he is president.

He as had 3 years of freely destroying out govt, appointing federal judges that will impact America for generation(s) to come, our relationship with allies and trade partners. Everything Putin wanted to see happen as happened.


Makes that less of 2 evils bullshit more telling

[Baltimike]

2. use he wasn't. He was electorally elected adhering to the same

Constitution that says he can't bribe people

[Raven123]

3. My response: if the GOP respected elections, Garland would be on SCOTUS

[CurtEastPoint]

4. Sorry but 'dully' elected, if a typo, is so apropos re: Dump.

Either way... duly or dully... good point.

[world wide wally]

5. Is it true that Trump lost the popular vote by more votes than anybody ever?

I heard this somewhere a few days ago.

[SharonAnn]

6. "Constitutionally elected" but not "Democratically elected"

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

7. It would serve our longterm interests to choose to start differentiating wherever possible

between presidents who win both the Electoral College and the public's vote, and those who attain office by winning 270 or more EC electors' votes but lose the American public's vote.

I do this by speaking of the latter as electoralcolleged presidents.

I CHOOSE to not speak or write of them as "elected" but as something a little more descriptive.

Yes, legal scolds, I know that an ugly, anomolously undemocratic section of the Constitution means that merely being electoralcolleged, under law, constitutes being elected.

Again, this is a choice. I choose to verbify a noun into what is to me a more descriptive and useful way to refer to certain men's ascendancy into the presidency.

Words matter. And nouns get drafted into acting as verbs and adjectives all the time.

If the asshats on the other side can choose to refer to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party," I can choose to refer to Bush II and their abomination presently desecrating the Oval Office as having been electoralcolleged into it.