The Awesomeness of Trump

ZealotX wrote: What we need is a system that treats each voter, each American, fairly. But fairness to one side, as it does in my example, can create inequity on another. A more simple solution would be going by the popular vote.

No it would not. The college is a separation of power by both representation and population just like congress. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it, only the will of the individual state. Its actually not one national election, its 51 small state elections to elect a leader to represent all 51 of those states (and DC) at a national level. Its the same reason each state gets two senators no matter what population they have but also representatives based on population. You don't want to also combine congress do you? Because that's the equivalent of what you are asking for by eliminating the college. People make this mistake all the time. We are not simply a single national state but a collection of small states all working in cooperation and the national govt is that representation.

An issue often overlooked about the Electoral College is the economic disparity between states that it simple ignores. California has more Electoral College votes than other states because it has a larger population, but it should also have more voice being that it is the FIFTH largest economy in the world and FIRST in the U.S. based on GDP. The state pays WAY more taxes into the federal coffers than other states and thus funds more of the federal budget than any other state.

Now take a state like Massachusetts. It is tiny in comparison population wise, but is still TWELFTH on the list of U.S. states ranked by economy based on GDP, but has the same number of electoral votes as Arizona who is TWENTY FIRST. Massachusetts, who puts way more money into the economy of the U.S., has the same voting influence as Arizona and Tennessee.

Essentially, the Electoral College rewards states with more people by giving them a larger share of voice in an election regardless of what those people are actually contributing to the U.S. economy.

The irony of California's situation is that most of the state geographically by district is conservative, but the massive populations of L.A. and San Francisco make the total state population lean decidedly liberal. Some states actually allow their delegation to split Electoral College votes, which would be more realistic.

I'm not saying we should vote based on who makes the most money, but we do need to accept that there are many aspects of the Electoral College that are out of date. It doesn't represent an individual's vote fairly. There are huge numbers of eligible voters who don't even bother showing up because they know their state is going a certain way no matter what they vote. California will always be blue. Texas will always be red. So, our president gets picked by Florida and other swing states, which can be quite terrifying.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Its the same reason each state gets two representatives no matter what population they have but also senators based on population. You don't want to also combine congress do you? Because that's the equivalent of what you are asking for by eliminating the college. People make this mistake all the time. We are not simply a single national state but a collection of small states all working in cooperation and the national govt is that representation.

That's not a fair comparison. You could elect a president by popular vote, but still have a Senate with two Senators per state and a House of Representatives with number of Representatives per state based on population. The House and Senate check and balance each other (as happened in the health care debate), and then together as Congress they check and balance the President.

The Electoral College only elects the President, no one else.

Arisaig wrote:
I fail to see an answer to my questioning of your first point, the point on education affecting a person's view of how "awesome" Trump is.

Again... I didn't say which was which because I didn't want to.

If you followed the election coverage you know they discussed different demographics and how they voted. If a person is less intelligent the would be more easily swayed by Trump and less likely to hold him to a high standard of intelligence. They wouldn't judge him for not "sounding smart". They might even enjoy his limited vocabulary because they wouldn't feel like some elite was constantly trying to talk over their heads.

However, that doesn't mean if you're uneducated you're going to vote for trump because that's only ONE factor. Christians weren't voting for Trump because he was a Christian. This was painfully obvious after he said "two corinthians". That was one of the funniest bit of biblical bumbling I had ever witnessed but what many of them wanted was a Supreme Court pick who was going to share their values. They were willing to overlook the fact that Trump doesn't.

It is the EXCESS of factors that allowed so many people to vote for Trump, because even if they wouldn't have voted because of ONE factor there were at least 2 others that gave them a reason to ignore the other factor.

Let me put this into SW context just to make it a little less prejudicial.

When Palpatine was but a humble Senator from Naboo he had Jedi support because he seemed to be on the "right" side. They were so busy fighting on the same side (against enemies he created) that few people really stopped to question his motivations. Those who understood power simply became conscious of his growing influence but on a theoretical level. By the time he came to power, legally, all they could really do was sit around questioning why they could not see the threat. The fact that he ascended to power legally is what entangled the Jedi and kept them from taking more forceful and direct action. However, even though it seemed legal on the surface, he was after all... a lord of the Sith. The things he did to get into that legal position were anything but legal. In actuality he was the one who had committed treason, not the Jedi who came to stop him.

We are in the same position with Donald Trump. Like Anakin, there will be Jedi who think Trump is awesome. On the other hand, you'll have Jedi who are passionately against Trump and who want to see him impeached. Trump may actually be a traitor to the United States, working with Russia to win the election.

But if you're from Naboo...

How much do you care that your representative "might" be corrupt if you think he's acting on your behalf?

Donald Trump is factually a vagina grabber and a sexual predator. He said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and still maintain support and to a large extent this has proven true. People ignore everything that makes him the opposite of awesome. And even while we lose respect and leadership on the world stage, he continues to play to his base. "Drain the swamp!" he says. There has never been a United States politician more corrupt than Donald Trump, the business man. But if you're from Naboo...

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: What we need is a system that treats each voter, each American, fairly. But fairness to one side, as it does in my example, can create inequity on another. A more simple solution would be going by the popular vote.

No it would not. The college is a separation of power by both representation and population just like congress. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it, only the will of the individual state. Its actually not one national election, its 51 small state elections to elect a leader to represent all 51 of those states (and DC) at a national level. Its the same reason each state gets two senators no matter what population they have but also representatives based on population. You don't want to also combine congress do you? Because that's the equivalent of what you are asking for by eliminating the college. People make this mistake all the time. We are not simply a single national state but a collection of small states all working in cooperation and the national govt is that representation.

I'm just wondering why, if you are for state representation, you ignored that whole bit about one state one vote. I'll reiterate.

If you won florida and I won ohio, why can't we be tied? Why does it have to be 29 to 18?

Senan wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Its the same reason each state gets two representatives no matter what population they have but also senators based on population. You don't want to also combine congress do you? Because that's the equivalent of what you are asking for by eliminating the college. People make this mistake all the time. We are not simply a single national state but a collection of small states all working in cooperation and the national govt is that representation.

That's not a fair comparison. You could elect a president by popular vote, but still have a Senate with two Senators per state and a House of Representatives with number of Representatives per state based on population. The House and Senate check and balance each other (as happened in the health care debate), and then together as Congress they check and balance the President.

The Electoral College only elects the President, no one else.

Its an absolutely fair comparison. Why would you advocate the dismantling of part of the natural checks and balances of our federal govt but leave another in place? Once the electoral college is gone that makes it that much easier for people to say well we don't need congress structured like it is anymore either. lets change that as well. and the next thing you know you have a true democracy.. and from there a monarchy is one step away. These are the very reasons our founding fathers setup things like they did. They knew from history things like true democracy don't work, they implode eventually and so they set up this checks and balance of power in all aspects of our national govt. By giving in to a popular election you take power from the states and allow for the possibility that one portion of the nation, say the east coast for example, could begin to dominate the election through sheer numbers. This possibility is what our founding fathers designed against.

Also one more note, as to your comment on California and Texas always being one way. In fact you are not correct. California was actually a republican dominated state as late as 1988 and Texas also was different in that they used to vote Democrat. Swing states are always changing, nothing is set in stone and the second you say that it is will be when in changes.

ZealotX wrote: I'm just wondering why, if you are for state representation, you ignored that whole bit about one state one vote. I'll reiterate.

If you won florida and I won ohio, why can't we be tied? Why does it have to be 29 to 18?

Did I ignore it? I suggest you re-read my previous comments. One state one vote is the same as popular vote. It takes way the separation of power.

ZealotX wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
I fail to see an answer to my questioning of your first point, the point on education affecting a person's view of how "awesome" Trump is.

Again... I didn't say which was which because I didn't want to.

So your original statement cannot be backed up, or you made a statement that even you don't believe.

You didn't say which was because you didn't want to? But you did say it.

ZealotX wrote: Whether Trump is awesome or not depends on several key factors:

1. your level of education

You blatantly stated, in black and white for permanent record, that a person's level of education affected their ability to see Trump as "Awesome or not". I, for one, am intrigued by this and wish to know if you meant a higher education or lack thereof makes a person see Trump as, quote, "awesome" as your statement seems quite definitive, and should have some sort of evidence to back it up, no?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:
Its an absolutely fair comparison. Why would you advocate the dismantling of part of the natural checks and balances of our federal govt but leave another in place? Once the electoral college is gone that makes it that much easier for people to say well we don't need congress structured like it is anymore either. lets change that as well. and the next thing you know you have a true democracy.. and from there a monarchy is one step away. These are the very reasons our founding fathers setup things like they did. They knew from history things like true democracy don't work, they implode eventually and so they set up this checks and balance of power in all aspects of our national govt. By giving in to a popular election you take power from the states and allow for the possibility that one portion of the nation, say the east coast for example, could begin to dominate the election through sheer numbers. This possibility is what our founding fathers designed against.

Also one more note, as to your comment on California and Texas always being one way. In fact you are not correct. California was actually a republican dominated state as late as 1988 and Texas also was different in that they used to vote Democrat. Swing states are always changing, nothing is set in stone and the second you say that it is will be when in changes.

The founders also knew that things would change and the government would have to change with it.

So that's why there are these things called amendments...

I always find it interesting when fear is used as a reason not to make even one change. I guess this is the heart of conservative principles.

It's like if we were playing Jenga and pulled a piece out. By the nature of the game we would go back and forth pulling out pieces until the structure fell. However, there's nothing about the government that forces us to keep hacking away. Instead, if anything, we add blocks.

Look, things change over time. It's evolution. It doesn't have to be scary. There are parts of our bodies that we no longer use but are still there. Eventually, they may go away altogether but you wouldn't even notice it because you're not using it anyway. And sometimes they cause us problems and we have to remove them because their problems start to effect the general operation of the body. But just because the surgeon takes out something you don't need doesn't mean he's just going to start randomly dismantling you like he's Frankenstein or something. We can make things better, but often you have to tear down an old building so you can create a new better one in its place. Sometimes an entire bridge has to go.

The founders themselves were not perfect. If we did everything according to their first idea we'd still have slavery. And maybe that's what MAGA means to some people, but in my humble opinion, fear is not a good reason to avoid making changes. No one is interested in doing away with the separation of powers or checks and balances. If anything, Donald Trump has reinforced in our minds why these things make America so great! I'm even more proud to be an American because I know that we have a system of government that is able to resist a despotic ruler who tries to turn us against each other.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: I'm just wondering why, if you are for state representation, you ignored that whole bit about one state one vote. I'll reiterate.

If you won florida and I won ohio, why can't we be tied? Why does it have to be 29 to 18?

Did I ignore it? I suggest you re-read my previous comments. One state one vote is the same as popular vote. It takes way the separation of power.

Okay, I'll bite. How does it take away the separation of power?

Arisaig wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
I fail to see an answer to my questioning of your first point, the point on education affecting a person's view of how "awesome" Trump is.

Again... I didn't say which was which because I didn't want to.

So your original statement cannot be backed up, or you made a statement that even you don't believe.

You didn't say which was because you didn't want to? But you did say it.

ZealotX wrote: Whether Trump is awesome or not depends on several key factors:

1. your level of education

You blatantly stated, in black and white for permanent record, that a person's level of education affected their ability to see Trump as "Awesome or not". I, for one, am intrigued by this and wish to know if you meant a higher education or lack thereof makes a person see Trump as, quote, "awesome" as your statement seems quite definitive, and should have some sort of evidence to back it up, no?

Yes, I gave you my opinion on that specific question because you pressed me for my opinion on that specific question. Giving my opinions was not the point of the previous post which is why it did not include it. I said I didn't want to which was an accurate statement. I didn't want to. That would be against the point I was making in the first post. You wanting to know my thoughts is a different question, requiring a different response. I don't think you would have been satisfied without me revealing my opinion so even though I didn't want to, I did.

Now you are continuing to probe my OPINION which is separate from my post about different factors. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm just making sure you understand that revealing my opinion was not the intention of that previous post. It was the ambiguity of the post that was the point. That's how Trump got elected in spite of contradicting narratives from the media judging different demographics. They were wrong. Hillary's information was wrong. Therefore, you cannot say "smart people will vote against Trump". That's not an accurate statement although it is what many would like to think.

Furthermore, I was very specific as to how education could affect a person's view of Trump. Let me highlight certain words in my opinion that speak to whether or not it is definitive.

If you followed the election coverage you know they discussed different demographics and how they voted. If a person is less intelligent the would be more easily swayed by Trump and less likely to hold him to a high standard of intelligence. They wouldn't judge him for not "sounding smart". They might even enjoy his limited vocabulary because they wouldn't feel like some elite was constantly trying to talk over their heads.

When you're talking about large swaths of people I find it impossible to dictate what everyone will do. Therefore, it only makes sense to discuss populations in uncertain terms that suggest probabilities rather than certainties. I don't think I need to provide evidence that less educated people tend to be more gullible or more easily convinced. When you're working with a limited set of facts it is easier for someone else to present (alternative) "facts" to you and you actually accept them. If you already know that they're wrong then they would have to convince you that you are wrong. No such indictment is necessary when you're not challenging a pre-existing idea. Case in point, I could say that you are one of the more intelligent people on this site. I can tell by your responses and what you choose to respond to. Yes, I'm speaking about you in a personal way but it's purely complimentary. If I had not challenged an idea already in your head you would be less likely to respond. So the point is that there is a different way that people handle information when they are already informed. Having formal education doesn't make you or mean that you are smart. It simply increases the likelihood of the student possessing a higher level of intelligence. This also helps to determine how you treat positive factors for Trump vs negative factors and ultimately how you'll vote. But it is not politically correct to deduce behavior this way (again, I'm not saying smarter people will not vote for Trump, only that it makes it LESS likely in my opinion).

If you don't like the facts, just call it an opinion piece. And how do you like his hateful transgender military ban Kyrin?

The Electoral College Doesn't Work The Way The Founding Fathers Intended

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-12-27/the-electoral-college-doesnt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended

People can honestly disagree about the Electoral College system as it is currently implemented – and a startling number of people ... seem genuinely opposed to the very idea of majority rule – but you can't suggest that what we have now is the founder's' vision come to life.

See: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

The process of election [by The Electoral College] affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity [Trump personified], may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.


https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-12-27/the-electoral-college-doesnt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended

And we can fix this without amending the constitution. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

@ZealotX

Excellent. I would recommend that next time around your opinions are stated as such. I was concerned there was actual evidence to support your claim.

Look… it is apparent that no one here is properly subjectively internalizing. We already know that we just need some bias, subjective opinions and an unyielding strangle hold on farcical crap to be a guru.

But how do we go about debating a topic or presenting a reasonable argument you ask?

Buzz words are the key to any good argument. :ohmy:

You don’t need proof.

You don’t need a reasonable argument.

Shoot, in several people’s posts we can see you don’t even need to string together a series of words in to a coherent sentence. :blink:

Just lots of buzz words.

And if you want to sound smart, drop in some multiple syllable words and reference stuff you found on the internet! :laugh:

Arisaig wrote: @ZealotX

Excellent. I would recommend that next time around your opinions are stated as such. I was concerned there was actual evidence to support your claim.

I'm not sure what would lead you to believe otherwise. Intent is one thing. Perception is another.

@Zealot -
Fear is not something to be avoided. In warns us of danger. In this case the founders chose a system based on the Wisdom of history where true democracies ended in failure. If you decide to just ignore that wisdom you are not doing this nation a favor, you are dooming it to failure.

As for your second question, asked and already answered. Please read. I'm not going to repeat myself.


@BR John -
Sure that's a brilliant Idea, you don't like what is written in the constitution so you just decide to avoid it all together and come up with your own system. I cant wait to see how far that gets you. The first step to tyranny right there.

As for your other question about the military, I agree with the ban. I have stated this before that transgenderism is a disorder no different than any other mental or physical disorder that would preclude one from military service. Not everyone gets to serve and many are denied for a myriad of reasons - this is just one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0&index=2&list=PLRTSTGYHvYZWEH5C9wsGfCNbNXF84QwSi

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: @Zealot -
Fear is not something to be avoided. In warns us of danger. In this case the founders chose a system based on the Wisdom of history where true democracies ended in failure. If you decide to just ignore that wisdom you are not doing this nation a favor, you are dooming it to failure.

As for your second question, asked and already answered. Please read. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Fear is a perception. It is only as real as it is to you. Danger may or not exist. Just because you're afraid doesn't mean you should be. Just because you fear a certain thing happening doesn't mean it will. If you act based on fear rather than foresight; rather than a reaction to the danger, that can certainly be "a path to the darkside".

The founders were not super humans. They were normal flesh and blood people with faults and failings. They were reacting to a form of government that was corrupt to the point of fleeing and fighting. The constitution of the United States therefore presents us with tools to avoid past and similar corruption.

However, did the founding fathers foresee the internet? Did they foresee gerrymandering? Did they foresee voter purges and what forms of id would be accepted? Did the founders foresee how corporations would be treated as people? Did they foresee Citizen's United? Did they want corporations to be able to lobby the legislative branch of government? Did they want our lawmakers to be motivated by money?

I understand what you're saying and I'm not against you. But what I'm suggesting to you is that amendments exist because even the founding fathers knew that we would need to be able to change the system they created. They knew that people would find ways to exploit the law. They knew that people would still find avenues of corruption. So while I think there are changes that need to happen, I'm not suggesting the foundations of the country be broken down to construct something new and better. There are tools embedded in our constitution that allow us to change our constitution and they are there because that was the intention of the founding fathers who knew, understood, and embraced their limitations. That IS wisdom. And we have to know when to think for ourselves and when to make those changes. If you and I could agree that the founding fathers did not intend for the government to be corrupt and for the government to always serve its people rather than an elite few, then I think we could agree that changes were necessary if the government is veering off course.

The question is, do you think the government is veering off course or do you think everything is fine and what the founders intended.

On the second question, I asked you how it would remove the separation of power. What post did you address this in? It's not my intent to make you repeat yourself but if you didn't say this to me I don't really intend to randomly scan through 17+ pages of posts.

The other question I referred to was one I originally asked someone else. Why couldn't Florida count the same as Ohio? Again, if this was answered, please tell me where you answered it so I can be edified.

Thanks

ZealotX wrote: Fear is a perception. It is only as real as it is to you. Danger may or not exist. Just because you're afraid doesn't mean you should be. Just because you fear a certain thing happening doesn't mean it will. If you act based on fear rather than foresight; rather than a reaction to the danger, that can certainly be "a path to the darkside".

As I said our founders did act on foresight that was based on wisdom of the past. If we do not learn from our past, fear and avoid those mistakes proven to be detrimental, we are only doomed to repeat those failures.

ZealotX wrote: The founders were not super humans. They were normal flesh and blood people with faults and failings. They were reacting to a form of government that was corrupt to the point of fleeing and fighting. The constitution of the United States therefore presents us with tools to avoid past and similar corruption.

Not only did they study the governmental system they left but they also studied many other past systems. The form of govt they enacted was not a knee jerk reaction to a King they felt slighted them. It was a measured and thoroughly thought out response to avoid the mistakes of every state nation they had a history of that had come before them and the mistakes that had doomed them to failure.

ZealotX wrote: However, did the founding fathers foresee the internet? Did they foresee gerrymandering? Did they foresee voter purges and what forms of id would be accepted? Did the founders foresee how corporations would be treated as people? Did they foresee Citizen's United? Did they want corporations to be able to lobby the legislative branch of government? Did they want our lawmakers to be motivated by money?

YES they did foresee! They may not have known the terms you describe but they knew the potential for corruption and evolution of this nation. They put every check and balance in place they could muster in order to keep those potential threats in check. So far they have succeeded immeasurably. For people now to ignore the past and not see the wisdom in their decisions is disheartening to say the least.

ZealotX wrote: I understand what you're saying and I'm not against you. But what I'm suggesting to you is that amendments exist because even the founding fathers knew that we would need to be able to change the system they created. They knew that people would find ways to exploit the law. They knew that people would still find avenues of corruption. So while I think there are changes that need to happen, I'm not suggesting the foundations of the country be broken down to construct something new and better. There are tools embedded in our constitution that allow us to change our constitution and they are there because that was the intention of the founding fathers who knew, understood, and embraced their limitations. That IS wisdom. And we have to know when to think for ourselves and when to make those changes. If you and I could agree that the founding fathers did not intend for the government to be corrupt and for the government to always serve its people rather than an elite few, then I think we could agree that changes were necessary if the government is veering off course.

I agree completely, Amendments are in place for exactly what you describe. What they are not there for, though, is to dismantle what was put in place in the checks and balances of this system. No system is perfect and no system will ever be. Just as well, no amount of visionary foresight will ever conceive of every possible scenario and be able to plan for it. If we can come up with ways to improve the electoral college I’m all for it. I’ll vote for it and support it wholeheartedly. But what we should not do… in fact never do… is just abandon it all together in favor of popular vote or even worse do an end run around the constitution and implement something that will doom the nation to failure.

ZealotX wrote: The question is, do you think the government is veering off course or do you think everything is fine and what the founders intended.

No I don’t think we are veering off course. In fact I think we are finally getting back on course by putting the national govts emphasis on national defense and the economy again as it should be and getting rid of the bureaucracy and socialist reforms. However that is not to say that we as Americans should ever take our eye off the govt and its machinations. The second we do that is the second we lose ourselves.

ZealotX wrote: On the second question, I asked you how it would remove the separation of power. What post did you address this in? It's not my intent to make you repeat yourself but if you didn't say this to me I don't really intend to randomly scan through 17+ pages of posts.

The other question I referred to was one I originally asked someone else. Why couldn't Florida count the same as Ohio? Again, if this was answered, please tell me where you answered it so I can be edified.

Watch the video I posted. It explains it better than I can.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Its an absolutely fair comparison. Why would you advocate the dismantling of part of the natural checks and balances of our federal govt but leave another in place? Once the electoral college is gone that makes it that much easier for people to say well we don't need congress structured like it is anymore either. lets change that as well. and the next thing you know you have a true democracy.. and from there a monarchy is one step away. These are the very reasons our founding fathers setup things like they did. They knew from history things like true democracy don't work, they implode eventually and so they set up this checks and balance of power in all aspects of our national govt. By giving in to a popular election you take power from the states and allow for the possibility that one portion of the nation, say the east coast for example, could begin to dominate the election through sheer numbers. This possibility is what our founding fathers designed against.

The Electoral College is not a check or balance on any branch of government. It literally only elects the President. It checks and balances States, but not fairly. It was conceived as a way to placate slave states so they would ratify the Constitution. And by the way, the U.S. was only the East Coast when it was written and it basically came down to Massachussetts and New York vs Virginia and Georgia. Read the history. The Electoral college has been outdated for over a century.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Also one more note, as to your comment on California and Texas always being one way. In fact you are not correct. California was actually a republican dominated state as late as 1988 and Texas also was different in that they used to vote Democrat. Swing states are always changing, nothing is set in stone and the second you say that it is will be when in changes.

I'm speaking of perception in each election. Voter turnout is directly affected by whether your state is already decided. California is on the West Coast. Our state gets called before the polls even close. Why would I go vote after work if I already know the outcome? A popular vote eliminates this East Coast bias that now exists in a time when results are nearly instantaneous. The system needs to update with the times.

Lets look at some basic facts when it comes to Trump:

From Gallup , the approval ratings of past presidents.

Barack Obama 52% Sep 2009
George W. Bush 76% Sep 2001
Bill Clinton 50% Sep 1993
George H.W. Bush 70% Sep 1989
Ronald Reagan 52% Sep 1981
Jimmy Carter 57% Sep 1977
Richard Nixon 59% Sep 1969
John Kennedy 79% Sep 1961
Dwight Eisenhower 61% Sep 1953

And then there is Trump, with a current weekly average of 36%. In fact, Trump has yet to hit even a fifty percent approval rating since being elected (as of today 09/07/2017) 230 days.

Heck, even look at George W. Bush, who was the last big joke the states pumped out as a president (yet again another that didn't actually win by votes) had at least a good approval rating.

Yes, I understand why the electoral college is in place... but it needs a drastic reform.

Lets look at a history of popular vote wins that were overruled by the electoral college.

Electoral College Wins

1824: John Quncy Adams
1876: Rutherford B. Hayes
1888: Benjamin Harrison
(Notice the HUGE gap between these two dates)
2000: George W. Bush
2016: Donald Trump

And then suddenly, after that huge gap, the two joke presidents get elected. In ~100 years the electoral college did not step in. And then in the past 2 decades we get the two (arguably) worst presidents to date, jokes in their own rights.

Perhaps the electoral college needs to bow to people power (you know, the definition of Democracy) more often and stop flexing their proverbial muscles and messing up the country.