>>>>
>>>>..but aside from that I suggest you read more on what the framers were thinking, particularly Hamilton and get back to me on this later. If you look into it I"m sure you'll come to the same conclusion as I did - they did not do their job.
>>>
>>>Victor, if you want to talk about presidents trampling the Constitution, I'll be more than happy to mention the specifics of a few presidents. The list from Barack Obama is very long indeed.
>>>
>>>It is one thing to grant amnesty...and another thing worse to issue work permits...and another thing even worse to force the U.S. Treasury's hand on those granted amnesty.
>>>
>>>Barack Obama's immigration actions represent one of the most blatantly unconstitutional actions in our lifetimes.
>>
>>So we're back to whataboutism again then. This has noting to do with what the Electoral College failure regrading Trump.
>
>It has to do with your selective application of principles.

uhhh no I disagree. The ONLY thing I'm talking about here is the Electoral College failure regrading Trump. Since that is the only thing I'm talking about there isn't any discussion about selective application of principles -- it's a selective topic. If you want to talk about other failure's of the Electoral College then that is another subject isn't it?

>There's another concept - checks and balances. And another concept - separation of powers and elections every X years. I'll use the same words to you that Obama used years ago - don't like what's happening? Go win an election. So far, despite all the dysfunction in the Republican party, they've won enough elections. That's the way it works.

..which is again whataboutism. The the Electoral College failed to do their job regarding Trump. If you disagree with that then you should be debating what you think the role the Electoral College is supposed to play in an election. Obama has nothing to do with this. I pointed out what Hamilton and the framers had in mind and I don't think you've successfully disputed that. All you've seem to come up with is that they've failed before, so it must be ok for them to fail this time. Hardly a valid argument is it?