America wouldn't have been dismantled and forever destroyed if Hillary had been elected.

Not sure I agree with that.  Obama set a dangerous precedent with his use of executive orders to make changes to agency rules and I believe Hillary would have accelerated it...in fact, I expect the next Democrat president to do it more than Obama did.  The issue is that whatever changes are made become the rule of law until they are later changed (presumably under a different president).  Obama could have ordered the ATF to deem any semi-automatic rifle capable of holding more than 5 rounds to be a military weapon and that would have started a chain of events that would have resulted in the rule of law outlawing nearly every hunting rifle.  The order would have been implemented through the administrative rules making process and eventually turned into a rule.  The only recourse of this is for the Congress to countermand the president's directive or a legal challenge in a left slanted legal system.

Personally I believe that sometime in the next 20-30 years Congress will have to revoke the power of agencies to make their own rules, exactly because of how Obama used executive orders to do that.  But will that really get better when Congress has to pass laws to change agency rules?  The Administrative Procedures Act was enacted because Congress could not keep up with the pace of changes that needed to be made in 1946, what hope do they have of doing it now?

Businesses just pass through taxes to the consumer anyway.  I have no problem when a business legally avoids more taxes.  I do have a problem when a corporation promotes itself as a Social Justice crusader, like Starbucks, Amazon, and all the Silicon Valley tech companies then abuse their employees, and be hypocrites like most liberal/progressives. 

It is always do as I say, not as I do.

There are always TWO kinds of democrats.

ONE: The crazy as a bedbug, stupid as a pet rock (like the perfessor), always lecturing people but never actually doing anything because that requires more than virtue signaling.

TWO: The ones who live off the tax code, avoiding taxes by setting up dummy corporations, family 'charitable' foundations and / or pretending to be all in on the fake mmgw scam, then buying multi-million dollar beach front homes, right where they claimed the rising tide would wipe out millions of people and living in energy sucking houses that use many times the electricity of any normal home and they always ride in private jets that spew fluorocarbons into the atmosphere at very high levels.

They're ALWAYS lying, always hypocrites and always living off the backs of the taxpayer just like the welfare queens and their worthless cycle of dependency.

Two guys in my neighborhood just bought new Ford trucks. One told me the dealer said 85% of his sales are trucks. Personally, I feel encouraged about our country when people, especially men, buy trucks. The spindly man-bun gammas in their Priuses creep me out.

Go after me, libs! I don't care!

If only they had spent that much time on the kid that did shoot up the school.

http://dcstatehoodyeswecan.org/j/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=293&Itemid=152

Boo hoo. Sounds like people who move next to an airport and complain about the noise. They can live elsewhere if representation in
Congress is so important.

If they cared about representation, they would promote getting absorbed by Maryland or Virginia.

What they want is to have that tiny 64 square miles have two senators to disproportionately sway the US Senate to the democrats.

Answer:  no.

I am starting to hate Silicon Valley.  Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Amazon, MSN, Google, Yahoo, and the rest of these Far Left activists.  Zuckerberg admitted their bias, and yes they did help Obama, and that was OK to the Media, of course.  Morons.

Racist!

Your in laws are just poor losers, and the grapes taste sour to them.  If Hillary had won the Electoral College, and thus the Presidency, and Trump the Popular Vote, they would be extolling the virtues of our system that's been in place, and worked for hundreds of years. 

They can make up excuses all they want, but what they are advocating is DEMOCRAT MOB RULE due to the urbanization of America.  The huge metro areas (cities, and suburbs) across the nation are solidly BLUE now.  They control entire states like CA, NY, NJ, MD, IL, MA, CT, RI, PA, etc.  It is a disturbing trend, and could mean the end of the two party system in the U.S. 

The fact that Trump was elected, and many Governors, and State legislators are Republican shows the resiliency of those voters outside of metro areas.  But, I fear it can not be sustained.   

 The progressives are tweaking and perfecting their "work around" of the electoral college.  They just weaponize various government agencies with ideological appointees that can't be fired, use the resources of the DoJ and the FBI for campaign opposition research, and for other government officials, such as SC justices and such that don't tow their line and do what they're told, they remind them about the files they have on them and how unfortunate it would be if those files were "leaked" to their MSM.

You concept was how our nation was intended to operate from the beginning. Even the name chosen represents that we are to be a group of states, which share attributes about liberty, and national defense. If one looks at the actual power delegated to the prez, they are surprisingly thin. Any reading of the Declaration of Ind will give clear evidence that they wanted no part of a king, or oligarch. The fed guv is out of control, and the powers assumed by the pres are all out of proportion to what was intended.

As for the senators, we should never have gone to popular election. I consider the upper chamber of the congress to be a deliberative body. Charged with seeing that the nation retain it's individualism and answer to the people of their own state. Appointment by the governors, or by the state legislature was the right thing to do. Moving anything toward democracy is a mistake.

As for the electoral college system, the way it's set up now is to prevent large states from having too big a democratic sway in the process. Frankly, I consider the needs of Wyoming to be nearly as important as the needs of CA. If the political landscape were switched from R to D in WY, I would still think the same way.