Ok. You're arguing that Hillary won some states by small margins, that the popular vote does not mean anything, that the intentions of the founding fathers were to avoid catering to densely populated areas, that liberals claim Trump's states were empty, that there are external forces causing people to think alike in the same region. You're all over the place. None of this has anything to do with the specific statement of yours that I have countered. Once again, here is the single isolated statement of yours that I am countering: "SO THE QUESTION BECOMES: Facts do not lie. How does Trump win THIRTY states, win the popular vote in each, and nearly all of his states were more populated than the concomitant state won by Hillary in the first place, yet STILL COME OUT LOSING THE NATIONAL POPULAR COUNT by 2.8 million? Heads up: THAT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE." There is nothing in that quoted statement of yours about founding fathers intentions, central thinknets, empty states, or anything else you brought up in this diatribe of yours. I'm not sure if you're having a difficult time focusing on it or if you're intentionally trying to throw in unrelated statements, but I'll once again direct you to the specific quote of yours above that I have countered. My argument is with that specific statement and my argument with that is a mathematical argument - not based on rhetoric about group-think or founding fathers. I mathematically disproved that specific quoted claim of yours. Twice.