And Will They Ever Stop Saying,"Yah,But Hillary Got More Votes!!".? No One Cares Anymore !

[flacaltenn]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

Y'know, the only time I've seen references to Hillary getting more votes is in response to Republicans crowing about how 'the people have spoken'. It is irresistible to not point out that about 1.5 million more of them spoke for Hillary than Trump. It is a reminder that you do not have a mandate. Also, nobody believes the 4 million illegal votes either. p.s. Is that a symbol of you head banging a brick wall?

Exactly....that goddam Fox News was calling it a mandate!

The electoral college was established to fulfill a need. During the late 1700's, early 1800's people had to ride a mule or the rich ones travel by buggy just to cast a vote. It was to accommodate the activity of everyone voting. It should be done away with and whoever gets the most votes should gain the office. Don't you remember? Daniel Boone killed a bar.

It IS a mandate. The only mandate that matters: he won.

The EC isn't about "accommodating the activity of everyone voting". It's about exactly what it did in this election: preventing a bunch of assholes in a handful of cities from tyrannizing the rest of the country.

Oh, and preserving the sovereignty of the state from central government dipshits like you.

Horse shit!!

" When a politician wins an election by a wide margin, that's a mandate to implement his/her ideas."

Most voters opposed Trumps ideas

By far "most voters" INCLUDING the over 5MILL independent and 3rd party voters opposed BOTH of the meglomaniac power whores... Count all of the "popular vote" to get to that truth..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

One thing we can be sure of.......tax cuts for the wealthy. Reagan slashed them to 50 year lows and quadrupled the national debt. Bill Clinton handed George W. Bush a surplus and the first thing he did was cut rates for the rich twice then doubled the national debt from $5.7 to $12 trillion. In reality that's borrowing money from foreign banks and putting it directly into the pockets of the rich.

And DumBama doubled Bush's deficit. What's your point?

 

[flacaltenn]

I totally believe you're witnessing a political urban myth being created here. One that folks can fight about for the next 10 years. These dysfunction 2 party dynasties really know how to press your buttons.. .

 

[paperview]

Spin it any way you want -- the bottom line is:
She won more votes than anyone else. Period.

Basic math. Fact.

Spin it any way you want. The bottom line is:

He won.

Fact.

Have I disputed that? No. Fact.

Doesn't change the fact SHE DID get millions more votes. More votes than anyone else. Fact.

Pay attention to the topic and the comments to which I am responding.

Don't know what trash you're consuming to get MILLIONS of votes in her margin...

2016 presidential election results - Bing

Right now it's about 1.3Mill And besides the Trump votes, the segment of the pop vote that you are disenfranchising and dismissing --- THOSE pop votes went against her also and are currently near 6.5Mill or nearly 5% of the total pop vote. Now THERE'S MILLIONS of votes against Hillary...

Dismiss and ignore those voters AT YOUR PERIL... Because that's the future trend in American politics as the 2 brand name parties blow their exclusive franchise on voters.. Because of that the E-College will play an increasing role in the outcomes as the "pop vote margins" mean less and less as time goes on. Didn't need it before -- but we will need it NOW and in the future.

"Clinton has now expanded her popular-vote lead to more than 2 million (64.4 million to 62.3 million), the widest gap in raw vote in the history of the handful of times when the popular vote went the opposite direction as the Electoral College.

The only time it happened outside the 1800s was in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes over George W. Bush, but lost a contested race that came down to 537 votes in Florida.

Democrats have now won six of the last seven presidential popular votes but only won the presidency in four of those elections."

Clinton's Popular-Vote Lead Is Now Over 2 Million, But Don't Expect Big Changes

Hillary Clinton's lead in popular vote nears 2 million
CNN‎ - 2 days ago
Hillary Clinton's Lead Over Trump Passes 2 Million Votes
Clinton's lead in the popular vote surpasses 2 million - POLITICO
www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-lead-popular-vote-2016-231790
3 days ago - Clinton's lead in the popular vote surpasses 2 million. A half-dozen electors, those who will formally cast votes for Trump and Clinton on Dec.
Clinton's popular vote lead passes the 2 million mark - USA Today

AP has it at 1.3Million.. So does Fox News. So does Reuters. Someone's lying or crying.

At the Politico -- their source for the "vote count" is ----

""The former secretary of state has garnered 64,223,958 votes, compared to the president-elect’s 62,206,395, according to a count curated by Dave Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.""



My guess is that's Sgt Debby Wasserman's little brother blogging from his basement. You rabid partisan shills have to learn some critical thinking and reading skills.

lol. There's no relation, genio, and if you think the 2 million number is made up, you're in for a surprise.

It's surpassed the million mark, and growing.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow -- this ONE GUY gets around. From USAToday..

Thanks to votes still being counted in California and other western areas, Clinton's vote advantage hit the 2 million mark on Wednesday morning, according to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.

As of mid-day Wednesday, Wasserman's spread sheet had Clinton at 64,225,863 votes to Trump's 62,210,612.

Imagine now for a minute how it comes to be that this one "analyst" "CURATING" the vote count gets the entire credit for this "fake news story" in so many places. It's mind-bending that ONE GUY in America KNOWS the vote totals from the election..

And his Cook Political Report CLAIMS to be non-partisan, but every story of his I've seen REAKS of raw partisanship and bias.

 

[Cecilie1200]

U.S. Total
Clinton 64,637,140 ........... 48.2%
Trump.. 62,408,908........... 46.5%

Clinton + 2,228,232 Clinton + 1.7 %

All those heavily attended rallies could not win the popular vote

Didn't need to win the popular vote, did he?

Nope, he had no need to win some apocryphal "popular vote" that means nothing except the left denying that they lost.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's been two weeks now, and the loonies are still being crybabies on cable news shows, still bringing up the fact that Hillary got more votes, therefore Trump shouldn't be President. Yet, these blockhead commentators also know that up to 4 Million of the votes came from illegals from the whole west coast/chicago and the northeast.

Did these rats also take notice that Trump had the most votes coming in until the end of the night when Finally the west coast states started calling in their totals? This happened with Al Gore too! Bush was ahead,{although by a small margin}, then later California called in their votes,super-seeding the Bush votes, and finally Bush won Florida sending Al Gore off to the North Pole looking for bears living on sheets of ice.

Y'know, the only time I've seen references to Hillary getting more votes is in response to Republicans crowing about how 'the people have spoken'. It is irresistible to not point out that about 1.5 million more of them spoke for Hillary than Trump. It is a reminder that you do not have a mandate. Also, nobody believes the 4 million illegal votes either. p.s. Is that a symbol of you head banging a brick wall?

Exactly....that goddam Fox News was calling it a mandate!

The electoral college was established to fulfill a need. During the late 1700's, early 1800's people had to ride a mule or the rich ones travel by buggy just to cast a vote. It was to accommodate the activity of everyone voting. It should be done away with and whoever gets the most votes should gain the office. Don't you remember? Daniel Boone killed a bar.

It IS a mandate. The only mandate that matters: he won.

The EC isn't about "accommodating the activity of everyone voting". It's about exactly what it did in this election: preventing a bunch of assholes in a handful of cities from tyrannizing the rest of the country.

Oh, and preserving the sovereignty of the state from central government dipshits like you.

Horse shit!!

" When a politician wins an election by a wide margin, that's a mandate to implement his/her ideas."

Sorry to break it to you, Sparkles, but when a politicians wins an election, THAT'S a mandate to implement his/her ideas. Proof? If the results had been reversed, there wouldn't be a word out of you about how Hillary "doesn't have a mandate" and shouldn't start implementing HER agenda. You'd be shouting from the rooftops about all the leftist goodies she should be pushing for from day one. And don't even try to tell me you wouldn't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Spin it any way you want. The bottom line is:

He won.

Fact.

Have I disputed that? No. Fact.

Doesn't change the fact SHE DID get millions more votes. More votes than anyone else. Fact.

Pay attention to the topic and the comments to which I am responding.

Don't know what trash you're consuming to get MILLIONS of votes in her margin...

2016 presidential election results - Bing

Right now it's about 1.3Mill And besides the Trump votes, the segment of the pop vote that you are disenfranchising and dismissing --- THOSE pop votes went against her also and are currently near 6.5Mill or nearly 5% of the total pop vote. Now THERE'S MILLIONS of votes against Hillary...

Dismiss and ignore those voters AT YOUR PERIL... Because that's the future trend in American politics as the 2 brand name parties blow their exclusive franchise on voters.. Because of that the E-College will play an increasing role in the outcomes as the "pop vote margins" mean less and less as time goes on. Didn't need it before -- but we will need it NOW and in the future.

"Clinton has now expanded her popular-vote lead to more than 2 million (64.4 million to 62.3 million), the widest gap in raw vote in the history of the handful of times when the popular vote went the opposite direction as the Electoral College.

The only time it happened outside the 1800s was in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes over George W. Bush, but lost a contested race that came down to 537 votes in Florida.

Democrats have now won six of the last seven presidential popular votes but only won the presidency in four of those elections."

Clinton's Popular-Vote Lead Is Now Over 2 Million, But Don't Expect Big Changes

Hillary Clinton's lead in popular vote nears 2 million
CNN‎ - 2 days ago
Hillary Clinton's Lead Over Trump Passes 2 Million Votes
Clinton's lead in the popular vote surpasses 2 million - POLITICO
www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-lead-popular-vote-2016-231790
3 days ago - Clinton's lead in the popular vote surpasses 2 million. A half-dozen electors, those who will formally cast votes for Trump and Clinton on Dec.
Clinton's popular vote lead passes the 2 million mark - USA Today

AP has it at 1.3Million.. So does Fox News. So does Reuters. Someone's lying or crying.

At the Politico -- their source for the "vote count" is ----

""The former secretary of state has garnered 64,223,958 votes, compared to the president-elect’s 62,206,395, according to a count curated by Dave Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.""



My guess is that's Sgt Debby Wasserman's little brother blogging from his basement. You rabid partisan shills have to learn some critical thinking and reading skills.

lol. There's no relation, genio, and if you think the 2 million number is made up, you're in for a surprise.

It's surpassed the million mark, and growing.

That and a gift card will get you a cup of coffee. Beyond that, it doesn't matter a fart in a windstorm.

 

[Cecilie1200]

She got more votes than Donald, but not more pop votes than the ones that were cast for ALL the other choices. You have no idea what a race without 4 choices would have looked it. You can't invent the data for it.. 52% of voters DID NOT CHOOSE HER... Don't disenfranchise them.

What you are doing with this pop vote thing -- is trying to convince yourself that she got more votes than the competitive field. MY vote was not for Hillary or Trump --- and it matters 5 times more in the statistics than what you are claiming "her margin of victory" was.

The pop vote was NOT a 2 way race.

Spin it any way you want -- the bottom line is:
She won more votes than anyone else. Period.

Basic math. Fact.

Spin it any way you want. The bottom line is:

He won.

Fact.

Have I disputed that? No. Fact.

Doesn't change the fact SHE DID get millions more votes. More votes than anyone else. Fact.

Pay attention to the topic and the comments to which I am responding.

Don't know what trash you're consuming to get MILLIONS of votes in her margin...

2016 presidential election results - Bing

Right now it's about 1.3Mill And besides the Trump votes, the segment of the pop vote that you are disenfranchising and dismissing --- THOSE pop votes went against her also and are currently near 6.5Mill or nearly 5% of the total pop vote. Now THERE'S MILLIONS of votes against Hillary...

Dismiss and ignore those voters AT YOUR PERIL... Because that's the future trend in American politics as the 2 brand name parties blow their exclusive franchise on voters.. Because of that the E-College will play an increasing role in the outcomes as the "pop vote margins" mean less and less as time goes on. Didn't need it before -- but we will need it NOW and in the future.

"Clinton has now expanded her popular-vote lead to more than 2 million (64.4 million to 62.3 million), the widest gap in raw vote in the history of the handful of times when the popular vote went the opposite direction as the Electoral College.

The only time it happened outside the 1800s was in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes over George W. Bush, but lost a contested race that came down to 537 votes in Florida.

Democrats have now won six of the last seven presidential popular votes but only won the presidency in four of those elections."

Clinton's Popular-Vote Lead Is Now Over 2 Million, But Don't Expect Big Changes

Hillary Clinton's lead in popular vote nears 2 million
CNN‎ - 2 days ago
Hillary Clinton's Lead Over Trump Passes 2 Million Votes
Clinton's lead in the popular vote surpasses 2 million - POLITICO
www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-lead-popular-vote-2016-231790
3 days ago - Clinton's lead in the popular vote surpasses 2 million. A half-dozen electors, those who will formally cast votes for Trump and Clinton on Dec.
Clinton's popular vote lead passes the 2 million mark - USA Today

Now tell me something that matters.

 

[Campbell]

One thing we can be sure of.......tax cuts for the wealthy. Reagan slashed them to 50 year lows and quadrupled the national debt. Bill Clinton handed George W. Bush a surplus and the first thing he did was cut rates for the rich twice then doubled the national debt from $5.7 to $12 trillion. In reality that's borrowing money from foreign banks and putting it directly into the pockets of the rich.

And DumBama doubled Bush's deficit. What's your point?

You folks aren't very good at math......among other things. The biggest expense Obama had to take care of was the interest on the Reagan/Bushes debt. He stopped two hot wars and didn't start another one......a trick the Republicans need to learn:

 

[rightwinger]

Y'know, the only time I've seen references to Hillary getting more votes is in response to Republicans crowing about how 'the people have spoken'. It is irresistible to not point out that about 1.5 million more of them spoke for Hillary than Trump. It is a reminder that you do not have a mandate. Also, nobody believes the 4 million illegal votes either. p.s. Is that a symbol of you head banging a brick wall?

Exactly....that goddam Fox News was calling it a mandate!

The electoral college was established to fulfill a need. During the late 1700's, early 1800's people had to ride a mule or the rich ones travel by buggy just to cast a vote. It was to accommodate the activity of everyone voting. It should be done away with and whoever gets the most votes should gain the office. Don't you remember? Daniel Boone killed a bar.

It IS a mandate. The only mandate that matters: he won.

The EC isn't about "accommodating the activity of everyone voting". It's about exactly what it did in this election: preventing a bunch of assholes in a handful of cities from tyrannizing the rest of the country.

Oh, and preserving the sovereignty of the state from central government dipshits like you.

Horse shit!!

" When a politician wins an election by a wide margin, that's a mandate to implement his/her ideas."

Most voters opposed Trumps ideas

By far "most voters" INCLUDING the over 5MILL independent and 3rd party voters opposed BOTH of the meglomaniac power whores... Count all of the "popular vote" to get to that truth..

Most voters did not vote for Trump

Any way you cut it

 

[Auld Phart]

Exactly....that goddam Fox News was calling it a mandate!

The electoral college was established to fulfill a need. During the late 1700's, early 1800's people had to ride a mule or the rich ones travel by buggy just to cast a vote. It was to accommodate the activity of everyone voting. It should be done away with and whoever gets the most votes should gain the office. Don't you remember? Daniel Boone killed a bar.

It IS a mandate. The only mandate that matters: he won.

The EC isn't about "accommodating the activity of everyone voting". It's about exactly what it did in this election: preventing a bunch of assholes in a handful of cities from tyrannizing the rest of the country.

Oh, and preserving the sovereignty of the state from central government dipshits like you.

Horse shit!!

" When a politician wins an election by a wide margin, that's a mandate to implement his/her ideas."

Most voters opposed Trumps ideas

By far "most voters" INCLUDING the over 5MILL independent and 3rd party voters opposed BOTH of the meglomaniac power whores... Count all of the "popular vote" to get to that truth..

Most voters did not vote for Trump

Any way you cut it

Most voters did not vote for Trump

MOST voters didn't vote for anyone.

and it only matters who got the most votes per state.

 

[paperview]

Wow -- this ONE GUY gets around. From USAToday..

Thanks to votes still being counted in California and other western areas, Clinton's vote advantage hit the 2 million mark on Wednesday morning, according to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.

As of mid-day Wednesday, Wasserman's spread sheet had Clinton at 64,225,863 votes to Trump's 62,210,612.

Imagine now for a minute how it comes to be that this one "analyst" "CURATING" the vote count gets the entire credit for this "fake news story" in so many places. It's mind-bending that ONE GUY in America KNOWS the vote totals from the election..

And his Cook Political Report CLAIMS to be non-partisan, but every story of his I've seen REAKS of raw partisanship and bias.

From your beloved Fox News: "Clinton, who was the Democratic presidential nominee, leads the national popular vote by close to 2 million votes."

Clinton team joins Stein's three-state vote recount that begins in Wisconsin

It's pretty funny you think it's all being hjinxed and the folks are making up the numbers.

More LOLZ in your future.

Not that it matters in the EC longhaul, but that you think it's "fake news" is hilarious.

It's even better knowing you guys and Trump would be flipping their ever loving minds were the situation reversed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

One thing we can be sure of.......tax cuts for the wealthy. Reagan slashed them to 50 year lows and quadrupled the national debt. Bill Clinton handed George W. Bush a surplus and the first thing he did was cut rates for the rich twice then doubled the national debt from $5.7 to $12 trillion. In reality that's borrowing money from foreign banks and putting it directly into the pockets of the rich.

And DumBama doubled Bush's deficit. What's your point?

You folks aren't very good at math......among other things. The biggest expense Obama had to take care of was the interest on the Reagan/Bushes debt. He stopped two hot wars and didn't start another one......a trick the Republicans need to learn:

When are you ever going to learn something about our government? The President doesn't spend our money--the Congress does, and our Congress has been Republican led.

 

[flacaltenn]

Exactly....that goddam Fox News was calling it a mandate!

The electoral college was established to fulfill a need. During the late 1700's, early 1800's people had to ride a mule or the rich ones travel by buggy just to cast a vote. It was to accommodate the activity of everyone voting. It should be done away with and whoever gets the most votes should gain the office. Don't you remember? Daniel Boone killed a bar.

It IS a mandate. The only mandate that matters: he won.

The EC isn't about "accommodating the activity of everyone voting". It's about exactly what it did in this election: preventing a bunch of assholes in a handful of cities from tyrannizing the rest of the country.

Oh, and preserving the sovereignty of the state from central government dipshits like you.

Horse shit!!

" When a politician wins an election by a wide margin, that's a mandate to implement his/her ideas."

Most voters opposed Trumps ideas

By far "most voters" INCLUDING the over 5MILL independent and 3rd party voters opposed BOTH of the meglomaniac power whores... Count all of the "popular vote" to get to that truth..

Most voters did not vote for Trump

Any way you cut it

Fine.. Most voters didn't vote for Clinton either. So her "pop vote" is nowhere NEAR a mandate to change the election or beat on the E-College.

In fact "those other voters" most certainly cost her Michigan, maybe a couple other states. As they cost Trump New Hamp and maybe another. The Pop vote for Independents and 3rd parties was near 6 Million. And they rejected BOTH of them..

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow -- this ONE GUY gets around. From USAToday..

Thanks to votes still being counted in California and other western areas, Clinton's vote advantage hit the 2 million mark on Wednesday morning, according to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.

As of mid-day Wednesday, Wasserman's spread sheet had Clinton at 64,225,863 votes to Trump's 62,210,612.

Imagine now for a minute how it comes to be that this one "analyst" "CURATING" the vote count gets the entire credit for this "fake news story" in so many places. It's mind-bending that ONE GUY in America KNOWS the vote totals from the election..

And his Cook Political Report CLAIMS to be non-partisan, but every story of his I've seen REAKS of raw partisanship and bias.

From your beloved Fox News: "Clinton, who was the Democratic presidential nominee, leads the national popular vote by close to 2 million votes."

Clinton team joins Stein's three-state vote recount that begins in Wisconsin

It's pretty funny you think it's all being hjinxed and the folks are making up the numbers.

More LOLZ in your future.

Not that it matters in the EC longhaul, but that you think it's "fake news" is hilarious.

It's even better knowing you guys and Trump would be flipping their ever loving minds were the situation reversed.

Probably lazy journalist using the NYTimes reprint of the CURATOR David Wasserman. Because their election totals are STILL up and STILL updated and it shows closer to 1.3Mill...

2016 Presidential Election Headquarters

Learn to read and THINK critically.. Not just look for some odd random jerk to repeat the garbage...

 

[paperview]

Wow -- this ONE GUY gets around. From USAToday..

Thanks to votes still being counted in California and other western areas, Clinton's vote advantage hit the 2 million mark on Wednesday morning, according to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.

As of mid-day Wednesday, Wasserman's spread sheet had Clinton at 64,225,863 votes to Trump's 62,210,612.

Imagine now for a minute how it comes to be that this one "analyst" "CURATING" the vote count gets the entire credit for this "fake news story" in so many places. It's mind-bending that ONE GUY in America KNOWS the vote totals from the election..

And his Cook Political Report CLAIMS to be non-partisan, but every story of his I've seen REAKS of raw partisanship and bias.

From your beloved Fox News: "Clinton, who was the Democratic presidential nominee, leads the national popular vote by close to 2 million votes."

Clinton team joins Stein's three-state vote recount that begins in Wisconsin

It's pretty funny you think it's all being hjinxed and the folks are making up the numbers.

More LOLZ in your future.

Not that it matters in the EC longhaul, but that you think it's "fake news" is hilarious.

It's even better knowing you guys and Trump would be flipping their ever loving minds were the situation reversed.

Probably lazy journalist using the NYTimes reprint of the CURATOR David Wasserman. Because their election totals are STILL up and STILL updated and it shows closer to 1.3Mill...

2016 Presidential Election Headquarters

Learn to read and THINK critically.. Not just look for some odd random jerk to repeat the garbage...

lol. Bookmarked.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow -- this ONE GUY gets around. From USAToday..

Thanks to votes still being counted in California and other western areas, Clinton's vote advantage hit the 2 million mark on Wednesday morning, according to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.

As of mid-day Wednesday, Wasserman's spread sheet had Clinton at 64,225,863 votes to Trump's 62,210,612.

Imagine now for a minute how it comes to be that this one "analyst" "CURATING" the vote count gets the entire credit for this "fake news story" in so many places. It's mind-bending that ONE GUY in America KNOWS the vote totals from the election..

And his Cook Political Report CLAIMS to be non-partisan, but every story of his I've seen REAKS of raw partisanship and bias.

From your beloved Fox News: "Clinton, who was the Democratic presidential nominee, leads the national popular vote by close to 2 million votes."

Clinton team joins Stein's three-state vote recount that begins in Wisconsin

It's pretty funny you think it's all being hjinxed and the folks are making up the numbers.

More LOLZ in your future.

Not that it matters in the EC longhaul, but that you think it's "fake news" is hilarious.

It's even better knowing you guys and Trump would be flipping their ever loving minds were the situation reversed.

Probably lazy journalist using the NYTimes reprint of the CURATOR David Wasserman. Because their election totals are STILL up and STILL updated and it shows closer to 1.3Mill...

2016 Presidential Election Headquarters

Learn to read and THINK critically.. Not just look for some odd random jerk to repeat the garbage...

lol. Bookmarked.

Well then you should bookmark the "horse's mouth" also. Because that ONE GUY that says he knows what's going on ---- isn't visiting the Supervisor of Cali office website enough..

http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2016-general/unprocessed-ballots-report.pdf

2016 General Election Results | California Secretary of State

In the 1st link as of Nov 23rd, there were only 1.4Mill provisional and outstanding ballots. And more than HALF of those counties are in the RED sections of the state. San Fran, Alameda, Contra Costa in the North have NOTHING left to give. You can check the LA area for the rest of HER votes...

 

[Campbell]

One thing we can be sure of.......tax cuts for the wealthy. Reagan slashed them to 50 year lows and quadrupled the national debt. Bill Clinton handed George W. Bush a surplus and the first thing he did was cut rates for the rich twice then doubled the national debt from $5.7 to $12 trillion. In reality that's borrowing money from foreign banks and putting it directly into the pockets of the rich.

And DumBama doubled Bush's deficit. What's your point?

You folks aren't very good at math......among other things. The biggest expense Obama had to take care of was the interest on the Reagan/Bushes debt. He stopped two hot wars and didn't start another one......a trick the Republicans need to learn:

When are you ever going to learn something about our government? The President doesn't spend our money--the Congress does, and our Congress has been Republican led.

That's without a doubt the most naïve thing I've ever read here and brudder there have been some doozies. Are you saying that the congress won't let presidents spend money? The congress can't spend a dime that the president doesn't approve.....plus, he has veto power over them.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow -- this ONE GUY gets around. From USAToday..

Thanks to votes still being counted in California and other western areas, Clinton's vote advantage hit the 2 million mark on Wednesday morning, according to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.

As of mid-day Wednesday, Wasserman's spread sheet had Clinton at 64,225,863 votes to Trump's 62,210,612.

Imagine now for a minute how it comes to be that this one "analyst" "CURATING" the vote count gets the entire credit for this "fake news story" in so many places. It's mind-bending that ONE GUY in America KNOWS the vote totals from the election..

And his Cook Political Report CLAIMS to be non-partisan, but every story of his I've seen REAKS of raw partisanship and bias.

From your beloved Fox News: "Clinton, who was the Democratic presidential nominee, leads the national popular vote by close to 2 million votes."

Clinton team joins Stein's three-state vote recount that begins in Wisconsin

It's pretty funny you think it's all being hjinxed and the folks are making up the numbers.

More LOLZ in your future.

Not that it matters in the EC longhaul, but that you think it's "fake news" is hilarious.

It's even better knowing you guys and Trump would be flipping their ever loving minds were the situation reversed.

Probably lazy journalist using the NYTimes reprint of the CURATOR David Wasserman. Because their election totals are STILL up and STILL updated and it shows closer to 1.3Mill...

2016 Presidential Election Headquarters

Learn to read and THINK critically.. Not just look for some odd random jerk to repeat the garbage...

lol. Bookmarked.

Well then you should bookmark the "horse's mouth" also. Because that ONE GUY that says he knows what's going on ---- isn't visiting the Supervisor of Cali office website enough..

http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2016-general/unprocessed-ballots-report.pdf

2016 General Election Results | California Secretary of State

In the 1st link as of Nov 23rd, there were only 1.4Mill provisional and outstanding ballots. And more than HALF of those counties are in the RED sections of the state. San Fran, Alameda, Contra Costa in the North have NOTHING left to give. You can check the LA area for the rest of HER votes...

And out of that 1.4 Mill outstanding.. 900,000 were "provisionals" which means horseshit folks who showed up NOT ON the rolls.. Good luck with that..