Donald Trump had more votes against him than he did for him.

[Faun]

In Raleigh, Trump claims he received most-ever GOP votes

To be specific he received around 14 million votes but 16 million Republicans voted for SOMEONE ELSE. This is not to suggest he didn't win because he did, fair & square. This is just to educate dumbfucks who don't understand basic math.
Trump set a record for most votes received but he also set another record.....the most votes against him.

The MAJORITY of gop voters voted AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. Those FACTS are undisputed.

4th grade math should not be hard but apparently for some it is.

Tends to happen when u have 16 opponents

And in how many states do your delusions tell you Trump ran against 16 opponents?

 

[ptbw forever]

Let's boil this down to the basics.

1. Did Trump receive more votes than that of the other candidates combined?

2. Does that mean more people were for him or against him?

3. Did you fail 4th grade?

And you counted only those who (actively) chose somebody else, not those who (passively) sat it out and didn't see any viable choice at all, including Rump. There's no number for that but they all didn't want Rump either.

Also this is an open primary state. Independents like me can vote in whichever party's election they want, but we have to pick one. I didn't vote against Rump because I figured my vote would be better served on the other side. But obviously I would have voted against him vehemently if that had not been the case. And there's a lot more of me where I come from.

Trump won with the most votes ever....

Where do you suppose those 'Republicans' randomly spawned from? No, Republicans did not vote for the first time ever just to vote for Trump. To elaborate on the original post, the reason more Republicans voted for the other candidates was because the majority of "record votes" Trump was getting was from Democrats. It's why he consistently did better in open ballots, despite his lack of specifics on his policies. the Democrats were 'helping' us vote for the candidate they figured had the best chance of losing to Hillary. Yes, some Republicans did vote for Trump, but no, Republicans as a party did not nominate Trump.

Is that why he is getting 20% of the Sanders supporters even today?

He got a lot of Democrat votes because he isn't a traditional Republican. Democrats actually like him almost as much as Republicans do.

Sanders isn't a Democrat either. And his voters have nothing whatsoever in common with Rump. The two candidates could not possibly be more opposite of each other.

Being "not a traditional Democrat/Republican" is not a trait per se. It's simply the absence of something. Neither one has a tail either but that doesn't make them 'similar'.

If he isn't a Democrat, then why did he enthusiastically endorse Hillary today?

 

[Pogo]

And you counted only those who (actively) chose somebody else, not those who (passively) sat it out and didn't see any viable choice at all, including Rump. There's no number for that but they all didn't want Rump either.

Also this is an open primary state. Independents like me can vote in whichever party's election they want, but we have to pick one. I didn't vote against Rump because I figured my vote would be better served on the other side. But obviously I would have voted against him vehemently if that had not been the case. And there's a lot more of me where I come from.

Trump won with the most votes ever....

Where do you suppose those 'Republicans' randomly spawned from? No, Republicans did not vote for the first time ever just to vote for Trump. To elaborate on the original post, the reason more Republicans voted for the other candidates was because the majority of "record votes" Trump was getting was from Democrats. It's why he consistently did better in open ballots, despite his lack of specifics on his policies. the Democrats were 'helping' us vote for the candidate they figured had the best chance of losing to Hillary. Yes, some Republicans did vote for Trump, but no, Republicans as a party did not nominate Trump.

Is that why he is getting 20% of the Sanders supporters even today?

He got a lot of Democrat votes because he isn't a traditional Republican. Democrats actually like him almost as much as Republicans do.

Sanders isn't a Democrat either. And his voters have nothing whatsoever in common with Rump. The two candidates could not possibly be more opposite of each other.

Being "not a traditional Democrat/Republican" is not a trait per se. It's simply the absence of something. Neither one has a tail either but that doesn't make them 'similar'.

If he isn't a Democrat, then why did he enthusiastically endorse Hillary today?

That doesn't make sense. You don't have to be part of a political party to make an endorsement. Don't you know that?

 

[Pogo]

In Raleigh, Trump claims he received most-ever GOP votes

To be specific he received around 14 million votes but 16 million Republicans voted for SOMEONE ELSE. This is not to suggest he didn't win because he did, fair & square. This is just to educate dumbfucks who don't understand basic math.
Trump set a record for most votes received but he also set another record.....the most votes against him.

The MAJORITY of gop voters voted AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. Those FACTS are undisputed.

4th grade math should not be hard but apparently for some it is.

Tends to happen when u have 16 opponents

And in how many states do your delusions tell you Trump ran against 16 opponents?

I bet he's counting John Barron and John Miller though.

 

[ptbw forever]

Trump won with the most votes ever....

Where do you suppose those 'Republicans' randomly spawned from? No, Republicans did not vote for the first time ever just to vote for Trump. To elaborate on the original post, the reason more Republicans voted for the other candidates was because the majority of "record votes" Trump was getting was from Democrats. It's why he consistently did better in open ballots, despite his lack of specifics on his policies. the Democrats were 'helping' us vote for the candidate they figured had the best chance of losing to Hillary. Yes, some Republicans did vote for Trump, but no, Republicans as a party did not nominate Trump.

Is that why he is getting 20% of the Sanders supporters even today?

He got a lot of Democrat votes because he isn't a traditional Republican. Democrats actually like him almost as much as Republicans do.

Sanders isn't a Democrat either. And his voters have nothing whatsoever in common with Rump. The two candidates could not possibly be more opposite of each other.

Being "not a traditional Democrat/Republican" is not a trait per se. It's simply the absence of something. Neither one has a tail either but that doesn't make them 'similar'.

If he isn't a Democrat, then why did he enthusiastically endorse Hillary today?

That doesn't make sense. You don't have to be part of a political party to make an endorsement. Don't you know that?

Why isn't he endorsing Johnson, or some other more independent candidate?

He is a hack moron.

 

[Pogo]

Where do you suppose those 'Republicans' randomly spawned from? No, Republicans did not vote for the first time ever just to vote for Trump. To elaborate on the original post, the reason more Republicans voted for the other candidates was because the majority of "record votes" Trump was getting was from Democrats. It's why he consistently did better in open ballots, despite his lack of specifics on his policies. the Democrats were 'helping' us vote for the candidate they figured had the best chance of losing to Hillary. Yes, some Republicans did vote for Trump, but no, Republicans as a party did not nominate Trump.

Is that why he is getting 20% of the Sanders supporters even today?

He got a lot of Democrat votes because he isn't a traditional Republican. Democrats actually like him almost as much as Republicans do.

Sanders isn't a Democrat either. And his voters have nothing whatsoever in common with Rump. The two candidates could not possibly be more opposite of each other.

Being "not a traditional Democrat/Republican" is not a trait per se. It's simply the absence of something. Neither one has a tail either but that doesn't make them 'similar'.

If he isn't a Democrat, then why did he enthusiastically endorse Hillary today?

That doesn't make sense. You don't have to be part of a political party to make an endorsement. Don't you know that?

Why isn't he endorsing Johnson, or some other more independent candidate?

He is a hack moron.

I don't know that he's "endorsing" anybody -- you gave no link -- but if he were endorsing Johnson he wouldn't need to join the Libertarian Party first. And you know what else? Don't spread this around but... if he were endorsing Jill Stein he wouldn't need to turn Green first.

 

[ptbw forever]

Is that why he is getting 20% of the Sanders supporters even today?

He got a lot of Democrat votes because he isn't a traditional Republican. Democrats actually like him almost as much as Republicans do.

Sanders isn't a Democrat either. And his voters have nothing whatsoever in common with Rump. The two candidates could not possibly be more opposite of each other.

Being "not a traditional Democrat/Republican" is not a trait per se. It's simply the absence of something. Neither one has a tail either but that doesn't make them 'similar'.

If he isn't a Democrat, then why did he enthusiastically endorse Hillary today?

That doesn't make sense. You don't have to be part of a political party to make an endorsement. Don't you know that?

Why isn't he endorsing Johnson, or some other more independent candidate?

He is a hack moron.

I don't know that he's "endorsing" anybody -- you gave no link -- but if he were endorsing Johnson he wouldn't need to join the Libertarian Party first. And you know what else? Don't spread this around but... if he were endorsing Jill Stein he wouldn't need to turn Green first.

Are you serious?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

​

Thought I made it clear, I'm not here to play stupid can-you-out-obtuse-this word games.
Unsubscribed.

Fuck off. I've seen you do this in thread after thread to bury serious debate on issues at hand.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

So, to the OP I ask, does this mean all of those that you say voted "against" Trump in the primary, will now be voting for Hillary ?

All's this means is there were many choices during most of the primary, and Trump came away with a bigger slice than any other candidate.

Now, if ALL of these voters who you say voted "against" Trump do so in the general election, then you'll have something. If not, then this is just useless trivia.

 

[Harry Dresden]

In Raleigh, Trump claims he received most-ever GOP votes

To be specific he received around 14 million votes but 16 million Republicans voted for SOMEONE ELSE. This is not to suggest he didn't win because he did, fair & square. This is just to educate dumbfucks who don't understand basic math.
Trump set a record for most votes received but he also set another record.....the most votes against him.

The MAJORITY of gop voters voted AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. Those FACTS are undisputed.

4th grade math should not be hard but apparently for some it is.

And if he doesn't win, his supporters will blame the Republicans who refused to vote for him.

You know, those people who Trump and his supporters have been insulting for a couple of years.
.

if trump cant convince people to vote for him....thats on him....

 

[Harry Dresden]

And you counted only those who (actively) chose somebody else, not those who (passively) sat it out and didn't see any viable choice at all, including Rump. There's no number for that but they all didn't want Rump either.

Also this is an open primary state. Independents like me can vote in whichever party's election they want, but we have to pick one. I didn't vote against Rump because I figured my vote would be better served on the other side. But obviously I would have voted against him vehemently if that had not been the case. And there's a lot more of me where I come from.

Trump won with the most votes ever....

Where do you suppose those 'Republicans' randomly spawned from? No, Republicans did not vote for the first time ever just to vote for Trump. To elaborate on the original post, the reason more Republicans voted for the other candidates was because the majority of "record votes" Trump was getting was from Democrats. It's why he consistently did better in open ballots, despite his lack of specifics on his policies. the Democrats were 'helping' us vote for the candidate they figured had the best chance of losing to Hillary. Yes, some Republicans did vote for Trump, but no, Republicans as a party did not nominate Trump.

Is that why he is getting 20% of the Sanders supporters even today?

He got a lot of Democrat votes because he isn't a traditional Republican. Democrats actually like him almost as much as Republicans do.

Sanders isn't a Democrat either. And his voters have nothing whatsoever in common with Rump. The two candidates could not possibly be more opposite of each other.

Being "not a traditional Democrat/Republican" is not a trait per se. It's simply the absence of something. Neither one has a tail either but that doesn't make them 'similar'.

If he isn't a Democrat, then why did he enthusiastically endorse Hillary today?

because he is a hypocrite....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Sanders isn't a Democrat either. And his voters have nothing whatsoever in common with Rump. The two candidates could not possibly be more opposite of each other.

Being "not a traditional Democrat/Republican" is not a trait per se. It's simply the absence of something. Neither one has a tail either but that doesn't make them 'similar'.

If he isn't a Democrat, then why did he enthusiastically endorse Hillary today?

That doesn't make sense. You don't have to be part of a political party to make an endorsement. Don't you know that?

Why isn't he endorsing Johnson, or some other more independent candidate?

He is a hack moron.

I don't know that he's "endorsing" anybody -- you gave no link -- but if he were endorsing Johnson he wouldn't need to join the Libertarian Party first. And you know what else? Don't spread this around but... if he were endorsing Jill Stein he wouldn't need to turn Green first.

Are you serious?

Pogo is one of the most serious people in this forum....

 

[ptbw forever]

If he isn't a Democrat, then why did he enthusiastically endorse Hillary today?

That doesn't make sense. You don't have to be part of a political party to make an endorsement. Don't you know that?

Why isn't he endorsing Johnson, or some other more independent candidate?

He is a hack moron.

I don't know that he's "endorsing" anybody -- you gave no link -- but if he were endorsing Johnson he wouldn't need to join the Libertarian Party first. And you know what else? Don't spread this around but... if he were endorsing Jill Stein he wouldn't need to turn Green first.

Are you serious?

Pogo is one of the most serious people in this forum....

He must just be an idiot then. Sanders clearly endorsed Hillary today for everyone to see.

 

[Pogo]

​

Thought I made it clear, I'm not here to play stupid can-you-out-obtuse-this word games.
Unsubscribed.

Fuck off. I've seen you do this in thread after thread to bury serious debate on issues at hand.

Irony alert. Gasbag sees the word "obtuse" and salivates.
Good boy. Here's biscuit.

 

[Pogo]

That doesn't make sense. You don't have to be part of a political party to make an endorsement. Don't you know that?

Why isn't he endorsing Johnson, or some other more independent candidate?

He is a hack moron.

I don't know that he's "endorsing" anybody -- you gave no link -- but if he were endorsing Johnson he wouldn't need to join the Libertarian Party first. And you know what else? Don't spread this around but... if he were endorsing Jill Stein he wouldn't need to turn Green first.

Are you serious?

Pogo is one of the most serious people in this forum....

He must just be an idiot then. Sanders clearly endorsed Hillary today for everyone to see.

Maybe I work and don't spend the day addicted to a TV set. Oh wait, that's right --- I don't even have one.

Now that we've cleared that up why don't you show and tell the class what "ptbw" stands for.
That is, if you can tear yourself away from the Telescreen.

 

[ptbw forever]

Why isn't he endorsing Johnson, or some other more independent candidate?

He is a hack moron.

I don't know that he's "endorsing" anybody -- you gave no link -- but if he were endorsing Johnson he wouldn't need to join the Libertarian Party first. And you know what else? Don't spread this around but... if he were endorsing Jill Stein he wouldn't need to turn Green first.

Are you serious?

Pogo is one of the most serious people in this forum....

He must just be an idiot then. Sanders clearly endorsed Hillary today for everyone to see.

Maybe I work and don't spend the day addicted to a TV set. Oh wait, that's right --- I don't even have one.

Now that we've cleared that up why don't you show and tell the class what "ptbw" stands for.
That is, if you can tear yourself away from the Telescreen.

You don't have a television where you work? You don't have a car radio? Can you not read the numerous threads on this forum about that particular subject?

What makes you think people can't or don't look at, or listen to the news at their place of work?


As for my username, you will have to find that in one of the other threads where I explained it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Where do you suppose those 'Republicans' randomly spawned from? No, Republicans did not vote for the first time ever just to vote for Trump. To elaborate on the original post, the reason more Republicans voted for the other candidates was because the majority of "record votes" Trump was getting was from Democrats. It's why he consistently did better in open ballots, despite his lack of specifics on his policies. the Democrats were 'helping' us vote for the candidate they figured had the best chance of losing to Hillary. Yes, some Republicans did vote for Trump, but no, Republicans as a party did not nominate Trump.

Is that why he is getting 20% of the Sanders supporters even today?

He got a lot of Democrat votes because he isn't a traditional Republican. Democrats actually like him almost as much as Republicans do.

Sanders isn't a Democrat either. And his voters have nothing whatsoever in common with Rump. The two candidates could not possibly be more opposite of each other.

Being "not a traditional Democrat/Republican" is not a trait per se. It's simply the absence of something. Neither one has a tail either but that doesn't make them 'similar'.

If he isn't a Democrat, then why did he enthusiastically endorse Hillary today?

That doesn't make sense. You don't have to be part of a political party to make an endorsement. Don't you know that?

Why isn't he endorsing Johnson, or some other more independent candidate?

He is a hack moron.

Because Johnson is a mindless drug addict.

 

[Pogo]

Is that why he is getting 20% of the Sanders supporters even today?

He got a lot of Democrat votes because he isn't a traditional Republican. Democrats actually like him almost as much as Republicans do.

Sanders isn't a Democrat either. And his voters have nothing whatsoever in common with Rump. The two candidates could not possibly be more opposite of each other.

Being "not a traditional Democrat/Republican" is not a trait per se. It's simply the absence of something. Neither one has a tail either but that doesn't make them 'similar'.

If he isn't a Democrat, then why did he enthusiastically endorse Hillary today?

That doesn't make sense. You don't have to be part of a political party to make an endorsement. Don't you know that?

Why isn't he endorsing Johnson, or some other more independent candidate?

He is a hack moron.

Because Johnson is a mindless drug addict.

Link?

You gonna shoot him in the face then?

 

[Pogo]

You don't have a television where you work? You don't have a car radio? Can you not read the numerous threads on this forum about that particular subject?

Why the fuck would I have a television where I work? What kind of work would get done?

Yes I have car radios but I didn't have them on. And yes I can read "numerous threads" if I'm interested in them, and I do.
But you brought it up, Sparkles.

As for my username, you will have to find that in one of the other threads where I explained it.

Ah, embarrassed I see. Well not to worry, I already know the answer because I already looked it up when you first got here. It told me all I needed to know.

 

[ptbw forever]

Is that why he is getting 20% of the Sanders supporters even today?

He got a lot of Democrat votes because he isn't a traditional Republican. Democrats actually like him almost as much as Republicans do.

Sanders isn't a Democrat either. And his voters have nothing whatsoever in common with Rump. The two candidates could not possibly be more opposite of each other.

Being "not a traditional Democrat/Republican" is not a trait per se. It's simply the absence of something. Neither one has a tail either but that doesn't make them 'similar'.

If he isn't a Democrat, then why did he enthusiastically endorse Hillary today?

That doesn't make sense. You don't have to be part of a political party to make an endorsement. Don't you know that?

Why isn't he endorsing Johnson, or some other more independent candidate?

He is a hack moron.

Because Johnson is a mindless drug addict.

So are many of Sander's supporters.

It is a match made in heaven.