Hillary won the popular vote ... so???

[protectionist]

You have done such thing.

Your opinion is not fact.

Yes. I have done such thing. That's correct.

Although I didn't need it, thanks for the verification . It's the thought that counts. ​

...............

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have edited my post in violation of the rules: not smart.

You have done no such thing. Where are the facts. There are none that support your silliness.

 

[oreo]

No illegal is STUPID enough to walk into a voting precinct and risk immediate deportation just so they can cast a single vote dumbass.---

But they did snatch a couple of Trump voters in 2016 trying to vote twice.

Since it was Trump that was campaigning on a rigged election, actually encouraging his supporters to do a mail in ballot and then head to the precinct--(because you don't know if they really count those mail in ballots.) I would check every single Trump voter to see that they didn't do the same and just got away with it.

Since it is standard procedure for Democrats to campaign on a rigged election, loaded with illegal alien voters, I would "check every single voter" of all candidates, for citizenship, especially those who don't speak very good English (if they speak it at all). This will become less important over time, as more and more of the Democrats' foreign imports get deported. Since they still might be able to vote by mail (even from outside the USA), mail voting should be abolished.

That being said, it's no surprise that an information-deprived, know-nothing liberal would be so uninformed and misinformed, that you don't even know that illegal aliens have been voting by the millions in the US, for 70 years. We've all seen them all our lives, voting in the voting halls, and spoke to them (in Spanish of course) when after voting illegally, they openly brag about it. (especially if they've had a couple of beers)

There is virtually nothing to stop illegals from voting. 22 states don't even ask for an ID (of any kind). More still don't ask for photo IDs, and even the few that do, so what ? ANYBODY can have have a photo ID (ex. a job ID). That doesn't show citizenship, and thus eligibility to vote.

The reason why liberals are so misinformed/uniformed, is they watch CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and other leftist OMMSSION media, and restrict themselves to that.

Only TRUMP TARDS were told by Trump to cast two ballots, by stating that their mail in ballots probably wouldn't be counted. I pointed out the ones that were caught who stated exactly that--as the reason they did it on page 25 post 242 of this thread.

So only Trump voters should be checked to see if they didn't do the same.

Again, no ILLEGAL is stupid ENOUGH to risk immediate deportation just so they can walk into a voting precinct to cast a single vote.--whether or not they have false papers. They are not going to risk bringing suspicions upon themselves, in order to cast a single vote dumbass.

Hillary Clinton clocked Trump's ass by winning the popular vote by 3 million LEGAL votes. Get over it. He won the electoral college vote on an accumulated vote total of a mere 73K votes coming out of 3 blue states.That is a FACT. Add to that--that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russians to intefere into the election--basically (cheat.) No one can call Trump a legitimate President.

Here's some of the RUSSIAN adds that were put on FACEBOOK & TWITTER, I am certain you'll recognize a few of them.
russian adds facebook - Yahoo Image Search Results

 

[JakeStarkey]

that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russians to intefere into the election-

That is a fact. Mueller will release at the proper time, and that will shut the gate on ANY of the trumptards escaping.

 

[kaz]

Too damn funny. One would think you'd come up with something more recent than 5 years ago if it were truly an obsession. Obama won both the PV and the EC vote. Not since Bush 41 has a republican taken the oval with victories in both columns. I guess when you're universally thought of as warmongers and womanizers all you can do is complain about 5 year old posts?

Psst. They have Presidential elections every four years.

You're whining that I'm comparing your reaction to Trump to Obama's second term? The last election to the one before that because four years is an eternity to you and you can't be expected to stand behind what you said four years ago? How old are you? 12? Now that's funny.

I'm candycorn and I'm not responsible for what I post ...

And for Obama you laughed at anyone talking about PV and said EV EV EV EV EV ...

How you're EV? Doesn't matter.

Classic

I don’t deny I wrote it. I’m proud to have voted for Obama twice over he inferior Republicans he bested. Not sure why you’re so riled up about it. I could have cited Obama’ superior pv numbers as well. Sorry, I’ll make sure to mention both in the future and really give you snowflakes a hard time….will that make you any less miserable? I’m guessing it’s a permanent condition.

You really have a thing for me, don't you? Why the obsession with how I feel? I'm not interested, FYI. But wow, you got it bad for me. You bring up my feelings over and over. And wow, you're remarkably bad at it

Yet somehow, you’re the one that keeps responding to me ass wipe. Feel free not to comment any longer.

As a trump worshiper, however, I think you have a pathological condition that forces you to respond to any mention of Hillary getting more votes than he does….you guys really can’t help yourself.

So if I'm a "Trump worshiper" and I didn't vote for the guy, what does that make you with Hillary who you actually did vote for?

As a woman, how do you sleep at night that you voted twice for a sexual predator and a woman who victimized the women again? Doesn't bother you at all, does it? But then you're not really a feminist, are you? You're a leftist

 

[kaz]

You hear this from leftists all the time. It's irrelevant because that isn't how Presidential elections are run according to the Constitution. But this thread isn't about that. This thread is about how it's still irrelevant because:

1) Voters know if their candidate has a chance in their State. There are tens of millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and other deep blue States who knew Trump had no chance. And there are millions of Democrats in deep red States. Three million is a small margin, there is no way to know who would have shown up or how they would have voted if we had different rules. Many Republicans voted for Gary Johnson (I know many of them) or didn't show up. And many leftists voted for Jill Stein or didn't show up

2) Neither Hillary nor Trump would have run the campaign they did if the election had different rules. That was decisive in this election as Trump won because he focused more on the light blue States in the Midwest than Hillary. Something he'd have never done if the rules were the popular vote

So Democrats, are you just lying or are you actually so stupid you really don't grasp this?

Hillary did not win the popular vote, because there is no popular vote to win.................

This fact will however not stop the mentally ill from babbling as Hillary can not stop doing itself

She got more popular votes than the cheeto. That makes her the winner in that one metric.
Cold comfort to us who voted for Clinton. But somehow, it’s impossible for you guys to admit.

No matter how many more first downs you get than the other team, no one calls you the winner

 

[kaz]

You hear this from leftists all the time. It's irrelevant because that isn't how Presidential elections are run according to the Constitution. But this thread isn't about that. This thread is about how it's still irrelevant because:

1) Voters know if their candidate has a chance in their State. There are tens of millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and other deep blue States who knew Trump had no chance. And there are millions of Democrats in deep red States. Three million is a small margin, there is no way to know who would have shown up or how they would have voted if we had different rules. Many Republicans voted for Gary Johnson (I know many of them) or didn't show up. And many leftists voted for Jill Stein or didn't show up

2) Neither Hillary nor Trump would have run the campaign they did if the election had different rules. That was decisive in this election as Trump won because he focused more on the light blue States in the Midwest than Hillary. Something he'd have never done if the rules were the popular vote

So Democrats, are you just lying or are you actually so stupid you really don't grasp this?

What other President has lost the popular vote by 3 MILLION and still went on to win the Electoral college vote & become President? NONE.

Trump won the electoral college vote on an accumulated vote total of a mere 76K votes coming out of 3 blue states, who apparently aren't voting for him anymore. Because the 18th District in Pennyslvania, a predominately Republican, big steel district that Trump won by 20 points in 2016, just turned blue in a special election. Connor Lamb won.

To add--everyone knows that the goal posts were moved on Hillary Clinton's side of the field, by FBI director James Comey and Russian intervention, and along with the 3 million popular vote lead, makes Trump the most illegitimate President ever to be sworn into the Oval office.

They're going to make up for it this coming November. The anger in this country is palpable.

Cool. Now try reading to my OP and address that

The president is mostly selected by swing states.
This is where most of the attention of presidential campaign is focused. Attention on solid blue or solid red states doesnt get you very far.

Case in point is the flood of twitter/fake news in swing states.

Salami sandwiches have a lot of salt in them. Especially if you have a pickle with it. Add chips and whoa ...

 

[kaz]

So Democrats, are you just lying or are you actually so stupid you really don't grasp this?

Had Hillary won the election but lost the popular vote, theirs would be the loudest voice of all saying it was after all the law of the land and for us whiners to get over it.

You’re right about that. It will eventually happen to a Dem candidate. All the more reason to amend the Constitution to where the President must win both the EC and the PV.

a). The Electoral Vote is based on the popular vote, state, by state.
b). If you are going to do that, then fix the voting system so we know votes are all legal (no duplicates, illegals or dead people).
c). The two systems work contrary to each other as the first ensures equal representation by the states while the other is based on mob rule, so you would have many elections where no one would win both, then what do you do?

The best system is the one we already have, we just need to clean it up by reforming voting laws that each voter shows his ID to prove it is really him that is voting as a bone fide legal citizen.

I totally oppose the direct PV. It's just tyranny of the majority. States were set up to be the center of power in our country, not the Federal government. State legislatures should be the check and balance for Constitutional decisions, not the SCOTUS. The direct PV would just undermine that further

 

[Rosy]

that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russians to intefere into the election-

That is a fact. Mueller will release at the proper time, and that will shut the gate on ANY of the trumptards escaping.

If Muller is holding these documents back then Muller is a traitor himself

 

[kaz]

So Democrats, are you just lying or are you actually so stupid you really don't grasp this?

Had Hillary won the election but lost the popular vote, theirs would be the loudest voice of all saying it was after all the law of the land and for us whiners to get over it.

You’re right about that. It will eventually happen to a Dem candidate. All the more reason to amend the Constitution to where the President must win both the EC and the PV.

a). The Electoral Vote is based on the popular vote, state, by state.

Agreed.

b). If you are going to do that, then fix the voting system so we know votes are all legal (no duplicates, illegals or dead people).

Which is why I favor a national, standardized voter ID card that is free to the voters with a picture ID. That way, there are no different requirements on what is valid or invalid across state lines; you can vote anywhere in the nation but your vote is counted in your resident state (some people work out of state so this helps them be able to vote, you see), and it can be used for a myriad of other things to eliminate the widely held myth that the Voter Registration Rolls cause you to get jury summons and other things some people find punitive about our current system.

c). The two systems work contrary to each other as the first ensures equal representation by the states while the other is based on mob rule, so you would have many elections where no one would win both, then what do you do?

The current system under the 12th Amendment is adequate. That is why it is there. And, just an FYI, I studied it a few times and found that only once would there likely have been a different President in the 4 (or 5) times the PV and EC were in conflict.

The best system is the one we already have, we just need to clean it up by reforming voting laws that each voter shows his ID to prove it is really him that is voting as a bone fide legal citizen.

That is a valid statement except I cannot for the life of me figure out why someone would want a President who wasn't selected by a plurality of the voters. Because the EC does not guarantee that the elected person gets the plurality of the votes. My addition of the PV being necessary does.

Can you think of any scenario in your life where the majority didn't rule when it came to an election outside of the Presidential election? Arguably, it's the most important job there is in the nation and we leave it to faith that the EC will satisfy us.

One other thing, keep in mind the following... Only about 55% of the registered voters voted in 2016. The state with the lowest percentage turnout was Hawaii at 50% of the eligible citizens (not RV's) casting ballots. Then there were a few small states until you get to 46th place in terms of lowest number of citizens voting. In 46th place was Texas and 38 electoral votes. As I recall, 47-49 are also red states. The historically GOP strongholds are the states that can show the greatest improvement in terms of vote casting.... All the more reason to have bi-partisan support for the idea.

I believe from our prior conversations that you do oppose illegal immigration. However, do you notice you never say that other than to other people who also oppose illegal immigration?

 

[candycorn]

So Democrats, are you just lying or are you actually so stupid you really don't grasp this?

Had Hillary won the election but lost the popular vote, theirs would be the loudest voice of all saying it was after all the law of the land and for us whiners to get over it.

You’re right about that. It will eventually happen to a Dem candidate. All the more reason to amend the Constitution to where the President must win both the EC and the PV.

a). The Electoral Vote is based on the popular vote, state, by state.

Agreed.

b). If you are going to do that, then fix the voting system so we know votes are all legal (no duplicates, illegals or dead people).

Which is why I favor a national, standardized voter ID card that is free to the voters with a picture ID. That way, there are no different requirements on what is valid or invalid across state lines; you can vote anywhere in the nation but your vote is counted in your resident state (some people work out of state so this helps them be able to vote, you see), and it can be used for a myriad of other things to eliminate the widely held myth that the Voter Registration Rolls cause you to get jury summons and other things some people find punitive about our current system.

c). The two systems work contrary to each other as the first ensures equal representation by the states while the other is based on mob rule, so you would have many elections where no one would win both, then what do you do?

The current system under the 12th Amendment is adequate. That is why it is there. And, just an FYI, I studied it a few times and found that only once would there likely have been a different President in the 4 (or 5) times the PV and EC were in conflict.

The best system is the one we already have, we just need to clean it up by reforming voting laws that each voter shows his ID to prove it is really him that is voting as a bone fide legal citizen.

That is a valid statement except I cannot for the life of me figure out why someone would want a President who wasn't selected by a plurality of the voters. Because the EC does not guarantee that the elected person gets the plurality of the votes. My addition of the PV being necessary does.

Can you think of any scenario in your life where the majority didn't rule when it came to an election outside of the Presidential election? Arguably, it's the most important job there is in the nation and we leave it to faith that the EC will satisfy us.

One other thing, keep in mind the following... Only about 55% of the registered voters voted in 2016. The state with the lowest percentage turnout was Hawaii at 50% of the eligible citizens (not RV's) casting ballots. Then there were a few small states until you get to 46th place in terms of lowest number of citizens voting. In 46th place was Texas and 38 electoral votes. As I recall, 47-49 are also red states. The historically GOP strongholds are the states that can show the greatest improvement in terms of vote casting.... All the more reason to have bi-partisan support for the idea.

I believe from our prior conversations that you do oppose illegal immigration. However, do you notice you never say that other than to other people who also oppose illegal immigration?

Lakota (sp?) would beg to differ.

 

[JakeStarkey]

that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russians to intefere into the election-

That is a fact. Mueller will release at the proper time, and that will shut the gate on ANY of the trumptards escaping.

If Muller is holding these documents back then Muller is a traitor himself

No if about it, Rosy. You are using "if" as a fact. How silly.

 

[candycorn]

You hear this from leftists all the time. It's irrelevant because that isn't how Presidential elections are run according to the Constitution. But this thread isn't about that. This thread is about how it's still irrelevant because:

1) Voters know if their candidate has a chance in their State. There are tens of millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and other deep blue States who knew Trump had no chance. And there are millions of Democrats in deep red States. Three million is a small margin, there is no way to know who would have shown up or how they would have voted if we had different rules. Many Republicans voted for Gary Johnson (I know many of them) or didn't show up. And many leftists voted for Jill Stein or didn't show up

2) Neither Hillary nor Trump would have run the campaign they did if the election had different rules. That was decisive in this election as Trump won because he focused more on the light blue States in the Midwest than Hillary. Something he'd have never done if the rules were the popular vote

So Democrats, are you just lying or are you actually so stupid you really don't grasp this?

Hillary did not win the popular vote, because there is no popular vote to win.................

This fact will however not stop the mentally ill from babbling as Hillary can not stop doing itself

She got more popular votes than the cheeto. That makes her the winner in that one metric.
Cold comfort to us who voted for Clinton. But somehow, it’s impossible for you guys to admit.

No matter how many more first downs you get than the other team, no one calls you the winner

No but someone could say "we won the time of possession".

 

[kaz]

Had Hillary won the election but lost the popular vote, theirs would be the loudest voice of all saying it was after all the law of the land and for us whiners to get over it.

You’re right about that. It will eventually happen to a Dem candidate. All the more reason to amend the Constitution to where the President must win both the EC and the PV.

a). The Electoral Vote is based on the popular vote, state, by state.

Agreed.

b). If you are going to do that, then fix the voting system so we know votes are all legal (no duplicates, illegals or dead people).

Which is why I favor a national, standardized voter ID card that is free to the voters with a picture ID. That way, there are no different requirements on what is valid or invalid across state lines; you can vote anywhere in the nation but your vote is counted in your resident state (some people work out of state so this helps them be able to vote, you see), and it can be used for a myriad of other things to eliminate the widely held myth that the Voter Registration Rolls cause you to get jury summons and other things some people find punitive about our current system.

c). The two systems work contrary to each other as the first ensures equal representation by the states while the other is based on mob rule, so you would have many elections where no one would win both, then what do you do?

The current system under the 12th Amendment is adequate. That is why it is there. And, just an FYI, I studied it a few times and found that only once would there likely have been a different President in the 4 (or 5) times the PV and EC were in conflict.

The best system is the one we already have, we just need to clean it up by reforming voting laws that each voter shows his ID to prove it is really him that is voting as a bone fide legal citizen.

That is a valid statement except I cannot for the life of me figure out why someone would want a President who wasn't selected by a plurality of the voters. Because the EC does not guarantee that the elected person gets the plurality of the votes. My addition of the PV being necessary does.

Can you think of any scenario in your life where the majority didn't rule when it came to an election outside of the Presidential election? Arguably, it's the most important job there is in the nation and we leave it to faith that the EC will satisfy us.

One other thing, keep in mind the following... Only about 55% of the registered voters voted in 2016. The state with the lowest percentage turnout was Hawaii at 50% of the eligible citizens (not RV's) casting ballots. Then there were a few small states until you get to 46th place in terms of lowest number of citizens voting. In 46th place was Texas and 38 electoral votes. As I recall, 47-49 are also red states. The historically GOP strongholds are the states that can show the greatest improvement in terms of vote casting.... All the more reason to have bi-partisan support for the idea.

I believe from our prior conversations that you do oppose illegal immigration. However, do you notice you never say that other than to other people who also oppose illegal immigration?

Lakota (sp?) would beg to differ.

I've never seen you do it once. Was that a PM?

 

[kaz]

You hear this from leftists all the time. It's irrelevant because that isn't how Presidential elections are run according to the Constitution. But this thread isn't about that. This thread is about how it's still irrelevant because:

1) Voters know if their candidate has a chance in their State. There are tens of millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and other deep blue States who knew Trump had no chance. And there are millions of Democrats in deep red States. Three million is a small margin, there is no way to know who would have shown up or how they would have voted if we had different rules. Many Republicans voted for Gary Johnson (I know many of them) or didn't show up. And many leftists voted for Jill Stein or didn't show up

2) Neither Hillary nor Trump would have run the campaign they did if the election had different rules. That was decisive in this election as Trump won because he focused more on the light blue States in the Midwest than Hillary. Something he'd have never done if the rules were the popular vote

So Democrats, are you just lying or are you actually so stupid you really don't grasp this?

Hillary did not win the popular vote, because there is no popular vote to win.................

This fact will however not stop the mentally ill from babbling as Hillary can not stop doing itself

She got more popular votes than the cheeto. That makes her the winner in that one metric.
Cold comfort to us who voted for Clinton. But somehow, it’s impossible for you guys to admit.

No matter how many more first downs you get than the other team, no one calls you the winner

No but someone could say "we won the time of possession".

I agree. And I haven't disputed that Hillary "won" the PV. Though it was by a plurality, not a majority. I just said "so?" See the thread title ...

 

[Rosy]

You hear this from leftists all the time. It's irrelevant because that isn't how Presidential elections are run according to the Constitution. But this thread isn't about that. This thread is about how it's still irrelevant because:

1) Voters know if their candidate has a chance in their State. There are tens of millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and other deep blue States who knew Trump had no chance. And there are millions of Democrats in deep red States. Three million is a small margin, there is no way to know who would have shown up or how they would have voted if we had different rules. Many Republicans voted for Gary Johnson (I know many of them) or didn't show up. And many leftists voted for Jill Stein or didn't show up

2) Neither Hillary nor Trump would have run the campaign they did if the election had different rules. That was decisive in this election as Trump won because he focused more on the light blue States in the Midwest than Hillary. Something he'd have never done if the rules were the popular vote

So Democrats, are you just lying or are you actually so stupid you really don't grasp this?

Hillary did not win the popular vote, because there is no popular vote to win.................

This fact will however not stop the mentally ill from babbling as Hillary can not stop doing itself

She got more popular votes than the cheeto. That makes her the winner in that one metric.
Cold comfort to us who voted for Clinton. But somehow, it’s impossible for you guys to admit.

No matter how many more first downs you get than the other team, no one calls you the winner

No but someone could say "we won the time of possession".

I agree. And I haven't disputed that Hillary "won" the PV. Though it was by a plurality, not a majority. I just said "so?" See the thread title ...

If you think that Hillary won, you need mental help

 

[kaz]

Hillary did not win the popular vote, because there is no popular vote to win.................

This fact will however not stop the mentally ill from babbling as Hillary can not stop doing itself

She got more popular votes than the cheeto. That makes her the winner in that one metric.
Cold comfort to us who voted for Clinton. But somehow, it’s impossible for you guys to admit.

No matter how many more first downs you get than the other team, no one calls you the winner

No but someone could say "we won the time of possession".

I agree. And I haven't disputed that Hillary "won" the PV. Though it was by a plurality, not a majority. I just said "so?" See the thread title ...

If you think that Hillary won, you need mental help

If you read my OP and think I said Hillary won, you need reading help

 

[kaz]

1) Voters know if their candidate has a chance in their State. There are tens of millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and other deep blue States who knew Trump had no chance. And there are millions of Democrats in deep red States. Three million is a small margin, there is no way to know who would have shown up or how they would have voted if we had different rules. Many Republicans voted for Gary Johnson (I know many of them) or didn't show up. And many leftists voted for Jill Stein or didn't show up

But here was the problem. A lot of those people who voted for Johnson and Stein voted for them because they were told Hillary had their states in the bag, and there was no way Trump could win, and the polls bore this out.

Three million is hardly a "small" margin. It's larger than the margin in either 2000 or 2004.

2) Neither Hillary nor Trump would have run the campaign they did if the election had different rules. That was decisive in this election as Trump won because he focused more on the light blue States in the Midwest than Hillary. Something he'd have never done if the rules were the popular vote

Again, you work on the assumption that Trump wanted to win, or that this was anything but a branding/trolling excercise that went horribly wrong.

Every day, Trump demonstrates that he really didn't want to be president, and is unfit for the office.

Hilarious. So from the poll, you think the dumb dyke Hillary ran for the PV!!! ??? OMG, you really think she's a stupid douche, huh? You're probably right

 

[kaz]

Oops, there you are failing to deflect how much less popular than Obama was Trump.

And here you are to remind us how illiterate you are. lol

Like I said earlier... you people are dumb.

poor tycho

>>>>

lol

We know life isn't easy for people like you.

I am fine, tycho; you are the one looking silly above.

I searched for you since you voted in the poll that, oh your God, Hillary ran for the PV! What a dumb ass! You're probably right

 

[AZGAL]

Hillary is like a crazy ex girlfriend: move on!