How many of the HILLARY VOTES are from illegal immigrants? Does Trump win Pop Vote?

[jon_berzerk]

Does Trump win Pop Vote?

yes he did

--LOL

FINAL ELECTION 2016 NUMBERS: TRUMP WON BOTH POPULAR ( 62.9 M -62.2 M ) AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES ( 306-232)…HEY CHANGE.ORG, SCRAP YOUR LOONY PETITION NOW!

There is no PV count yet. They're still being counted.

exactly so at this point hitlery has not won anything

Then why did you just post "final" numbers?

You lied. And got caught at it.

i didnt lie about anything **** face

Read it and weep, smegma breath:

>> The latest national vote totals have Clinton at 61,350,758 votes - or 48 percent - compared to Trump's 60,583,838 or 47 percent. Those totals - a 0.4 percent drop in voter turnout from 2012 - gives the advantage to Clinton by 766,920 even vote counting continues. Clinton's margin is expected to grow as votes come in from heavily Democratic states, making her the fifth candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election, joining Al Gore in 2000; Andrew Jackson in 1824; Samuel Tilden in 1876; and Grover Cleveland in 1888. <<​

Posted less than an hour ago.

Liar. Guilty as charged.

hey dumb ass notice the word >latest< --LOL

you are stupid as charged

 

[jon_berzerk]

There is no PV count yet. They're still being counted.

exactly so at this point hitlery has not won anything

Then why did you just post "final" numbers?

You lied. And got caught at it.

i didnt lie about anything **** face

Read it and weep, smegma breath:

>> The latest national vote totals have Clinton at 61,350,758 votes - or 48 percent - compared to Trump's 60,583,838 or 47 percent. Those totals - a 0.4 percent drop in voter turnout from 2012 - gives the advantage to Clinton by 766,920 even vote counting continues. Clinton's margin is expected to grow as votes come in from heavily Democratic states, making her the fifth candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election, joining Al Gore in 2000; Andrew Jackson in 1824; Samuel Tilden in 1876; and Grover Cleveland in 1888. <<​

Posted less than an hour ago.

Liar. Guilty as charged.

and so what? I bet if one counted all of the absentee ballots from all the red states it wouldn't even be close. Dude, all votes aren't counted because the popular vote doesn't mean anything. Except of course to a loser like you who is crying heavily. Need a box of tissue yet?

BTW, if she won more votes, why didn't she win the EC?

exactly leftards cant handle a fair election

when the election does not go their way

 

[Pogo]

There is no PV count yet. They're still being counted.

exactly so at this point hitlery has not won anything

Then why did you just post "final" numbers?

You lied. And got caught at it.

i didnt lie about anything **** face

Read it and weep, smegma breath:

>> The latest national vote totals have Clinton at 61,350,758 votes - or 48 percent - compared to Trump's 60,583,838 or 47 percent. Those totals - a 0.4 percent drop in voter turnout from 2012 - gives the advantage to Clinton by 766,920 even vote counting continues. Clinton's margin is expected to grow as votes come in from heavily Democratic states, making her the fifth candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election, joining Al Gore in 2000; Andrew Jackson in 1824; Samuel Tilden in 1876; and Grover Cleveland in 1888. <<​

Posted less than an hour ago.

Liar. Guilty as charged.

hey dumb ass notice the word >latest< --LOL

you are stupid as charged

Hey dumb ass [sic] notice where you posted "yes he did" in response to "does Rump win pop vote?"?

Frickin' moron.

 

[The Professor]

FINAL ELECTION 2016 NUMBERS: TRUMP WON BOTH POPULAR ( 62.9 M -62.2 M ) AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES ( 306-232)…HEY CHANGE.ORG, SCRAP YOUR LOONY PETITION NOW!

Not a credible source. Hillary is winning and will ultimately win the popular vote. Here is a credible source which exposes the lie told by news70 which is the source you cited

Google’s top news link for ‘final election results’ goes to a fake news site with false numbers

The link you provided is dubious on its face. The following are excerpts from the link … “Anyone asking where I got the figures, it was from twitter posts …. the popular vote number still need to be updated in Wikipedia or MSM media …. If I’m wrong, I won’t hesitate to change the numbers …. It’s the job of the establishment media to tell the people the final numbers when it’s out there already.”

Conclusion: You source is not trustworthy. According to all the legitimate sources out there, Clinton is leading and will maintain her lead in the popular vote.

 

[edthecynic]

Then why did you just post "final" numbers?

You lied. And got caught at it.

i didnt lie about anything **** face

Read it and weep, smegma breath:

>> The latest national vote totals have Clinton at 61,350,758 votes - or 48 percent - compared to Trump's 60,583,838 or 47 percent. Those totals - a 0.4 percent drop in voter turnout from 2012 - gives the advantage to Clinton by 766,920 even vote counting continues. Clinton's margin is expected to grow as votes come in from heavily Democratic states, making her the fifth candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election, joining Al Gore in 2000; Andrew Jackson in 1824; Samuel Tilden in 1876; and Grover Cleveland in 1888. <<​

Posted less than an hour ago.

Liar. Guilty as charged.

and so what? I bet if one counted all of the absentee ballots from all the red states it wouldn't even be close. Dude, all votes aren't counted because the popular vote doesn't mean anything. Except of course to a loser like you who is crying heavily. Need a box of tissue yet?

BTW, if she won more votes, why didn't she win the EC?

They count all the absentee voted because there are down ballot candidates and ballot propositions that are important too.

no they don't. if there aren't enough ballots to overturn the electoral votes, they aren't counted. look it up.

The president is NOT the ONLY candidate on the ballot.
LOOK IT UP!

 

[edthecynic]

Voter Fraud----Were 7.5 Million Illegal Votes Cast For Hillary?

Report: Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens

 

[jon_berzerk]

exactly so at this point hitlery has not won anything

Then why did you just post "final" numbers?

You lied. And got caught at it.

i didnt lie about anything **** face

Read it and weep, smegma breath:

>> The latest national vote totals have Clinton at 61,350,758 votes - or 48 percent - compared to Trump's 60,583,838 or 47 percent. Those totals - a 0.4 percent drop in voter turnout from 2012 - gives the advantage to Clinton by 766,920 even vote counting continues. Clinton's margin is expected to grow as votes come in from heavily Democratic states, making her the fifth candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election, joining Al Gore in 2000; Andrew Jackson in 1824; Samuel Tilden in 1876; and Grover Cleveland in 1888. <<​

Posted less than an hour ago.

Liar. Guilty as charged.

hey dumb ass notice the word >latest< --LOL

you are stupid as charged

Hey dumb ass [sic] notice where you posted "yes he did" in response to "does Rump win pop vote?"?

Frickin' moron.

oh my you little poor loser crybaby **** you

 

[hazlnut]

...and if that's the case and Trump actually won the popular vote, then those protesting will stop....right?



Trump never went to Cali to campaign...if it was ONLY about POPULAR VOTE, he would have visited California.

Um… none. Undocumented workers can't vote.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

i remember when Bush was always leading Gore till the end, then Cally reported their votes and that closed the gap, even then I knew a lot of the votes from Cally were from Illegals, Bush actually won by anywhere from 500,000 to one million votes. {aside from illegal Cally votes}

 

[oldsoul]

FINAL ELECTION 2016 NUMBERS: TRUMP WON BOTH POPULAR ( 62.9 M -62.2 M ) AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES ( 306-232)…HEY CHANGE.ORG, SCRAP YOUR LOONY PETITION NOW!

From the link:

Interesting.

"Interesting"??

Never saw a population density map before? And you think you're an "old soul"?

It's a comparison image, is that difficult for you to understand? Your attempt at an insult is duly noted and disregarded.

It's a population density map. You could use the same maps to display cell phone activity, road traffic, number of K-Mart stores, places you can get a colonic, anything. But that in no way means that cell phone activity causes K-Mart stores.

Get it?

Are you trying to put words in my mouth? Jeez. I was merely saying that it is interesting that the high crime rates are the same areas that voted for Clinton. Please stop trying to make this more difficult than it is. It's insulting.

 

[oldsoul]

All this talk of using the PV instead of the EC is basically the same as saying that the voters in cities should set agricultural and mining policy simply because there are more people in the cities. Urban centers should have a voice in policy that primarily affects rural areas, but those living in rural areas should have their voice heard as to how things will be handled in their own back yards. I don't think anyone in NY would like those in LA to decide how NY should conduct their affairs either.
Using the PV would have the effect of relegating the millions of people outside urban centers to the "back of the bus" in national politics. And I thought the left was about diversity and inclusion....

Nope. It would make everybody's vote count for something ---- instead of throwing out 49% of the votes and telling those voters they wasted their time because they don't count.

"one" equals "one". It cannot equal anything else.

And yet for 200 years you have been wrong. That is not the way it works, it is not the way it should work, and if anyone is serious about changing things, why is it that this ONLY comes up when Dems lose the EC and win the PV? Noone had a problem with the EC when Obama won. So either shut up about it, or be constantly against it. Either way, be consistent, stop moving the goal posts, that's why Liberalism has been rejected this cycle. People are tired of the goal posts constantly moving.

 

[oldsoul]

We don't get around by horses anymore nor do we live by candle light. And that is how archaic the EC is.

You should read this article, it does a pretty good job of explaining, not only how the EC works, but why. More importantly, why it is a good system.
Why We Use Electoral College, Not Popular Vote

Actually it really doesn't go into why. But we've already done this in at least three other threads so here it comes again.

(abridged from a previous post):

The EC was in fact put there to shore up slave states and Slave Power. When the original Thirteen Colonies were coming together the slave states had enough population to dominate, but ONLY if they counted their slaves, who had no vote. So they came up with the "Three Fifths Compromise", stipulating that for the purpose of counting population, the enslaved in those states would be counted as three-fifths of a person (the South wanted them counted fully to inflate their numbers, and they "compromised" at 3/5). Of course these slaves had no vote, so in effect their state's Electors voted on their behalf, regardless of what the slaves' interests would have been.

Thus Virginia, a slave state that gave us six of our first seven Presidents who were ALL slaveowners, became the dominant force in Presidential elections -- a dominance ("Old Dominion") it would not have had ----- if not for the Electoral College. And that in turn resisted the country ever facing and addressing the Slavery question, until it finally came to a head with the Civil War.

There was also an element of regionality, that one candidate shouldn't run up the score by amassing a big vote in a limited region. But that's clearly out the window by now; just have a look at the red and blue maps we're all familiar with and you've got a checkerboard of concentrated regions so it clearly doesn't work to do that. In fact the EC is the only reason that red and blue map, and the polarization it presents, EXISTS.

Again, it's constantly dividing people. It did that in its first version with slaves; then when the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to the ex-slaves, it proceeded to exclude women.... even though they too were counted without having the right to vote, until 1920.

Today it divides "red" states from "blue" states --- two terms which would not even exist if not for the divisive nature of the EC .... and it bestows destructive terms like "blue wall" and "flyover country". And it seasons that negativity with the blanket psychological suggestion that "the entire South votes red (unanimously)" and "The Pacific Coast votes blue (unanimously)". Neither are true, and it makes those alternative views invisible under that blanket. That only serves to perpetuate the same divisions.

So whatever its various intentions have been, its effect has been to divide, divide and ..... what was the other one..... oh yes --- divide.

You cannot be serious. We are a divided country because of the EC? Are you insane? Or are you simply out of touch with the reality of things? Sure the EC does little, if anything to unite us, but it was never intended to unite us. It was intended to ensure high population areas do not have "mob rule". It was intended to aid in "leveling" the playing field. If you have a better idea on how to avoid the pitfalls of "mob rule" let's hear it. PV would only PERPETUATE "mob rule" and thus division between high and low population density areas. Do you really not understand that? Are you really that blind to the truth? Do you really not understand that our framers, and statesmen that followed, studied and LEARNED from the failures of history?

 

[Rambunctious]

Conclusion: You source is not trustworthy. According to all the legitimate sources out there, Clinton is leading and will maintain her lead in the popular vote

Sure just like she was going to win the EC too...Buuuuaaaahahahahahaha. Come on man, what has to happen to convince you that left wing news and polling companies lie? Just like today's report that Obama's APR is 57% give me a break the media is trying to cover up the fact that Trump won with a huge mandate. They hope to beat him down before he even is sworn in but it will not work on him like it did with Bush.

 

[Pogo]

Clinton's plurality has now passed the one million mark according to this ongoing spreadsheet, by far the largest PV margin ever for a candy not (presumably) winning the EC.


Hilarity......61,964,263
Rump........60,961,967

Still counting of course.

 

[g5000]

Does Trump win Pop Vote?

yes he did

Nope.

 

[Rambunctious]

Hilarity......61,964,263
Rump........60,961,967

Still counting of course.

Just heard on CNN that Hillary may win the PV by 1% but the count is still being tallied. The reporter didn't seem very happy,
1% BUUUUUAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Pogo]

You cannot be serious. We are a divided country because of the EC?

Serious as a heart attack, and just as deadly.

Or are you simply out of touch with the reality of things?

Not "out of touch", the characterization would be "well versed".

Sure the EC does little, if anything to unite us, but it was never intended to unite us.

Damn straight. And it's done a helluva job at not-doing-that.

It was intended to ensure high population areas do not have "mob rule". It was intended to aid in "leveling" the playing field. If you have a better idea on how to avoid the pitfalls of "mob rule" let's hear it.

Sure. Again.
If a PV amounted to "mob rule" then how do the several states ---- which have diverse and urban and rural populations just as the country does ---- elect their governors and Senators -- or even their own state Legisltures? Do they construct a bizarre filter of "county electors" that cast their own vote on behalf of their residents, which may or may not match those residents' wishes?

No, they do not. Not a single one. Because it isn't an argument. A popular vote is in no way 'mob rule', no matter how many times you keep parroting the same tired meme.

There are a total of two countries on earth who elect their head of state via an indirect vote. One is us. The other is Pakistan. Go ahead and make the case that the Norways and Ecuadors and Israels are employing "mob rule". That meme cannot be justified or even explained. We've been inviting that in the EC thread for five hundred posts --- no one has done it.

As for the ways -- plural -- that the EC has created and perpetuated division, see the next segment.

PV would only PERPETUATE "mob rule" and thus division between high and low population density areas. Do you really not understand that? Are you really that blind to the truth? Do you really not understand that our framers, and statesmen that followed, studied and LEARNED from the failures of history?

I understand the history too well and I've been posting it to the unlistening, so I guess why not go through it again....

The EC was created in small part out of a regional concern, that a candidate from New Hamster might not be known at all in Georgia. But that was the 18th century when such a trek was a major undertaking and the sum of one's info, if one could get it, would be from a newspaper or handbill. Technology over two centuries has rendered that argument completely moot.

But the other concern was the balance of power, and the influential Southerners at the creation of the Constitution got the infamous "Three Fifths Compromise" that mandated their populations, for the purpose of determining how much representation they would get (and therefore how many Electoral Votes) would count their slaves as three-fifths of a person. Of course those slaves themselves had no representation; they could not vote. So in effect the South stacked the deck, taking the benefits of an artificially-enlarged population number while skipping out on the responsibilities (voting for slaves) that should have come with it. As a result of that biased Electoral College, six of our first seven Presidents were slaveholders from the South. Consequently the nagging elephant-in-the-room moral question of Slavery was left to fester.

That finally came to a head of course in the Civil War, which arguably could have been avoided had the country dealt with it sooner. But the EC certainly did its part to ensure that we did not.

But wait -- there's more.

We no longer have Slave Power of course (which was the name given to that three-fifths malarkey), or slave states. That all went away with the aftermath of the Civil War and the Constitutional Amendments --- one of the most important of which was the Fourteenth. 14 guaranteed that ex-slaves were now citizens and that no male citizen could be deprived of his rights.

Did you catch the gender? No male citizen. Meaning females could still be so deprived.... yet they were still counted in a state's population for the purpose of determining representation. Here was another constituency being counted for the benefit of the state, yet itself deprived of a say in the matter. Again, the state takes the benefit while skipping out on the responsibilities. Sure, any state could have enfranchised women at any time before 1920 and had twice as many votes........ but with the Electoral College system, there was no point ---- they already HAD the population-based representation so that wouldn't change, and the popular vote didn't elect the President anyway. So the incentive for women voting was in effect made nonexistent because the EC *did* exist.

Today women can vote, and we pat ourselves on the collective back thinking we enfranchise everybody --- and yet everybody in California and New York who voted for Trump, their votes didn't even count -- over six million -- because their state's Electors will vote unanimously, as if every single person in California and New York voted for Hillary Clinton. They didn't.

So it's still dividing, creating a bizarre concept of a "red state" and "blue state" checkerboard country as if we're one giant city of Berlin that might as well have state-line fences and signs reading "You are entering the Democratic Sector". "Blue walls" and "flyover country" and "battleground state" ----- NONE of these terms should even exist. They're walls. And the Electoral College pays for that wall.

And it also makes us all dependent on polls, since that's the only way residents of a given state know whether their vote is going to count or not. I got a vote in the recent election, because I'm in what the polls designated as "in play". But my friends and relatives in Mississippi and Louisiana and Washington and California --- did not. Their vote meant nothing. No matter what they did, voted this way or that way or stayed home --- their state was already decided for them and it will so vote unanimously.

So aside from its division, the EC dicourages voting at all unless one happens to be in a "battleground state". And it perpetuates that division, and the Duopoly, and it makes us dependent on polls, which are --- this just in ---- not always accurate anyway. No one should have to consult polls to determine whether they have a meaningful vote or whether they should just stay home.

So ----- yeah I imagine I do understand something about the "failures of history", thanks for asking.

 

[NYcarbineer]

FINAL ELECTION 2016 NUMBERS: TRUMP WON BOTH POPULAR ( 62.9 M -62.2 M ) AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES ( 306-232)…HEY CHANGE.ORG, SCRAP YOUR LOONY PETITION NOW!

lol that post was proven a hoax and you fell for it.

 

[Rambunctious]

lol that post was proven a hoax and you fell for it.

You're such a loser it's not even funny. Hey I have a bridge to sell ya!

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol that post was proven a hoax and you fell for it.

You're such a loser it's not even funny. Hey I have a bridge to sell ya!

Eat it.

Online Fake News Plague Infects Google