Rachel Maddow & Hillary Clinton Say That Questioning Elections Is Dangerous For Democracy!!

[Nostra]

The 2000 and 2016 elections were stolen. The majority voted for someone else.

2004 I guess you won fair and square, in that you terrified people into thinking there were Arabs under their beds.

You really need a basic education on how the US elects a President, Simp.

Holy cow you are stupid.

 

[Nostra]

The 2000 and 2016 elections were stolen. The majority voted for someone else.

2004 I guess you won fair and square, in that you terrified people into thinking there were Arabs under their beds.

Using your “logic”, the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen too, Dumbass.

 

[WEATHER53]

Inquisitive thinkers are dangerous for dems and need to be put in jail
Lib 101

 

[jbrownson0831]

Not electing Hillary Clinton will be recorded in the history books as the biggest disaster for America in the first half of the 21st century, with the election of G W Bush being a close second.

And yet she remains jail free for questioning those results doesn't she skrewey?

 

[BlindBoo]

Questioning by whom and at what time during the processes......

Never mind. I know it's just the Neo-GOP trying to convince themselves that it was really those Wascally Democrats who did those things, not their Trumpybear. He would never......

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Where I'm from, the person who gets the most votes is the choice of the people. That we still use this BIZARRE artifact from the 18th century is the real question to be answered.

Beside inflicting truly awful presidents on us against the will of the people, it disenfranchises millions of people who don't have the good luck to be born in one of the 8 or so "Swing States".

Until our elections are decided differently, we have the electoral college, thus the 2000 and 2016 elections were NOT stolen.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Well, did you know Obama won the same way as Trump?

The popular vote on the National Level does not elect the President!

He's new here, you'll have to forgive him.

 

[JoeB131]

Until our elections are decided differently, we have the electoral college, thus the 2000 and 2016 elections were NOT stolen.

The people said "NO". Stolen elections.

 

[Nostra]

The people said "NO". Stolen elections.

Were the 1990 and 1994 elections stolen?

 

[JoeB131]

Were the 1990 and 1994 elections stolen?

Well, since they were midterms, obviously not.

 

[Nostra]

Well, since they were midterms, obviously not.

Shit! Still getting the years off.
1992 and 1996.

 

[JoeB131]

Shit! Still getting the years off.
1992 and 1996.

Not really, Clinton got the most votes in both of those elections...

Now, what would be nice would be to chuck the EC, and have direct elections with a run-off if no one got 50%.

If we had a scenerio like that, Clinton would have easily won in 1996 (where he was only a percentage point off from a clear majority) and probably would have won in 1992.

 

[Nostra]

Not really, Clinton got the most votes in both of those elections...

Now, what would be nice would be to chuck the EC, and have direct elections with a run-off if no one got 50%.

If we had a scenerio like that, Clinton would have easily won in 1996 (where he was only a percentage point off from a clear majority) and probably would have won in 1992.

So only Republicans are required to get a “majority” of the vote to not steal the election.

Your hypocrisy is astounding.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

View attachment 816857

Richie mandal

 

[22lcidw]

Not really, Clinton got the most votes in both of those elections...

Now, what would be nice would be to chuck the EC, and have direct elections with a run-off if no one got 50%.

If we had a scenerio like that, Clinton would have easily won in 1996 (where he was only a percentage point off from a clear majority) and probably would have won in 1992.

Perot took votes away from George Senior. At one point all three candidates had around 33% of the vote. Then Perot mysteriously drops out of the election. And then comes back. He ends up with around 19%. He was either a shill or pressured to leave as 270 electoral votes are needed and he may have won enough states to turn the election into the congress.

 

[JoeB131]

Perot took votes away from George Senior. At one point all three candidates had around 33% of the vote. Then Perot mysteriously drops out of the election. And then comes back. He ends up with around 19%. He was either a shill or pressured to leave as 270 electoral votes are needed and he may have won enough states to turn the election into the congress.

Or he was a mentally unstable person who believed his own hype... kind of like Trump.

Here's the thing. Bush was never going to get re-elected. Republicans didn't even like him.

 

[Nostra]

JoeB131 "logic" (Hypocrisy)

2000 and 2016 Elections were STOLEN because neither Bush nor Trump got a majority of the popular vote. Not quite sure who he wanted to install as neither Owlgore nor Hitlery got a majority of the vote either.

When asked if 1992 and 1996 elections were stolen by Slick because he got 43% and 47% respectively his answer is NO, it wasn't stolen.

 

[Nostra]

Not really, Clinton got the most votes in both of those elections...

Now, what would be nice would be to chuck the EC, and have direct elections with a run-off if no one got 50%.

If we had a scenerio like that, Clinton would have easily won in 1996 (where he was only a percentage point off from a clear majority) and probably would have won in 1992.

So JoeB131 you want to get rid of the Electoral College and let a single county have more say in an election than 40 states.

Got it.

 

[JoeB131]

So @JoeB131 you want to get rid of the Electoral College and let a single county have more say in an election than 40 states.

Got it.

How would that happen, exactly?

I think what you are misquoting is one county has more people in it than 40 states do. Which is a meaningless statistic. It's not 40 states combined. Each state would make a contribution...

Here's the better question, why do these places where few people live get an outsized voice in picking the president?

 

[Nostra]

How would that happen, exactly?

I think what you are misquoting is one county has more people in it than 40 states do. Which is a meaningless statistic. It's not 40 states combined. Each state would make a contribution...

Here's the better question, why do these places where few people live get an outsized voice in picking the president?

Learn to read, Simp. Do you see the word “combined” in my post?