When Democrats say Hillary Clinton won the popular vote...

[toomuchtime_]

...it's kind of like taking a vote of 5-year-olds to see how many of them believe in Santa Claus.

It doesn't matter.

Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college and that's what matters according to the United States Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers. Donald Trump has been elected the President of the United States, and anyone who says otherwise is engaging in sedition against our Republic.

And there ain't no Santa no matter how many kids believe in him.

She did in fact win the popular vote in 16 states and lost it in 33 or 34 states. That's why she's not president: she lost the popular vote in twice as many states.

 

[Blackrook]

The reason for the electoral college is so that the people of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles don't pick all our Presidents without any input from the rest of us.

 

[Pogo]

The reason for the electoral college is so that the people of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles don't pick all our Presidents without any input from the rest of us.

Wrong. There's no way to make that work.
City dwellers have no more, or less, vote than anyone else. Again, the number "1" equals the number "1". It is impossible for it to mean anything else.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Pogo]

Actually the Electoral College doesn't vote until December 19 so nobody won or lost it.

And no, it's not like Santa Claus. It's a number, and numbers are by definition quantifiable. Just a question of where the number will settle.

It's more like a poll on who Americans want to be President. But this time an accurate one.

Based on the peoples vote he got 306.
If they vote against the majority of voters you will see a very big backlash and the people who vote in Dec. know this. This was a vote against an ideology.
I dont think they will get that many needed to overide it for Hillary. Even they dont want her.
Now that is suppressing the peoples vote if they do.

Fun fact: Electoral College voters aren't Constitutionally required to observe the popular vote, nether of their own state, nor of the country. They can do what they want including override if they have a reason.

Like say for instance, just to make something up, suppose somebody got elected and then it was found out he was running a fraud operation. Electors, some of them, could decide that even though they were assigned to vote for that guy, they won't. Constitutionally they can do that.

Anyway the point really was that the OP has no clue how this all works. He thinks the EC already voted. As if they were all sitting around watching TV until the call came, then signed their form, had another beer and went home. But that's over a month away.

Notice how Trump's lawyers are asking for an extension of time before the trial?

Zackly. And that doesn't look good.

Does not look good for who?

Once Trump is in office there really is not going to be any trials that he is directly a part of.

It's already set. It's something like three years old. A POTUS isn't exempt from the law.

"Does not look good" for Rump's credibility. Which could affect his electability.

 

[FA_Q2]

Based on the peoples vote he got 306.
If they vote against the majority of voters you will see a very big backlash and the people who vote in Dec. know this. This was a vote against an ideology.
I dont think they will get that many needed to overide it for Hillary. Even they dont want her.
Now that is suppressing the peoples vote if they do.

Fun fact: Electoral College voters aren't Constitutionally required to observe the popular vote, nether of their own state, nor of the country. They can do what they want including override if they have a reason.

Like say for instance, just to make something up, suppose somebody got elected and then it was found out he was running a fraud operation. Electors, some of them, could decide that even though they were assigned to vote for that guy, they won't. Constitutionally they can do that.

Anyway the point really was that the OP has no clue how this all works. He thinks the EC already voted. As if they were all sitting around watching TV until the call came, then signed their form, had another beer and went home. But that's over a month away.

Notice how Trump's lawyers are asking for an extension of time before the trial?

Zackly. And that doesn't look good.

Does not look good for who?

Once Trump is in office there really is not going to be any trials that he is directly a part of.

It's already set. It's something like three years old. A POTUS isn't exempt from the law.

"Does not look good" for Rump's credibility. Which could affect his electability.

His electability? That seems like a strange thing to state considering that he is essentially already elected. The EC is not going to do a sudden reversal if he lost his case wholesale. It just is not going to happen. A civil case is not going to make the EC throw out the results and suddenly elect Clinton.

As far as a POTUS being exempt from the law - that is actually not very cut and dry.

Trump May Be off the Hook From All Those Lawsuits, at Least for Now

The courts will make a decision on this but a president is largely shielded from criminal prosecution. The congress is where a president would be charged. Civil suits are another matter but up to the judiciary if it will be placed on hold or continue.

 

[Pogo]

His electability? That seems like a strange thing to state considering that he is essentially already elected. The EC is not going to do a sudden reversal if he lost his case wholesale. It just is not going to happen. A civil case is not going to make the EC throw out the results and suddenly elect Clinton.

They could if they want to. They're not bound by the results --- it's part of how the EC works.
And yes, that's what I meant by "electability" --- by the Electrical College.

s far as a POTUS being exempt from the law - that is actually not very cut and dry.

Trump May Be off the Hook From All Those Lawsuits, at Least for Now

The courts will make a decision on this but a president is largely shielded from criminal prosecution.

The fraud case is something like three years old. He wasn't a President then. Matter of fact he's still not a President now. That's kind of why it's in play above -- it's certainly within the Constitutional boundaries of the EC to assess that a fraudster should not get their votes, regardless what the PV was.

The congress is where a president would be charged.

Again, we're talking cases that already exist, not ones yet to come up in the future.

 

[Moonglow]

The EC also helps to maintain the monopoly of a two party system only...

 

[FA_Q2]

His electability? That seems like a strange thing to state considering that he is essentially already elected. The EC is not going to do a sudden reversal if he lost his case wholesale. It just is not going to happen. A civil case is not going to make the EC throw out the results and suddenly elect Clinton.

They could if they want to. They're not bound by the results --- it's part of how the EC works.
And yes, that's what I meant by "electability" --- by the Electrical College.

Yes, they could if they wanted to. They are not going to. That is simply reality.

s far as a POTUS being exempt from the law - that is actually not very cut and dry.

Trump May Be off the Hook From All Those Lawsuits, at Least for Now

The courts will make a decision on this but a president is largely shielded from criminal prosecution.

The fraud case is something like three years old. He wasn't a President then. Matter of fact he's still not a President now. That's kind of why it's in play above -- it's certainly within the Constitutional boundaries of the EC to assess that a fraudster should not get their votes, regardless what the PV was.

The congress is where a president would be charged.

Again, we're talking cases that already exist, not ones yet to come up in the future.

And so was the link that you seem to have not read.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The reason for the electoral college is so that the people of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles don't pick all our Presidents without any input from the rest of us.

Actually, the electoral college exists as it does today because of slavery.

 

[KGB]

The reason for the electoral college is so that the people of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles don't pick all our Presidents without any input from the rest of us.

Wrong. There's no way to make that work.
City dwellers have no more, or less, vote than anyone else. Again, the number "1" equals the number "1". It is impossible for it to mean anything else.

Prove me wrong.

Ok, no problem. New York City's population (estimated 8.5 million) would rank it 11th overall if it were a state. Let that sink in....New York City's population is more than 38 other states in the country. If you took its metropolitan area of around 20 million, it jumps up to #4 on the list ahead of New York State. So this is entirely why we don't have a direct vote.

 

[Blackrook]

The reason for the electoral college is so that the people of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles don't pick all our Presidents without any input from the rest of us.

Actually, the electoral college exists as it does today because of slavery.

You need to provide a link, or some sort of evidence that this is true. You can't just drop shit without backing it up.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The reason for the electoral college is so that the people of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles don't pick all our Presidents without any input from the rest of us.

Actually, the electoral college exists as it does today because of slavery.

You need to provide a link, or some sort of evidence that this is true. You can't just drop shit without backing it up.

I'm guessing you didn't pay much attention in civics class in high school?

The electoral college was decided on because the delegates to the Constitutional Convention from southern slave states were terrified that the more populous north would immeditely and permanently dominate American politics, and end their ability to profit from slave labor. I'll let James Madison explain it to you:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

 

[Blackrook]

The reason for the electoral college is so that the people of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles don't pick all our Presidents without any input from the rest of us.

Actually, the electoral college exists as it does today because of slavery.

You need to provide a link, or some sort of evidence that this is true. You can't just drop shit without backing it up.

I'm guessing you didn't pay much attention in civics class in high school?

The electoral college was decided on because the delegates to the Constitutional Convention from southern slave states were terrified that the more populous north would immeditely and permanently dominate American politics, and end their ability to profit from slave labor. I'll let James Madison explain it to you:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

It's legitimate to ask you to provide a link. Next time, don't wait to be asked.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The reason for the electoral college is so that the people of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles don't pick all our Presidents without any input from the rest of us.

Actually, the electoral college exists as it does today because of slavery.

You need to provide a link, or some sort of evidence that this is true. You can't just drop shit without backing it up.

I'm guessing you didn't pay much attention in civics class in high school?

The electoral college was decided on because the delegates to the Constitutional Convention from southern slave states were terrified that the more populous north would immeditely and permanently dominate American politics, and end their ability to profit from slave labor. I'll let James Madison explain it to you:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

It's legitimate to ask you to provide a link. Next time, don't wait to be asked.

Next time, pay attention in your high school class, and then you won't end up looking foolish again.

Do I need to provide a link to you to "prove" that 1 + 1 = 2 as well?

How about the fact that Washington was our first President? Do you want a link for that as well?

 

[Pogo]

The reason for the electoral college is so that the people of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles don't pick all our Presidents without any input from the rest of us.

Wrong. There's no way to make that work.
City dwellers have no more, or less, vote than anyone else. Again, the number "1" equals the number "1". It is impossible for it to mean anything else.

Prove me wrong.

Ok, no problem. New York City's population (estimated 8.5 million) would rank it 11th overall if it were a state. Let that sink in....New York City's population is more than 38 other states in the country. If you took its metropolitan area of around 20 million, it jumps up to #4 on the list ahead of New York State. So this is entirely why we don't have a direct vote.

So --- you can't prove it. All you can do is piss and moan that there are large numbers of voters who vote not-the-way-you-do.

Want a giant tissue?

So there are X amount of people in NYC --- and? There are also Y number of people in New York State. Nobody anywhere suggested taking either one's vote away.

When you think of a point, you let us know.

 

[Pogo]

...it's kind of like taking a vote of 5-year-olds to see how many of them believe in Santa Claus.

It doesn't matter.

Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college and that's what matters according to the United States Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers. Donald Trump has been elected the President of the United States, and anyone who says otherwise is engaging in sedition against our Republic.

And there ain't no Santa no matter how many kids believe in him.

Actually the Electoral College doesn't vote until December 19 so nobody won or lost it.

And no, it's not like Santa Claus. It's a number, and numbers are by definition quantifiable. Just a question of where the number will settle.

It's more like a poll on who Americans want to be President. But this time an accurate one.

Based on the peoples vote he got 306.
If they vote against the majority of voters you will see a very big backlash and the people who vote in Dec. know this. This was a vote against an ideology.
I dont think they will get that many needed to overide it for Hillary. Even they dont want her.
Now that is suppressing the peoples vote if they do.

Actually, "based on the people's vote" at last count, Clinton's 47.9% would translate to 258 Electrical Votes, Rump's 46.8% would give him 252, and 28 would remain among third parties.

It was an interesting phrase so I worked it out. Perspective.

 

[Pop23]

...it's kind of like taking a vote of 5-year-olds to see how many of them believe in Santa Claus.

It doesn't matter.

Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college and that's what matters according to the United States Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers. Donald Trump has been elected the President of the United States, and anyone who says otherwise is engaging in sedition against our Republic.

And there ain't no Santa no matter how many kids believe in him.

It's funny in a way.

Hillary won the beauty contest.

 

[peach174]

...it's kind of like taking a vote of 5-year-olds to see how many of them believe in Santa Claus.

It doesn't matter.

Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college and that's what matters according to the United States Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers. Donald Trump has been elected the President of the United States, and anyone who says otherwise is engaging in sedition against our Republic.

And there ain't no Santa no matter how many kids believe in him.

Actually the Electoral College doesn't vote until December 19 so nobody won or lost it.

And no, it's not like Santa Claus. It's a number, and numbers are by definition quantifiable. Just a question of where the number will settle.

It's more like a poll on who Americans want to be President. But this time an accurate one.

Based on the peoples vote he got 306.
If they vote against the majority of voters you will see a very big backlash and the people who vote in Dec. know this. This was a vote against an ideology.
I dont think they will get that many needed to overide it for Hillary. Even they dont want her.
Now that is suppressing the peoples vote if they do.

Actually, "based on the people's vote" at last count, Clinton's 47.9% would translate to 258 Electrical Votes, Rump's 46.8% would give him 252, and 28 would remain among third parties.

It was an interesting phrase so I worked it out. Perspective.

Electrical votes?
You mean Electoral Votes.
You ok pogo or was that play on words?

I hope its a typo.

 

[Pogo]

...it's kind of like taking a vote of 5-year-olds to see how many of them believe in Santa Claus.

It doesn't matter.

Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college and that's what matters according to the United States Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers. Donald Trump has been elected the President of the United States, and anyone who says otherwise is engaging in sedition against our Republic.

And there ain't no Santa no matter how many kids believe in him.

Actually the Electoral College doesn't vote until December 19 so nobody won or lost it.

And no, it's not like Santa Claus. It's a number, and numbers are by definition quantifiable. Just a question of where the number will settle.

It's more like a poll on who Americans want to be President. But this time an accurate one.

Based on the peoples vote he got 306.
If they vote against the majority of voters you will see a very big backlash and the people who vote in Dec. know this. This was a vote against an ideology.
I dont think they will get that many needed to overide it for Hillary. Even they dont want her.
Now that is suppressing the peoples vote if they do.

Actually, "based on the people's vote" at last count, Clinton's 47.9% would translate to 258 Electrical Votes, Rump's 46.8% would give him 252, and 28 would remain among third parties.

It was an interesting phrase so I worked it out. Perspective.

Electrical votes?
You mean Electoral Votes.
You ok pogo or was that play on words?

I hope its a typo.

Hey, I've been running that pun for a week. I get a charge out of it. I find that it uh, amps up the threads when I plug that in.

Also want to see who's paying attention. Most here are not. You can stay.

 

[KGB]

The reason for the electoral college is so that the people of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles don't pick all our Presidents without any input from the rest of us.

Wrong. There's no way to make that work.
City dwellers have no more, or less, vote than anyone else. Again, the number "1" equals the number "1". It is impossible for it to mean anything else.

Prove me wrong.

Ok, no problem. New York City's population (estimated 8.5 million) would rank it 11th overall if it were a state. Let that sink in....New York City's population is more than 38 other states in the country. If you took its metropolitan area of around 20 million, it jumps up to #4 on the list ahead of New York State. So this is entirely why we don't have a direct vote.

So --- you can't prove it. All you can do is piss and moan that there are large numbers of voters who vote not-the-way-you-do.

Want a giant tissue?

So there are X amount of people in NYC --- and? There are also Y number of people in New York State. Nobody anywhere suggested taking either one's vote away.

When you think of a point, you let us know.

Look back through voting trends in those cities. No one disputes how they vote. So my point is proven...