Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 2m votes

[dunroaming]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

 

 

Slapped-Ass syndrome at work. 

 

Don't let it get to you, we all love you really!

[atyclb]

as a followup to alleged-reported illegals and dead people voting heres a mainstream media based clip

 

 

[tifino]

If  the Clinton(s)/Obama cronies cartel were as smart as they thought themselves,

they would have played around with (while they held the reins) the Electorates' demographics,

to make themselves a 'sure thing'

 

 

I guess they're not 'that' smart 

[MikeyIdea]

5 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Get over it. She LOST! 

 

In a non-democratic election system yes. It is as it should be because the law says so

[Strange]

1 minute ago, MikeyIdea said:

5 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Get over it. She LOST! 

 

In a non-democratic election system yes. It is as it should be because the law says so

 

Ever get tired of it? 

 

You know, barfing up the same thing over and over?

[MikeyIdea]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Ever get tired of it? 

 

You know, barfing up the same thing over and over?

 

??? Sure you talk to the right person? This is my first post on this subject after the election 9-Nov

 

[DriveByTrucker]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

 

Lmao. 

 

Straight up - you, as a foreigner, know more about American life and the reasoning behind the votes cast, than an American? 

 

Foreigner? Is this now a birther issue?

You're a funny guy.....a wannabe American

Well its obvious that I do know a lot more than you on how a certain group of people voted, and why they did so.

[kamahele]

5 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Get over it. She LOST! 

Yes she did legally lose if there was no interference with the voting system even though she has now 2 million more votes than he.

[DriveByTrucker]

11 minutes ago, tifino said:

If  the Clinton(s)/Obama cronies cartel were as smart as they thought themselves,

they would have played around with (while they held the reins) the Electorates' demographics,

to make themselves a 'sure thing'

 

 

I guess they're not 'that' smart 

 

You mean they should have rigged the system. Thats a smart democratic thing to do in your view.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, MikeyIdea said:

 

??? Sure you talk to the right person? This is my first post on this subject after the election 9-Nov

 

You stated "Non-Democratic" 

 

The USA is a Democratic Republic. 

 

We don't operate by your standards, and its time for you to deal with it. 

 

Regardless of how you feel about it. 

[impulse]

5 minutes ago, kamahele said:

Yes she did legally lose if there was no interference with the voting system even though she has now 2 million more votes than he.

 

It ain't over until the fat lady sings.

 

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions

 

Quite a few states have no legal requirement that the Electors vote the way the people did...

 

Can you imagine the constitutional crisis if it went the other way?

[tifino]

1 minute ago, DriveByTrucker said:

 

You mean they should have rigged the system. Thats a smart democratic thing to do in your view.

 

...actually, I'm laughing at Clinton etc for outsmarting themselves,

and missing the most obvious of dirty tricks opportunity

[GinBoy2]

Honestly this is a pointless discussion.

 

Yes HRC won the popilar vote, by quite a bit

Yes, Trump won the Electoral College, since thats's the system we have.

 

So live with all of that.

 

The really bad thing is that only 55% of the electorate could actually be bothered to get off their asses and actually vote.

 

Result, we have a POTUS elect who garnered a whopping quarter of the population to vote for him

 

So playmates, not exactly democracy's finest hour, and certainly noting either side should be crowing about.

 

Mandates in most State referendum require 50%+

 

And to any of you keyboard warriors who didn't vote, now would be the time to shut the F@#$#k; up

Edited November 24, 2016 by GinBoy2

[MikeyIdea]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

You stated "Non-Democratic" 

 

The USA is a Democratic Republic. 

 

We don't operate by your standards, and its time for you to deal with it. 

 

Regardless of how you feel about it. 

 

Democracy in America  means that the less popular person with less votes can win. Yes, that is the law there. 5% of the world thinks that is democracy, the rest of the world, 95%, wonders why Americans call that democracy.

 

Whatever, it is legal and correct there so Trump won, as it should be because the law there says so

 

[Monkeyrobot]

I hope the ones counting Hillarys votes are not the ones that lost all her emails. 

[jackh]

Trump won fair and square. The popular votes are not accurate anyway considering that election machines were provided by Soros and many found they were switching Trump votes to Hillary automatically. Furthermore 100's of thousands of ballots were discovered already filled out for Hillary BEFORE Nov 7th and were stored in a warehouse! Not to mention all the illegal immigrants and dead people that also cast ballots.

So in the end most likely Trump also won the popular vote as well.

[hdkane]

5 hours ago, DriveByTrucker said:

 

Not disputing that at all (actually she lost in more ways than one), just wonder what you think that she lost with 2 million (or 1.5%) more votes than the actual winner. What you think this means to the democracy of a country. And try to reflect it from an objective point of view, like when "your" choice was the one who lost this way....

I would suck it up and move on...they are just angry because the Dems tried every dirty trick, and still lost...

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

Damage eh? 

 

The majority of states and counties will heartily disagree. 

 

And precisely what role do counties have in the allocation of electoral college votes by each state? The popular vote count has no legal bearing on the electoral process but it does speak to issues of legitimacy. The county vote speaks to nothing but some silly narrative that some are pushing about the little rural guy (read: Conservative) and their need to be protected from the evil big city folk (read: Liberal).

 

Smug self satisfaction will not remain long once the resistance starts to organize.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed. 

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

Lmao. 

 

Straight up - you, as a foreigner, know more about American life and the reasoning behind the votes cast, than an American? 

 

So how many millions of Americans do you know? Do you think you know me? Do you think you know anyone who happens to disagree with your particular point of view? Perhaps you might give us a number, distributed by county and state if you like.

[SheungWan]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Electoral College did its job in this election and its job was to create some balance across our 50 states. More states wanted Trump as president. Just some quick math has California, Illinois, NY, and DC at something like 5,800,000 votes over trump HOWEVER when you look at some of the these states by county, there is even more in favor of trump in Illinois and New York and about 50/50 in California. 

 

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

HRC won Illinois, but look at it by county:

HRC won NY but look at it by county:

 

 

 

The number of States is irrelevant, otherwise for each state there would be one electoral vote.

[newcomer01]

It just highlights the mass stupidity of an extremely large amount of Trump supporters. 

Not the land of democracy just hippocrasy.  highlights a very flawed electoral system.Trump won legally but not morally. 

Hasn't even started yet and already breaking his promises.

 

 

[SheungWan]

21 minutes ago, Monkeyrobot said:

I hope the ones counting Hillarys votes are not the ones that lost all her emails. 

 

Completely and utterly fatuous comment.

[SheungWan]

Just now, newcomer01 said:

It just highlights the mass stupidity of an extremely large amount of Trump supporters. 

Not the land of democracy just hippocrasy.  highlights a very flawed electoral system.Trump won legally but not morally. 

Hasn't even started yet and already breaking his promises.

 

 

The legal vote is the only moral one required.

[PattayaBoy]

http://projectveritasaction.com/

Democratic Operative Explains Voter Fraud: We've Been Busing People In For Fifty Years

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/18/project_veritas_exposes_organized_voter_fraud_on_a_massive_scale.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sjaak327]

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Bush's victory was dubious, but accepted. Claiming recounts seems more about discrediting the whole system and trying to cast a veil on legitimacy.

Fine, if they have real evidence that there were issues that should be produced and if necessary a recount should be carried out.

 

The people who didn't vote haven't endorsed Hilary or Trump. Nor have they expressed a view that the EC system is o k or not. They either couldn't be bothered and don't care; or found both candidates distasteful. Saying however, as some like to, that "the majority voted for Hilary, or that the majority want the system changed" are not statements based on fact.

 

Just a bit like Trump who beforehand claimed he wouldn't accept the results if he would loose ? The electoral college system has been discredited many times and for good reason. Back in 2000, Gore won the popular vote (not by the current margin I might add) but only about 537 Floridians prevented him from getting into the White house. That is unacceptable and should be changed. Back then I advocated as well to change this undemocratic system, but I realize that it is very very unlikely this will ever be changed due to the required number of states that have to ratfiy such a change. Quite clearly the founding fathers made a gross error of judgement in this case.

 

Democracy where a large portion of the votes are inconsequential isn't a good democratic system, and then to think that this is for the FEDERAL government, or in other words, state related issues matter much less.

 

Considering she received over 2 million votes more, yes most Americans that did vote (and they are the only ones that can be counted) prefer Clinton over Trump and that is an undeniable fact.

 

Oh and to add, no wonder the turnout of Presidential elections are so low, why would people vote if there is a big chance their vote doesn't even count ?

Edited November 24, 2016 by sjaak327

[deathmule]

People still shill for HRC? After :

 

• rigged DNC nomination
• server scandal
• Weiner-Abedin scandal
• Podesta PizzaGate
• bribes from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Morocco, Norway, Nigeria, Kazakhstan
• she claims to be a feminist and human rights activist but accepts all kinds of bribes from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the biggest human rights offenders
• she claims to be a LGBTQ rights activist but accepts all kinds of bribes from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the biggest LGBTQ rights offenders
• she claims to be a environmentalist but was ready to start a nuclear war with Russia
• started the refugee crisis by bombing Libya, quote : We came, we saw, he died. Gadhafi who under his reign Libya had the 2nd biggest Human Development Index in Africa after South Africa and now is a disabled country
• helped creating ISIS
• sold US uranium to Russians for bribes
• claims to be a feminist but humiliates rape victims of her husband in public

 

My two cents

 

edit : The saddest part of all of it is that it's not even a conspiracy anymore, it's all be proven by Wikileaks.

Edited November 24, 2016 by deathmule

[deathmule]

28 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

 

Just a bit like Trump who beforehand claimed he wouldn't accept the results if he would loose ? The electoral college system has been discredited many times and for good reason. Back in 2000, Gore won the popular vote (not by the current margin I might add) but only about 537 Floridians prevented him from getting into the White house. That is unacceptable and should be changed. Back then I advocated as well to change this undemocratic system, but I realize that it is very very unlikely this will ever be changed due to the required number of states that have to ratfiy such a change. Quite clearly the founding fathers made a gross error of judgement in this case.

 

Democracy where a large portion of the votes are inconsequential isn't a good democratic system, and then to think that this is for the FEDERAL government, or in other words, state related issues matter much less.

 

Considering she received over 2 million votes more, yes most Americans that did vote (and they are the only ones that can be counted) prefer Clinton over Trump and that is an undeniable fact.

 

Most American voters didn't vote for her

 

• Trump/Pence : 62,026,668
• Clinton/Kaine : 63,752,692
• Johnson/Weld : 4,376,740
• Stein/Baraka : 1,366,327
• McMullin/Fin : 545,285
• Castle/Bradley : 191,132

 

Clinton / Kaine got 63,752,692 million votes

 

 American voters remaining  =  68,506,152

 

 

[skatewash]

6 hours ago, 55Jay said:

There are EC voters who intend to flip their intended vote to Clinton but at the moment, not enough (37) to change the outcome.

 

"At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority, an effort designed not only to deny Trump the presidency but also to undermine the legitimacy of the institution."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/democrats-electoral-college-faithless-trump-231731

 

Correction:  there are *no* Electoral College voters (electors) who intend to flip their intended vote to Clinton.  Democratic electors were never committed to vote for Trump, there's no way possible they can flip their intended vote to Clinton.  If Trump won their state then only the Republican electors get to cast the votes for that state.  In that situation the Democratic electors from that state do not even get to vote.  The situation is reversed if the state in question was won by Clinton.  Only the Democratic electors get to cast their votes in the EC for that state, Republican electors wouldn't get to vote in that case.

Democratic electors are pledged to vote for Clinton, Republican electors are pledged to vote for Trump.  Democratic electors cannot "flip their intended vote to Clinton."  Either they don't get to vote, because the Republicans won their state.  Or they are already pledged to vote for Clinton.  No flipping is possible, by definition.

Only Republican electors can possibly flip their vote to Clinton.  So, people hand-picked by the state Republican Party for their loyalty to the party, in fact, legally required (in many cases) to vote for the winner of their state, and having publicly pledged to vote for the Republican winner of their state, are going to dishonor their pledge, break the law (in some cases) and overrule the voters of their state and vote instead for Clinton?  No Republican elector has said they are going to do that or are even considering doing that.  Not only are there no (zero) Republican electors who have said they will flip for Clinton, but in fact, there are two Democratic electors from the state of Washington who are reported to have said they will not vote for Clinton.  If they carry out their plan to be faithless then Clinton will have two fewer electoral votes than she would otherwise be entitled.  It has happened before, in 2000 a faithless Democratic elector from Washington, DC, refused to cast her electoral vote for Gore, so Gore ended up with one fewer EV than he was entitled to had she remained faithful.

Even if they get 37 Republican electors (they must be Republican in order to flip their votes to Clinton) to vote instead for Clinton, the election would go into the House of Representatives (because no candidate will have received a majority of the electoral votes) and voting on a one state-one vote basis the president (and vice-president) would be voted for there.  Not only would Trump have the advantage in states won, but he would have the advantage in the number of state delegations controlled by Republicans.  

Articles (and in particular headlines) like this are based on a very poor understanding of how the Electoral College works. 

[sjaak327]

Just now, deathmule said:

 

Most American voters didn't vote for her

 

• Trump/Pence : 62,026,668
• Clinton/Kaine : 63,752,692
• Johnson/Weld : 4,376,740
• Stein/Baraka : 1,366,327
• McMullin/Fin : 545,285
• Castle/Bradley : 191,132

 

Clinton / Kaine got 63,752,692 million votes

 

 American voters remaining  =  68,506,152

 

 

Nowhere did I claim most Americans voted for Clinton, I said most Americans prefer Clinton over Trump, you seem to have trouble reading.

 

Here let me help you: "Considering she received over 2 million votes more, yes most Americans that did vote (and they are the only ones that can be counted) prefer Clinton over Trump"

 

Any more stupid arguments left ?