Jump to content

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote!!


undiscovered

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, tvc184 said:

You quoted me and said "you guys". 

I have never said that and have made comments (usually in other forums) that it is stupid to say that a person isn't your president. You might hate him (or some time in the future, her) and say almost anything to support that hate other than a threat. The person is still "your" president. You can't opt out unless you wish to relinquish your citizenship and move to another country out of his control.

You might not agree with my comments but your broad brush is incorrect in his case. 

If Trump won the popular vote, You guys would be singing a different tune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Big girl said:

If Trump won the popular vote, You guys would be singing a different tune.

I only care about the EC. 

I did more checking and I think 17 times the eventual president did not get 50% of the vote. I know that is uninteresting to some people but 17 of 43 elections (nearly half) the eventual winner did not get support from at least half the country. 

I care about the Constitution. The only thing that the Constitution counts is state EC votes. 

Would I be singing a different tune? No as it wouldn't be an issue. Let me turn the question around, if Hillary won the EC vote and the presidency but lost the popular vote, would you be singing a different tune? 

I suspect so...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I only care about the EC. 

I did more checking and I think 17 times the eventual president did not get 50% of the vote. I know that is uninteresting to some people but 17 of 43 elections (nearly half) the eventual winner did not get support from at least half the country. 

I care about the Constitution. The only thing that the Constitution counts is state EC votes. 

Would I be singing a different tune? No as it wouldn't be an issue. Let me turn the question around, if Hillary won the EC vote and the presidency but lost the popular vote, would you be singing a different tune? 

I suspect so...........

In fact, there would not even be a tune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, tvc184 said:

By your argument we need to do away with states and merely have a federal government like most countries. 

not at all.  but when voting for a NATIONAL office, a national vote is in order, not a vote that is determined in any way by the amount of people in a state.  Just like when we vote for governor... should we start delegating votes based on the size of counties?  Should the counties around Dallas, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso be enough to elect democratic governors every year?  Hardin county gets two votes, but Dallas County gets 40.  And regardless of the breakdown of the voters in each county, all votes go to the winner of the county.  It doesn't make any more sense here than it does nationally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Reagan said:

Liberals claim to be the "tolerate" bunch.  Until they lose!!

Bottom line Minorities are pissed cause now it's a upper middleclass white game -- just like Obamma was a black game - and he SURE made sure he took care of the minorities as far as appointments etc...

Trump WILL do the same. Sharpton, Jesse, so long

Look at the Market waaaay up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

not at all.  but when voting for a NATIONAL office, a national vote is in order, not a vote that is determined in any way by the amount of people in a state.  Just like when we vote for governor... should we start delegating votes based on the size of counties?  Should the counties around Dallas, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso be enough to elect democratic governors every year?  Hardin county gets two votes, but Dallas County gets 40.  And regardless of the breakdown of the voters in each county, all votes go to the winner of the county.  It doesn't make any more sense here than it does nationally.

I always thought that our forefathers were a pretty smart crowd.  If this electoral college thing is wrong, where did the creators go wrong in arranging this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2016 at 2:11 PM, tvc184 said:

You quoted me and said "you guys". 

I have never said that and have made comments (usually in other forums) that it is stupid to say that a person isn't your president. You might hate him (or some time in the future, her) and say almost anything to support that hate other than a threat. The person is still "your" president. You can't opt out unless you wish to relinquish your citizenship and move to another country out of his control.

You might not agree with my comments but your broad brush is incorrect in his case. 

If Trump won the popular vote, You guys would be singing a different tune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

not at all.  but when voting for a NATIONAL office, a national vote is in order, not a vote that is determined in any way by the amount of people in a state.  Just like when we vote for governor... should we start delegating votes based on the size of counties?  Should the counties around Dallas, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso be enough to elect democratic governors every year?  Hardin county gets two votes, but Dallas County gets 40.  And regardless of the breakdown of the voters in each county, all votes go to the winner of the county.  It doesn't make any more sense here than it does nationally.

The country was laid out on state votes. As has been said many times, it was never intended to be a one person one vote democracy. 

If a state wants to elect a legislature based on counties that is within their authority and right by the 10th Amendment to do so. Some states have a runoff if no one gets 50% and at least one, Louisiana, has a plurality vote. You can be the winner with 20% if half a dozen other people get less. Why is all that possible? The founding fathers made it that way. States have strong rights to determine what is best for them. Again, each state is a separate country within a larger country based on protection of the conglomerate. If a state wishes to divide its electoral votes, it can. You want to take the rights of the states away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

The country was laid out on state votes. As has been said many times, it was never intended to be a one person one vote democracy. 

If a state wants to elect a legislature based on counties that is within their authority and right by the 10th Amendment to do so. Some states have a runoff if no one gets 50% and at least one, Louisiana, has a plurality vote. You can be the winner with 20% if half a dozen other people get less. Why is all that possible? The founding fathers made it that way. States have strong rights to determine what is best for them. Again, each state is a separate country within a larger country based on protection of the conglomerate. If a state wishes to divide its electoral votes, it can. You want to take the rights of the states away.

fify

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Sadly, two of my friends have become atheists. They don't believe that a just God would allow this to happen.

I will go ahead and say that your friends weren't believers before this election if it caused them to change their views. 

 

You are a nurse, so I'm sure you have seen things that make you question God, but there is no way an election is one of them.  There are many worse things that happen daily in this country that are worse than Trump being elected.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Sadly, two of my friends have become atheists. They don't believe that a just God would allow this to happen.

that's the funniest thing I've read on here in a long time.  they were fine with God allowing people to murder innocent cops, and they were fine with God allowing thousands of inner city teens to kill each other each year, and they were fine with God allowing people to use social injustices (both real and imagined) as an excuse to rob, steal, and kill, but they have a problem with God "allowing" Trump to be elected.  If they truly were Christians as they claimed, they're the most hypocritical and wishy washy Christians I've ever heard of, and growing up in the church I've been around plenty of hypocritical and wishy washy Christians. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

that's the funniest thing I've read on here in a long time.  they were fine with God allowing people to murder innocent cops, and they were fine with God allowing thousands of inner city teens to kill each other each year, and they were fine with God allowing people to use social injustices (both real and imagined) as an excuse to rob, steal, and kill, but they have a problem with God "allowing" Trump to be elected.  If they truly were Christians as they claimed, they're the most hypocritical and wishy washy Christians I've ever heard of, and growing up in the church I've been around plenty of hypocritical and wishy washy Christians. 

I suspect that no one changed his religious beliefs based on a political race and if it actually happened, they didn't have much conviction to begin with and were looking for an excuse to make the break. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 2016 World Series, Chicago won 4 games and Cleveland won 3 games. Chicago scored a grand total of 27 runs. Cleveland scored a grand total of 27 runs. Everybody knows that the series is over and Chicago won. Maybe someone that is completely ignorant of the rules of baseball would argue that the series is tied and should continue. Sounds like there are at least 3 million Americans that needs a Civics lesson. (I'm assuming the petition was signed by just Americans, but there is an outstanding chance that some illegals signed it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Since this is not how the President is elected it really didn't matter to me.  I didn't know who had what.  I paid attention to what actually counted.

Novel idea- but unacceptable to the left.  Best thing is all of the media questioning Trump for several days prior to the election ( thinking they had the election like they wanted it) demanding that Trump say he would honor the election results but unable to do so  themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,968
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    yielder
    Newest Member
    yielder
    Joined



×
×
  • Create New...