Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By all means, please keep up your current MO of insulting the electorate. Many Liberal pundits have argued over the last three weeks that is precisely what cost you the election. So please, continue.
Try reading what I quoted. Or, play dumb, I don't really care.
You corrected nothing. Again I'll repeat it.
People who say they couldn't abide Hilary's corruption and voted for Trump don't care about corruption.
It's a lie.
Trump didn't release his taxes. So we have no idea about his business holdings. Or how certain government action could enrich him personally. So again anyone interested in corruption those would be two huge flags about corruption.
Plus given Trump's actual business history of ripping people off and being sued and paying huge settlements would again be a huge red flag for those afraid of corruption.
Finally Trump's reaction to clinton should deeply concern those trump voters pretending to care about corruption. Because it shows clearly that trump lied to them directly and then in an interview tossed them to the side very easily. He spent months pretending that Clinton was this huge crook that he would surely lock up of elected and the first thing he said on live tv was it means nothing to me.
Which means he is personally ok with enabling the corruption of Clinton. Which means he is a liar and corrupt himself.
So my point that someone who is seriously against government corruption and Clinton's corruption ain't voting for Trump, stands
I am accepting and understanding of the electoral college but
kind of odd that 1 voter in KS equals 600 voters in CA.
It is kind of the point. Why should mere numbers decide ones voice? What do the people in CA know about KS? Should the major population centers decide everything for everyone in other areas? What does some city dweller know about the rural one? They are not the same, they view life differently, have different needs and expectations. What would be criminal is if might was made right by majorities being able to subjugate the minority view simply because a politician is able to entice enough of them to via mob based manipulation tactics. The founders warned often of the dangers of democracies as they were the seed of tyranny.
People who say they couldn't abide Hilary's corruption and voted for Trump don't care about corruption.
It's a lie.
Trump didn't release his taxes. So we have no idea about his business holdings. Or how certain government action could enrich him personally. So again anyone interested in corruption those would be two huge flags about corruption.
Plus given Trump's actual business history of ripping people off and being sued and paying huge settlements would again be a huge red flag for those afraid of corruption.
Finally Trump's reaction to clinton should deeply concern those trump voters pretending to care about corruption. Because it shows clearly that trump lied to them directly and then in an interview tossed them to the side very easily. He spent months pretending that Clinton was this huge crook that he would surely lock up of elected and the first thing he said on live tv was it means nothing to me.
Which means he is personally ok with enabling the corruption of Clinton. Which means he is a liar and corrupt himself.
So my point that someone who is seriously against government corruption and Clinton's corruption ain't voting for Trump, stands
That is not what I quoted you on and you damn well know it. Stop being devious here. You stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by refineryworker73
The stuff about criminal Hilary is a complete scam designed to make her unpopular.
I corrected you, now move on and stop lying about the discussion I had with you.
Trump won with a lower percentage of the popular vote (currently 46.1% and falling) than any of his predecessors with the exception of Bill Clinton in 1992 (43.01%) and John Quincy Adams in 1824 (31.92%), both of whom had significant third party opposition, which Trump did not.
Meaningless.
How many times do you people need to be told that we do not elect a president by a nationwide popular vote? Nor should we. Yet, you keep beating that drum. To continue, isn't going to make an invalid argument any more valid.
We are 50 sovereign states. Every state has it's own government, including a governor. Every state is different in some way. It is said that in America one can vote with their feet. If you don't like the way one state is governed, or it's laws, you can move to another state.
That is why each state votes independently for president. The votes are tallied, and the winner becomes that states duly elected choice for president.
For this reason, it is pointless to even consider who won the popular vote nationwide. Though it may be interesting data, it is not really useful data.
And, our system is not likely to change, as there is very good reason why the framers created the E.C., and those reasons are just as valid today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
