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.
Metaphorically of course. But watching this dude talk, I was waiting for his head to explode like in that old movie Scanners. Completely unhinged.
And not for nothin' but it's not Donald Trump that attempted a bloodless coupe. It's the losing party that is actually (and actively) attempting to overturn the will of the people.
Metaphorically of course. But watching this dude talk, I was waiting for his head to explode like in that old movie Scanners. Completely unhinged.
And not for nothin' but it's not Donald Trump that attempted a bloodless coupe. It's the losing party that is actually (and actively) attempting to overturn the will of the people.
I had no idea that clown was still around. He has been fired from so many jobs I'm amazed he can still find a platform to spew his ignorant garbage..
It would be an act of kindness if his head were to explode...
The will of the people you speak of wants Clinton. She won the populous vote.
That's not correct. Forgetting for a minute that Clinton got less than 50% of all votes placed, the election was held with an electoral college system. If the system would have been a popular vote election, then the GOP would have campaigned in New York and California.
Some stupid number like 85% in Manhattan alone voted for Clinton. With a campaign push Trump would have swung a net 200K or more voters right there. But those weren't the ground rules, your argument is extremelely disingenuous
That's not correct. Forgetting for a minute that Clinton got less than 50% of all votes placed, the election was held with an electoral college system. If the system would have been a popular vote election, then the GOP would have campaigned in New York and California.
Some stupid number like 85% in Manhattan alone voted for Clinton. With a campaign push Trump would have swung a net 200K or more voters right there. But those weren't the ground rules, your argument is extremelely disingenuous
Agreed, going into this the candidates know the election is based on EC...and would have campaigned differently if it was based upon popular vote. Everyone knew this, people who push the popular vote montra should have tried to change things before the election...not post. Sounds like sour grapes and trying to change the rules b/c they lost.
Agreed, going into this the candidates know the election is based on EC...and would have campaigned differently if it was based upon popular vote. Everyone knew this, people who push the popular vote montra should have tried to change things before the election...not post. Sounds like sour grapes and trying to change the rules b/c they lost.
For months we heard about the Blue Wall, the wide path to 270, the deer track to 270, the 95% chance of winning, etc.
I don't know if anyone else noticed but until California Trump was leading in the popular vote. That state was the flip over. I somewhat think that most people, regardless of their political leaning, wouldn't be too keen on California deciding elections.
That's not correct. Forgetting for a minute that Clinton got less than 50% of all votes placed, the election was held with an electoral college system. If the system would have been a popular vote election, then the GOP would have campaigned in New York and California.
Some stupid number like 85% in Manhattan alone voted for Clinton. With a campaign push Trump would have swung a net 200K or more voters right there. But those weren't the ground rules, your argument is extremelely disingenuous
I did not say Clinton won the EC. I said she won the populous vote. Unless you have proof that this is not the case...
My argument stands. The will of the people, meaning the popular vote, clearly gave Clinton this one. But the way the system works, Trump won. I admit that.
For months we heard about the Blue Wall, the wide path to 270, the deer track to 270, the 95% chance of winning, etc.
I don't know if anyone else noticed but until California Trump was leading in the popular vote. That state was the flip over. I somewhat think that most people, regardless of their political leaning, wouldn't be too keen on California deciding elections.
Why not? California produces more GDP than any other state by a wide margin. Texas is the next one down, and its GDP is half that of California. Unless you hate capitalism and production of wealth...
For months we heard about the Blue Wall, the wide path to 270, the deer track to 270, the 95% chance of winning, etc.
I don't know if anyone else noticed but until California Trump was leading in the popular vote. That state was the flip over. I somewhat think that most people, regardless of their political leaning, wouldn't be too keen on California deciding elections.
California:
8,753,788 Votes for Hillary
4,483,810 Votes for Trump
-------------
+4.2 Million for Hillary, 2:1 !!!
The nationwide difference was 2.8 M. So just to reaffirm what you wrote, we absolutely DO NOT need California to be deciding elections for the country. Hollywood is the last place that you would say is connected to reality
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.
