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.
Believe me, I never thought that Mr. Trump wrote the article on behalf of the British magazine. And I did not read it. However, I did read your post, which obviously indicated approval of the argument made in the linked article, to which I responded.
Furthermore, it is well known that Mr. Trump is on record as claiming that he 'won' the popular vote, by arguing, without any evidence whatsoever, that Ms. Clinton's margin of victory in the popular vote was due to 3 million illegals voting. He also claimed that his 306 electoral votes constituted a 'landslide' of Biblical proportion. Of course, since he has made his thoughts known, his supporters have frantically attempted to support his claims.
This is not the first thread started on this subject. I doubt it will be the last. Indeed, I imagine that Mr. Trump himself will keep the flame going on occasion, even after assuming the mantle of President of the United States of America.
I can understand the frustration that some Trump supporters have, for they will hear, from time to time, of how Mr. Trump does not have a 'mandate' from the voting public. I have little sympathy for such people.
I have observed people, like Mr. Trump, argue that Mr. Obama was not legitimately the president based on utterly false information. I recall, after Mr. Obama was elected in November 2008, of people taking to the streets and chanting about the need to 'take our country back'. I watched as Republican leaders frankly state that they would block any and all proposals by Mr. Obama, despite his winning his two elections by significant margins over his opponents. I watched as the Republicans in the Senate abandoned their Constitutionally mandated duty to 'advise and consent' to Mr. Obama's Supreme Court nominee (as I said before, they could have easily held a hearing, then voted Mr. Garland down, and so strung out the proceedings to now). Instead, they fed the public baloney about waiting until the public spoke in November 2016. We all recall how they began to panic when it appeared that Ms. Clinton would win, and how some Republican Senators even floated the idea of voting on Mr. Garland, or how nutters like Senator Ted Cruz (born in Canada) even spoke of how there was no need for nine justices, after all.
So, you will forgive me if I do not weep tears over the fact that Mr. Trump will face Democrats claiming that he has no 'mandate'. If he were a mature man, he would ignore such claims and get on with the job he promised to do. The Republicans, after all, hold both the Senate and House. Yet, it is not in his nature to ignore such things. He is so easily needled that he will keep this 'non issue' going for months.
Believe me, I never thought that Mr. Trump wrote the article on behalf of the British magazine. And I did not read it. However, I did read your post, which obviously indicated approval of the argument made in the linked article, to which I responded.
Furthermore, it is well known that Mr. Trump is on record as claiming that he 'won' the popular vote, by arguing, without any evidence whatsoever, that Ms. Clinton's margin of victory in the popular vote was due to 3 million illegals voting. He also claimed that his 306 electoral votes constituted a 'landslide' of Biblical proportion. Of course, since he has made his thoughts known, his supporters have frantically attempted to support his claims.
This is not the first thread started on this subject. I doubt it will be the last. Indeed, I imagine that Mr. Trump himself will keep the flame going on occasion, even after assuming the mantle of President of the United States of America.
I can understand the frustration that some Trump supporters have, for they will hear, from time to time, of how Mr. Trump does not have a 'mandate' from the voting public. I have little sympathy for such people.
I have observed people, like Mr. Trump, argue that Mr. Obama was not legitimately the president based on utterly false information. I recall, after Mr. Obama was elected in November 2008, of people taking to the streets and chanting about the need to 'take our country back'. I watched as Republican leaders frankly state that they would block any and all proposals by Mr. Obama, despite his winning his two elections by significant margins over his opponents. I watched as the Republicans in the Senate abandoned their Constitutionally mandated duty to 'advise and consent' to Mr. Obama's Supreme Court nominee (as I said before, they could have easily held a hearing, then voted Mr. Garland down, and so strung out the proceedings to now). Instead, they fed the public baloney about waiting until the public spoke in November 2016. We all recall how they began to panic when it appeared that Ms. Clinton would win, and how some Republican Senators even floated the idea of voting on Mr. Garland, or how nutters like Senator Ted Cruz (born in Canada) even spoke of how there was no need for nine justices, after all.
So, you will forgive me if I do not weep tears over the fact that Mr. Trump will face Democrats claiming that he has no 'mandate'. If he were a mature man, he would ignore such claims and get on with the job he promised to do. The Republicans, after all, hold both the Senate and House. Yet, it is not in his nature to ignore such things. He is so easily needled that he will keep this 'non issue' going for months.
Believe me, you will never hear me complain that DJT lost the popular vote. I am content with the electoral win because, as you know, that is the only win that counts!
If you discount their votes, are you gonna take their tax money?
If they keep all the tax liabilities for the people in their state (i.e. all the illegals and government dependents) then I have no problem letting CA and NY residents keep their tax dollars.
Less CA and NY Trump won popular vote by 3 Million
Last I looked, both states are still in the Union and I'm guessing are two of the biggest payers into our United States Treasury and generators of commerce for our country.
I'm not sure why'd you'd "less CA and NY" - because without those two states, we'd be SOL.
I wish Gary Johnson would sue NY and California to force them to do recounts. I am sure quite a lot of voter fraud would be uncovered if a thorough investigation were done. In California, I'm confident hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants voted, if not millions.
If we're going to do that, we should investigate voter suppression in key states, as well. All those illegally-purged voter roles that violated the Voting Rights Act, the closed or understaffed polling places, the voter ID requirements in certain states, etc. Let's clean up all aspects of the voting process.
And btw, in the last few elections, fraud was investigated, and extremely few incidents were found. There hasn't been any mass fraud. OTOH, in the Bush/Kerry election, it was proven in federal court that rural Hispanic and Native American precincts in New Mexico, a consistently Dem state in the previous several Presidential elections, had been given rigged voting machines that caused votes for Kerry to be dropped, so those electronic ballots came out blank. As a result, voting machines are now illegal in NM: paper ballots only.
So, yeah: you want investigations? Let's do investigations. Be careful what you wish for.
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.
