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.
It won't get changed. That would require a petition, and the other 48 states wouldn't have a heard voice. It won't happen.
It probably won't happen, but you need to go back to that civics course you keep referring to. The Constitution is not amended by way of "petition."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss1234
Right, that proves my point exactly. I don't hate liberals, everyone has their own opinion. What I am saying is that why should we let two of the most liberal states in the country, speak for the whole entire country on who gets to be president? And only one state, California, put Hillary over the top in the popular vote. So, you are cool with California deciding who our president is?
No single state put her over the top, a majority of American citizens did. Your obsession with states is absurd. If the entire rest of the country voted for a candidate other than the one supported by California, that candidate would win, regardless of what California did, or New York, for that matter. BTW, you do realize that there are conservatives in those two states, right?
You are not getting my point. My point was that if the election was based on POPULAR VOTE, then California would be the deciding factor, making the other 49 states irrelevant. The article states that outside of California, Trump has a 2 million vote lead.
And if you left out a couple of swing states, all that would change.
KS, WY, and MS don't decide who our president is, as they are solid red states. NC, OH, MI, FL, WI, and PA decide who the president is. Both candidates knew the rules going in, and both know that we use the electoral college for victories. Trump was just better at speaking to the people.
So, basically, it's okay for one group of states to decide the results, but not another. i see.
What do you mean the will of the voters? More people voted for Clinton. And don't spew the EC crap at me; people vote, not prairies or cows
The EC Crap is in our Constitution - it's also exactly how Hillary Clinton planned to win.
You and other Leftist believe those little puddles of Blue outweigh the Votes of the Sea of Red -
But that's not how it works ..... AND that is not going to change.
Neither party rules forever, or even for very long. 20 years seems to be about the max for one party's political domination, but that's only the average.
Those 'little puddles' of blue have a lot of people in them. Those big expanses of red hold fewer folks, especially west of the Mississippi.
The electoral college doesn't go on size; it goes on numbers of people. As states grow or shrink in population, so does the electoral college.
Remember that one party doesn't have to dominate Congress, either. A close majority doesn't mean much unless it is united as strongly as concrete, and neither party is that unified right now. I don't expect any map will turn blue next year; political change always happens more gradually than that, and there are always more states that seldom change their affiliation than those that do. But when either party has an outsized presence in Congress, it is always at its most vulnerable.
How did I feel in 2016? Disappointed. But that's nothing new, because I've voted for a very long time, and have often felt the emotion. Big deal. Life goes on. The people spoke, as they always do, and they have never always said the same thing every time.
Per the bolded, what's wrong with that? Do you realize that half the people in this country don't want to live with social conservatism?
People care about their financial situation. You're told many things about the right that is simply not true but that's all the left has, lies and deceit. It's sad that you have such a low opinion on the American people based on those lies.
It's no different than the fake dossier, put out pathetic lies and expecting that people like you would run with it. Hillary actually thought it would work too, why? because you believe everything they say.
It is amazing how after a year there are still mobs of people that do not accept Trump and they are still doing their best to destroy him which actually means they would undermine the country if given a chance.
^^^ "undermine the country" ... Putin loves liberals, they gave him the exact reaction he wants. He's been trying to do this for along time.
I agree about the bolded above -- I've also pointed out several times that the constant calls for IMPEACH!, beginning right after the election and the entire Bogus RUSSIA-RUSSIA-RUSSIA are really against the Voters who elected Donald Trump.
The want to Nullify our Vote because their Queen did not get her crown. They reject the will of the Voters AND our entire System when they do this.
I've never seen anything like it. The Leftist Media has ripped it's mask off and is openly hostile to the President of the United States AND to those who voted for him. We can take that and won't forget it.
The worst of it is that they are blasting this Hostility around the Entire World and that is harming our National Security. I won't forgive any of it.
An election is a sense, war between political beliefs and parties but once a president is elected it is a the "American tradition" for the losing party to acknowledge the new president and their loss, step back and look at the reasons they lost. That didn't happen this time.
The EC Crap is in our Constitution - it's also exactly how Hillary Clinton planned to win.
You and other Leftist believe those little puddles of Blue outweigh the Votes of the Sea of Red -
But that's not how it works ..... AND that is not going to change.
Those little puddles are where most of the people live.
I have my issues with the electoral college and the millions of people forced to be represented by the same amount senators as thousands elsewhere. But that's not going to change and it's a stupid argument to have.
My point however, is the use of the term cesspool. It's language like this that keeps up the division. If you want to refer to politicians in a derogatory manner - Obummber, Obozo, whatever, have at it. They know what they're signing up for when they enter the political arena. But for private citizens who choose to live in certain areas and have an opposing viewpoint, it's not right nor fair to label us so negatively.
And you'll be hard-pressed to find me criticizing rural America, so you can't use that counter-argument.
Anyway, if you don't hate liberals, attack policy and politicians, not people.
(removes soapbox)
Obama took office on HOPE & CHANGE but that turned out to be a farce. He was more interested in hobnobbing with celebrities than doing anything that changed things. In fact DC (lobbyist) got richer. So in the end, his presidency was a bummer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hapa1
The only thing Trump was better at, was exploiting the incredibly naive and gullible people who voted for him. He used people, and now this country is his ultimate reality show. Sad
Hey Hapa, at least you left out deplorable, racist, bigot, because it worked so well in your quest to get Hillary elected <sarcasm>
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.
