Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Except everyone hated the new Ghostbusters, sight unseen. That was the problem there.
Actually, the movie itself was a big part of the problem.It wasn't as bad as many people reviewed it, IMO, but neither was it all that good.
The Electors and Congress, people who SHOULD know better, said, "Meh, he won under the rules that were set up to keep exactly this sort of thing from happening." Or maybe some of you just hated Obama so much you were willing to destroy the country and her reputation to foil him.
The Electors and Congress should know better than what? Following the election rules set out in the Constitution and various laws? And what exactly is it you think the rules were set up to keep from happening?
I'm telling you just some of the reasons why Hillary lost and you're unable to break out of your, "it was everybody else's fault" mode enough to see it. Heck yeah, her policies kept her out. No one wanted to continue the Obama way. That's why democrats were shut out.
It's funny that you simultaneously complain that the EC cost her the throne and say it was set up to give it to her. Might want to check that.
The Electors and Congress should know better than what? Following the election rules set out in the Constitution and various laws? And what exactly is it you think the rules were set up to keep from happening?
I'm telling you just some of the reasons why Hillary lost and you're unable to break out of your, "it was everybody else's fault" mode enough to see it. Heck yeah, her policies kept her out. No one wanted to continue the Obama way. That's why democrats were shut out.
Except---- again- Hillary won the popular vote.
Why the fuck do you keep pretending you have a mandate when you won on a technicality?
It's funny that you simultaneously complain that the EC cost her the throne and say it was set up to give it to her. Might want to check that.
You miss my point entirely. The whole purpose of the EC, according to the Founding Slave Rapists, was that the people generally couldn't be trusted, therefore, they needed an electoral college to protect them from guy like Trump.
Actually, the voters also said "NO" to Hillary in a very loud and clear voice, as she failed to win a majority. Thus, the system worked as it was designed to work. You just don't like the outcome. You know, had some of those extra votes in CA moved to other states and kept their allegiance to the corrupt party, Hillary might have actually won.Except- again- the people got it right. They saw Trump for what he was and voted against him. Some of them decided to be hipsters and vote for the "Libertarian" who was shilling to get federal funds (no, really, you can't make this shit up.) But the people said no, in a very loud and clear voice.
Sounds like we need to get rid of the popular vote, as that is what drove the electors, the popular vote in their states.The Electors and Congress should know better than what? Following the election rules set out in the Constitution and various laws? And what exactly is it you think the rules were set up to keep from happening?
They were set up to prevent a populist demagogue like Trump from taking power. Again, read the federalist papers..
I'm telling you just some of the reasons why Hillary lost and you're unable to break out of your, "it was everybody else's fault" mode enough to see it. Heck yeah, her policies kept her out. No one wanted to continue the Obama way. That's why democrats were shut out.
Except---- again- Hillary won the popular vote.
Why the fuck do you keep pretending you have a mandate when you won on a technicality?
Because the presidential race was only one of many that were decided that year, and the Republicans decisively won most of those races.
It's funny that you simultaneously complain that the EC cost her the throne and say it was set up to give it to her. Might want to check that.
You miss my point entirely. The whole purpose of the EC, according to the Founding Slave Rapists, was that the people generally couldn't be trusted, therefore, they needed an electoral college to protect them from guy like Trump.
Then the modern usage of the EC, in which the electors vote the way the people want them to, is flawed and we should do away with the popular vote altogether? You do know that the electors of the states voted the way the voters in their states wanted them to. In fact, it was one of Hillary's doomed hopes to get the electors to VIOLATE the popular vote. So it looks like you want the popular vote to count when it gives Hillary the win, and not count when it doesn't.
Actually, the voters also said "NO" to Hillary in a very loud and clear voice, as she failed to win a majority. Thus, the system worked as it was designed to work. You just don't like the outcome. You know, had some of those extra votes in CA moved to other states and kept their allegiance to the corrupt party, Hillary might have actually won.Except- again- the people got it right. They saw Trump for what he was and voted against him. Some of them decided to be hipsters and vote for the "Libertarian" who was shilling to get federal funds (no, really, you can't make this shit up.) But the people said no, in a very loud and clear voice.
The Electors and Congress should know better than what? Following the election rules set out in the Constitution and various laws? And what exactly is it you think the rules were set up to keep from happening?
They were set up to prevent a populist demagogue like Trump from taking power. Again, read the federalist papers..
I'm telling you just some of the reasons why Hillary lost and you're unable to break out of your, "it was everybody else's fault" mode enough to see it. Heck yeah, her policies kept her out. No one wanted to continue the Obama way. That's why democrats were shut out.
Except---- again- Hillary won the popular vote.
Why the fuck do you keep pretending you have a mandate when you won on a technicality?
Because the presidential race was only one of many that were decided that year, and the Republicans decisively won most of those races.
It's funny that you simultaneously complain that the EC cost her the throne and say it was set up to give it to her. Might want to check that.
You miss my point entirely. The whole purpose of the EC, according to the Founding Slave Rapists, was that the people generally couldn't be trusted, therefore, they needed an electoral college to protect them from guy like Trump.
Then the modern usage of the EC, in which the electors vote the way the people want them to, is flawed and we should do away with the popular vote altogether? You do know that the electors of the states voted the way the voters in their states wanted them to. In fact, it was one of Hillary's doomed hopes to get the electors to VIOLATE the popular vote. So it looks like you want the popular vote to count when it gives Hillary the win, and not count when it doesn't.
Actually, the voters also said "NO" to Hillary in a very loud and clear voice, as she failed to win a majority. Thus, the system worked as it was designed to work. You just don't like the outcome. You know, had some of those extra votes in CA moved to other states and kept their allegiance to the corrupt party, Hillary might have actually won.Except- again- the people got it right. They saw Trump for what he was and voted against him. Some of them decided to be hipsters and vote for the "Libertarian" who was shilling to get federal funds (no, really, you can't make this shit up.) But the people said no, in a very loud and clear voice.
She got three million more votes than anybody else, so no, the voters didn't "say no in a loud and clear voice" at all.
That was a plurality. Nobody got a "majority". Nor did Bush or (Bill) Clinton, either time. Nor did 14 other elections settle that way including Lincoln.
I'm telling you just some of the reasons why Hillary lost and you're unable to break out of your, "it was everybody else's fault" mode enough to see it. Heck yeah, her policies kept her out. No one wanted to continue the Obama way. That's why democrats were shut out.
Except---- again- Hillary won the popular vote.
Why the fuck do you keep pretending you have a mandate when you won on a technicality?
Because the presidential race was only one of many that were decided that year, and the Republicans decisively won most of those races.
It's funny that you simultaneously complain that the EC cost her the throne and say it was set up to give it to her. Might want to check that.
You miss my point entirely. The whole purpose of the EC, according to the Founding Slave Rapists, was that the people generally couldn't be trusted, therefore, they needed an electoral college to protect them from guy like Trump.
Then the modern usage of the EC, in which the electors vote the way the people want them to, is flawed and we should do away with the popular vote altogether? You do know that the electors of the states voted the way the voters in their states wanted them to. In fact, it was one of Hillary's doomed hopes to get the electors to VIOLATE the popular vote. So it looks like you want the popular vote to count when it gives Hillary the win, and not count when it doesn't.
Actually, the voters also said "NO" to Hillary in a very loud and clear voice, as she failed to win a majority. Thus, the system worked as it was designed to work. You just don't like the outcome. You know, had some of those extra votes in CA moved to other states and kept their allegiance to the corrupt party, Hillary might have actually won.Except- again- the people got it right. They saw Trump for what he was and voted against him. Some of them decided to be hipsters and vote for the "Libertarian" who was shilling to get federal funds (no, really, you can't make this shit up.) But the people said no, in a very loud and clear voice.
She got three million more votes than anybody else, so no, the voters didn't "say no in a loud and clear voice" at all.
That was a plurality. Nobody got a "majority". Nor did Bush or (Bill) Clinton, either time. Nor did 14 other elections settle that way including Lincoln.
And yet it seems as if every presidential election is touted as a 'mandate by the people'.
And yet it seems as if every presidential election is touted as a 'mandate by the people'.
Which souds eerily like bringing out a terrible product and defending it with "hey, we're just giving people what they want".
And yet it seems as if every presidential election is touted as a 'mandate by the people'.
Which souds eerily like bringing out a terrible product and defending it with "hey, we're just giving people what they want".
Hold on. Now you're attacking the very foundation of democracy!
I'm telling you just some of the reasons why Hillary lost and you're unable to break out of your, "it was everybody else's fault" mode enough to see it. Heck yeah, her policies kept her out. No one wanted to continue the Obama way. That's why democrats were shut out.
Except---- again- Hillary won the popular vote.
Why the fuck do you keep pretending you have a mandate when you won on a technicality?
Because the presidential race was only one of many that were decided that year, and the Republicans decisively won most of those races.
It's funny that you simultaneously complain that the EC cost her the throne and say it was set up to give it to her. Might want to check that.
You miss my point entirely. The whole purpose of the EC, according to the Founding Slave Rapists, was that the people generally couldn't be trusted, therefore, they needed an electoral college to protect them from guy like Trump.
Then the modern usage of the EC, in which the electors vote the way the people want them to, is flawed and we should do away with the popular vote altogether? You do know that the electors of the states voted the way the voters in their states wanted them to. In fact, it was one of Hillary's doomed hopes to get the electors to VIOLATE the popular vote. So it looks like you want the popular vote to count when it gives Hillary the win, and not count when it doesn't.
Actually, the voters also said "NO" to Hillary in a very loud and clear voice, as she failed to win a majority. Thus, the system worked as it was designed to work. You just don't like the outcome. You know, had some of those extra votes in CA moved to other states and kept their allegiance to the corrupt party, Hillary might have actually won.Except- again- the people got it right. They saw Trump for what he was and voted against him. Some of them decided to be hipsters and vote for the "Libertarian" who was shilling to get federal funds (no, really, you can't make this shit up.) But the people said no, in a very loud and clear voice.
She got three million more votes than anybody else, so no, the voters didn't "say no in a loud and clear voice" at all.
That was a plurality. Nobody got a "majority". Nor did Bush or (Bill) Clinton, either time. Nor did 14 other elections settle that way including Lincoln.
I'm telling you just some of the reasons why Hillary lost and you're unable to break out of your, "it was everybody else's fault" mode enough to see it. Heck yeah, her policies kept her out. No one wanted to continue the Obama way. That's why democrats were shut out.
Except---- again- Hillary won the popular vote.
Why the fuck do you keep pretending you have a mandate when you won on a technicality?
Because the presidential race was only one of many that were decided that year, and the Republicans decisively won most of those races.
It's funny that you simultaneously complain that the EC cost her the throne and say it was set up to give it to her. Might want to check that.
You miss my point entirely. The whole purpose of the EC, according to the Founding Slave Rapists, was that the people generally couldn't be trusted, therefore, they needed an electoral college to protect them from guy like Trump.
Then the modern usage of the EC, in which the electors vote the way the people want them to, is flawed and we should do away with the popular vote altogether? You do know that the electors of the states voted the way the voters in their states wanted them to. In fact, it was one of Hillary's doomed hopes to get the electors to VIOLATE the popular vote. So it looks like you want the popular vote to count when it gives Hillary the win, and not count when it doesn't.
Actually, the voters also said "NO" to Hillary in a very loud and clear voice, as she failed to win a majority. Thus, the system worked as it was designed to work. You just don't like the outcome. You know, had some of those extra votes in CA moved to other states and kept their allegiance to the corrupt party, Hillary might have actually won.Except- again- the people got it right. They saw Trump for what he was and voted against him. Some of them decided to be hipsters and vote for the "Libertarian" who was shilling to get federal funds (no, really, you can't make this shit up.) But the people said no, in a very loud and clear voice.
She got three million more votes than anybody else, so no, the voters didn't "say no in a loud and clear voice" at all.
That was a plurality. Nobody got a "majority". Nor did Bush or (Bill) Clinton, either time. Nor did 14 other elections settle that way including Lincoln.
And those who voted were far from all the people, so many more did NOT vote for Hillary than voted for her.
I would say that is only half true to be honest. There are millions out there who are disenfranchised but I am willing to bet that the majority of those that did not vote simply did not care to and would not have cared to no matter who was on the ballot. At the end of the day we are victims of our own success. In general, no matter who wins the election, peoples daily lives are unaffected or at least effected in a manner that they really do not notice.I'm telling you just some of the reasons why Hillary lost and you're unable to break out of your, "it was everybody else's fault" mode enough to see it. Heck yeah, her policies kept her out. No one wanted to continue the Obama way. That's why democrats were shut out.
Except---- again- Hillary won the popular vote.
Why the fuck do you keep pretending you have a mandate when you won on a technicality?
Because the presidential race was only one of many that were decided that year, and the Republicans decisively won most of those races.
It's funny that you simultaneously complain that the EC cost her the throne and say it was set up to give it to her. Might want to check that.
You miss my point entirely. The whole purpose of the EC, according to the Founding Slave Rapists, was that the people generally couldn't be trusted, therefore, they needed an electoral college to protect them from guy like Trump.
Then the modern usage of the EC, in which the electors vote the way the people want them to, is flawed and we should do away with the popular vote altogether? You do know that the electors of the states voted the way the voters in their states wanted them to. In fact, it was one of Hillary's doomed hopes to get the electors to VIOLATE the popular vote. So it looks like you want the popular vote to count when it gives Hillary the win, and not count when it doesn't.
Actually, the voters also said "NO" to Hillary in a very loud and clear voice, as she failed to win a majority. Thus, the system worked as it was designed to work. You just don't like the outcome. You know, had some of those extra votes in CA moved to other states and kept their allegiance to the corrupt party, Hillary might have actually won.Except- again- the people got it right. They saw Trump for what he was and voted against him. Some of them decided to be hipsters and vote for the "Libertarian" who was shilling to get federal funds (no, really, you can't make this shit up.) But the people said no, in a very loud and clear voice.
She got three million more votes than anybody else, so no, the voters didn't "say no in a loud and clear voice" at all.
That was a plurality. Nobody got a "majority". Nor did Bush or (Bill) Clinton, either time. Nor did 14 other elections settle that way including Lincoln.
And those who voted were far from all the people, so many more did NOT vote for Hillary than voted for her.
Matter of fact 45 percent of all eligible voters didn't bother to vote at all. They looked at the ballot and figured 'what's the point?'
And ZINGO, we're back on topic. Hope you enjoyed the rest stop.
To be fair, it's the only way the Democrats won for decades.Electoral college, gerrymandering, voter suppression, vote theft - Its the only way the gop can win.
Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor
Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.
This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?
I would say that is only half true to be honest. There are millions out there who are disenfranchised but I am willing to bet that the majority of those that did not vote simply did not care to and would not have cared to no matter who was on the ballot. At the end of the day we are victims of our own success. In general, no matter who wins the election, peoples daily lives are unaffected or at least effected in a manner that they really do not notice.Except---- again- Hillary won the popular vote.
Why the fuck do you keep pretending you have a mandate when you won on a technicality?
Because the presidential race was only one of many that were decided that year, and the Republicans decisively won most of those races.
You miss my point entirely. The whole purpose of the EC, according to the Founding Slave Rapists, was that the people generally couldn't be trusted, therefore, they needed an electoral college to protect them from guy like Trump.
Then the modern usage of the EC, in which the electors vote the way the people want them to, is flawed and we should do away with the popular vote altogether? You do know that the electors of the states voted the way the voters in their states wanted them to. In fact, it was one of Hillary's doomed hopes to get the electors to VIOLATE the popular vote. So it looks like you want the popular vote to count when it gives Hillary the win, and not count when it doesn't.
Actually, the voters also said "NO" to Hillary in a very loud and clear voice, as she failed to win a majority. Thus, the system worked as it was designed to work. You just don't like the outcome. You know, had some of those extra votes in CA moved to other states and kept their allegiance to the corrupt party, Hillary might have actually won.Except- again- the people got it right. They saw Trump for what he was and voted against him. Some of them decided to be hipsters and vote for the "Libertarian" who was shilling to get federal funds (no, really, you can't make this shit up.) But the people said no, in a very loud and clear voice.
She got three million more votes than anybody else, so no, the voters didn't "say no in a loud and clear voice" at all.
That was a plurality. Nobody got a "majority". Nor did Bush or (Bill) Clinton, either time. Nor did 14 other elections settle that way including Lincoln.
And those who voted were far from all the people, so many more did NOT vote for Hillary than voted for her.
Matter of fact 45 percent of all eligible voters didn't bother to vote at all. They looked at the ballot and figured 'what's the point?'
And ZINGO, we're back on topic. Hope you enjoyed the rest stop.
It is the bane of any democratic process - people tend not to notice until the shit really hits the fan. By then, it is FAR to late to do anything.
I'm telling you just some of the reasons why Hillary lost and you're unable to break out of your, "it was everybody else's fault" mode enough to see it. Heck yeah, her policies kept her out. No one wanted to continue the Obama way. That's why democrats were shut out.
Except---- again- Hillary won the popular vote.
Why the fuck do you keep pretending you have a mandate when you won on a technicality?
It's funny that you simultaneously complain that the EC cost her the throne and say it was set up to give it to her. Might want to check that.
You miss my point entirely. The whole purpose of the EC, according to the Founding Slave Rapists, was that the people generally couldn't be trusted, therefore, they needed an electoral college to protect them from guy like Trump.
Except- again- the people got it right. They saw Trump for what he was and voted against him. Some of them decided to be hipsters and vote for the "Libertarian" who was shilling to get federal funds (no, really, you can't make this shit up.) But the people said no, in a very loud and clear voice.
I'm telling you just some of the reasons why Hillary lost and you're unable to break out of your, "it was everybody else's fault" mode enough to see it. Heck yeah, her policies kept her out. No one wanted to continue the Obama way. That's why democrats were shut out.
Except---- again- Hillary won the popular vote.
Why the fuck do you keep pretending you have a mandate when you won on a technicality?
Because the presidential race was only one of many that were decided that year, and the Republicans decisively won most of those races.
It's funny that you simultaneously complain that the EC cost her the throne and say it was set up to give it to her. Might want to check that.
You miss my point entirely. The whole purpose of the EC, according to the Founding Slave Rapists, was that the people generally couldn't be trusted, therefore, they needed an electoral college to protect them from guy like Trump.
Then the modern usage of the EC, in which the electors vote the way the people want them to, is flawed and we should do away with the popular vote altogether? You do know that the electors of the states voted the way the voters in their states wanted them to. In fact, it was one of Hillary's doomed hopes to get the electors to VIOLATE the popular vote. So it looks like you want the popular vote to count when it gives Hillary the win, and not count when it doesn't.
Actually, the voters also said "NO" to Hillary in a very loud and clear voice, as she failed to win a majority. Thus, the system worked as it was designed to work. You just don't like the outcome. You know, had some of those extra votes in CA moved to other states and kept their allegiance to the corrupt party, Hillary might have actually won.Except- again- the people got it right. They saw Trump for what he was and voted against him. Some of them decided to be hipsters and vote for the "Libertarian" who was shilling to get federal funds (no, really, you can't make this shit up.) But the people said no, in a very loud and clear voice.
She got three million more votes than anybody else, so no, the voters didn't "say no in a loud and clear voice" at all.
That was a plurality. Nobody got a "majority". Nor did Bush or (Bill) Clinton, either time. Nor did 14 other elections settle that way including Lincoln.
Because the presidential race was only one of many that were decided that year, and the Republicans decisively won most of those races.
I'm pretty sure any failures regarding the EC from the way it was originally set up fall more towards the way it has gravitated to the popular vote. In Federalist 68, Hamilton praises the people choosing not the president, but the electors, who would then decide on the president: "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
