2016: Conservatism WON the presidential popular vote

[Slyhunter]

California shouldn't get a vote since they allow their illegals to vote.

 

[OKTexas]

Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.

Unfortunately states like California and New York only have a set number of state electoral counts to contribute towards the election, no matter how many votes they contribute to the overall popular vote.

If the 14th Amendment were followed they'd have fewer EVs than they do now.

 

[OKTexas]

Yes, but if the election were about that; those voting for other conservative candidates may well have voted for Trump. And clearly we see that your agenda is not supported by a majority as well.

If. if. If. if. Your clown lucked out, and you want to act like he legitimately won. He' will be president, but you will never be able to say the majority of the country wanted that.

You couldn't say that about Clinton either.

Yes, Trump won. No he didn't deserve to win.

No he didn't and neither did Hillary. They are both bad choices.

Yet, she still got more votes. Trump was not, and is not the choice of the voters

He is of the ones that counted, isn't he?

 

[mvymvy]

. . . State votes are the only ones that count for anything in the EC. If you don't fucking like it, see Article 5.

See the National Popular Vote bill.

 

[OKTexas]

. . . State votes are the only ones that count for anything in the EC. If you don't fucking like it, see Article 5.

See the National Popular Vote bill.

It's unconstitutional and will be declared so if contested. States have no constitutional authority to consider how people voted outside their State when allocating electors.

 

[Papageorgio]

. . . State votes are the only ones that count for anything in the EC. If you don't fucking like it, see Article 5.

See the National Popular Vote bill.

Yeah let us know when it becomes law, then we can talk.

 

[BULLDOG]

If. if. If. if. Your clown lucked out, and you want to act like he legitimately won. He' will be president, but you will never be able to say the majority of the country wanted that.

You couldn't say that about Clinton either.

Yes, Trump won. No he didn't deserve to win.

No he didn't and neither did Hillary. They are both bad choices.

Yet, she still got more votes. Trump was not, and is not the choice of the voters

Hillary received less than 50% of the votes and not a clear choice of anyone, terrible choices.

Yet still about 3 million more than Trump.

 

[BULLDOG]

No. As it turns out with the electoral college, they don't count. As it turns out with the popular vote,their numbers weren't as high as the two front runners, so they don't really count there either. As they were told before the election, those votes were thrown away.

You don't get to determine that votes "were thrown away" because people chose principle over brand name damaged goods. Clinton lost largely just because of the puny Jill Stein vote. True fact. If the DNC hadn't screwed Bernie 13 ways from Sunday -- those votes might have STAYED with the Dems.

Third party votes didn't even have a chance of electing the people they were cast for. Yes. They were thrown away.

Do I really have to point out the obvious here? More than 1/2 of ALL VOTES cast in an election are "thrown away". Because only about 30% of America WINS anything in an election. Those are the fraction of the WINNING cause who got off their asses to vote. Others stayed home, or voted for other choices.

My vote was not thrown away. I voted for a mediation team to STOP the juvenile tribal feuding between the "entitled" parties. And that's what I wanted and what I believed America NEEDED. Winning is NOT the measure of the value to a vote.

If that were true -- the minority parties in Congress should JUST NOT SHOW UP.. Because according to you, "Their votes are wasted and don't count".. Take your own advice. Tell Nancy Pelosi to walk-out and give it up..

What a frantic thing to say. The reality is that your candidate won due to many unethical actions. Years of nonstop trumped up witch hunt investigations, hacking by the Russians, unnecessary and misleading statements by Comey, a continuous flow of fake news and lies by the right, and a quirk that caused a highly unusual outcome from the electoral college. Not because the majority of the voters wanted him to win. 3 million more votes for Hillary prove that.

"... you're candidate won due to ... " Who you talking to Clyde? My choice didn't win. But it was a FAR BETTER choice than Hillary or Trump.. Pay attention. Your 2 parties are not gonna be the only game in town. .

Have you told Nancy Pelosi that her votes don't count for the next 2 years because she has "no chance of winning" yet???

At some point, the 2 parties might not be the only game in town, but for now they are. Only an idiot wouldn't recognize that reality.

 

[BULLDOG]

Third party votes didn't even have a chance of electing the people they were cast for. Yes. They were thrown away.

Do I really have to point out the obvious here? More than 1/2 of ALL VOTES cast in an election are "thrown away". Because only about 30% of America WINS anything in an election. Those are the fraction of the WINNING cause who got off their asses to vote. Others stayed home, or voted for other choices.

My vote was not thrown away. I voted for a mediation team to STOP the juvenile tribal feuding between the "entitled" parties. And that's what I wanted and what I believed America NEEDED. Winning is NOT the measure of the value to a vote.

If that were true -- the minority parties in Congress should JUST NOT SHOW UP.. Because according to you, "Their votes are wasted and don't count".. Take your own advice. Tell Nancy Pelosi to walk-out and give it up..

So you voted for Trump in other words.

Nope. I voted for 2 competent 2 term Governors that both operated very successfully despite a partisan disadvantage in their legislatures. 2 people who BY NATURE and PRINCIPALS would set a completely different NON-PARTISAN tone in D.C. And who have adopted MOST of the same successful principals that have driven my politics for over 20 years. Since I LEFT retail brand name politics in America. It was the PERFECT choice for me. And I will CONTINUE to work tirelessly to make certain that BOTH of your corrupt, dynasty building parties become irrelevant in the near future.

If I had a right winger's ethics , I would point to your statement as proof that your party stole the election with illegal votes. You admitting that you voted for two different people would be my irrefutable evidence. Instead, I'll just ask you to explain your remark.

Don't know where you got that. Our Ticket had 2 ex governors on it. Didn't vote twice.

BUT -- I did in the primaries. Because I attended LParty caucus and voted for my candidate. Then I waltzed in on the "Primary" day -- declared myself a Repub for the day) and voted in the "official" primary for Rand Paul.. Because that's how stupid the system is. I also monkeywrenched the 10 electors and chose them differently than I did Rand Paul.

Thanks for the explanation. I was hoping there was a better explanation than what it obviously sounded like. Sorry, but since none of the 3rd parties had any chance whatsoever, I like most others, viewed them as thrown away votes, and didn't bother to even find out who they were, or what they believed in. Why waste the time?

 

[BULLDOG]

3 million more votes is not superficial, and not phony. The country didn't want Trump as president

67% of the States said they did, that was more than enough.

Why would that matter?

LMAO, remind the class who's being inaugurated on Jan 20. What do you not understand about more than enough? 304 EVs. LOL

That is a totally different subject. Everybody knows Trump will be inaugurated. We are discussing whether the majority of the voters in the country want that to happen, and you can't accept the fact that the numbers say they don't.

Feel free to keep rambling about totally irrelevant shit, I don't care, won't change reality.

Irrelevant as far as who is inaugurated. Totally relevant as far as the country accepting him as the legitimate president who intends to represent the entire country

 

[my2¢]

It's a time to be hopeful but I'm not ready to concede that Trump embraces conservativism.

 

[BULLDOG]

If. if. If. if. Your clown lucked out, and you want to act like he legitimately won. He' will be president, but you will never be able to say the majority of the country wanted that.

You couldn't say that about Clinton either.

Yes, Trump won. No he didn't deserve to win.

No he didn't and neither did Hillary. They are both bad choices.

Yet, she still got more votes. Trump was not, and is not the choice of the voters

He is of the ones that counted, isn't he?

He did win the electoral college. Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily reflect the will of most voters.

 

[owebo]

. . . State votes are the only ones that count for anything in the EC. If you don't fucking like it, see Article 5.

See the National Popular Vote bill.

I don't recall any constitutional amendment currently in circulation.....

 

[owebo]

You couldn't say that about Clinton either.

Yes, Trump won. No he didn't deserve to win.

No he didn't and neither did Hillary. They are both bad choices.

Yet, she still got more votes. Trump was not, and is not the choice of the voters

He is of the ones that counted, isn't he?

He did win the electoral college. Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily reflect the will of most voters.

Voters gave Trump a mandate actually....

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

67% of the States said they did, that was more than enough.

Why would that matter?

LMAO, remind the class who's being inaugurated on Jan 20. What do you not understand about more than enough? 304 EVs. LOL

That is a totally different subject. Everybody knows Trump will be inaugurated. We are discussing whether the majority of the voters in the country want that to happen, and you can't accept the fact that the numbers say they don't.

Feel free to keep rambling about totally irrelevant shit, I don't care, won't change reality.

Irrelevant as far as who is inaugurated. Totally relevant as far as the country accepting him as the legitimate president who intends to represent the entire country

According to the electioral college process outlined in Article II Section 1 and under the 12 Amendment of the Constitution, he is very legitimate. Crying over a voting result the Founders considered, yet determined does not accurately represent the best interests of the nation as a whole makes it irrelevant to the determination for President of the United States. California and New York can sway the overall popular vote towards their favor, but that does not bring any further legitimacy to the presidency.

 

[jillian]

Conservative Republican: 45.95%
Conservative Libertarian: 3.28%
Conservative Independent (McMullin): 0.53%
Conservative Constitution: 0.15%

Conservative Total: 49.91%

Liberal Democrat: 48.04%
Liberal Green: 1.06%

Liberal Total: 49.10%

Even with all the illegals (and felons) voting, liberals still lost the total popular vote; and this narrative that Hillary won the popular vote is superficial, phony nonsense like everything else coming from the liberal establishment.

your unlinked "data" is a lie.

get yourself together and start telling the truth.

 

[Dr Grump]

According to the electioral college process outlined in Article II Section 1 and under the 12 Amendment of the Constitution, he is very legitimate. Crying over a voting result the Founders considered, yet determined does not accurately represent the best interests of the nation as a whole makes it irrelevant to the determination for President of the United States. California and New York can sway the overall popular vote towards their favor, but that does not bring any further legitimacy to the presidency.

I would go so far as to say that except for the UK FFP system, the US would come close to being one of the worst political systems in the western world. Still, it is what it is, and the result is legitimate.

 

[owebo]

According to the electioral college process outlined in Article II Section 1 and under the 12 Amendment of the Constitution, he is very legitimate. Crying over a voting result the Founders considered, yet determined does not accurately represent the best interests of the nation as a whole makes it irrelevant to the determination for President of the United States. California and New York can sway the overall popular vote towards their favor, but that does not bring any further legitimacy to the presidency.

I would go so far as to say that except for the UK FFP system, the US would come close to being one of the worst political systems in the western world. Still, it is what it is, and the result is legitimate.

Hating Liberty is exclusive to LWNJs.......

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

According to the electioral college process outlined in Article II Section 1 and under the 12 Amendment of the Constitution, he is very legitimate. Crying over a voting result the Founders considered, yet determined does not accurately represent the best interests of the nation as a whole makes it irrelevant to the determination for President of the United States. California and New York can sway the overall popular vote towards their favor, but that does not bring any further legitimacy to the presidency.

I would go so far as to say that except for the UK FFP system, the US would come close to being one of the worst political systems in the western world. Still, it is what it is, and the result is legitimate.

Of the various forms for electing a president that was considered, the process the Founders had chosen is actually considered to be the most balanced in overall proper representation of the states and people as a whole.

 

[Dr Grump]

Of the various forms for electing a president that was considered, the process the Founders had chosen is actually considered to be the most balanced in overall proper representation of the states and people as a whole.

Pretty hard to be balanced when a vote in Wyoming is worth almost three times that of somebody in California. For some reason, a lot of people on this site think it's a sin to be a New Yorker, Texan or Californian and that those in the smaller states who have more power are somehow more deserving of more representation at federal level. Why? I have no idea.