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.
Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.
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.
Trump did legitimately win. The outcome is not in disrepute. And my point would be that it could be argued that ultimately more people wanted Trump than Hillary. If we're counting only legal citizens, then the picture becomes clearer still yet.
No. There was no appreciable discrepancy in the legality of the voters, no matter how much right wing radio claims. Come up with proof, and try again.
Still whining about imaginary illegal citizens voting. Come up with proof of more than a tiny fraction of a percent, and you might have a point.Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.
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.
Trump did legitimately win. The outcome is not in disrepute. And my point would be that it could be argued that ultimately more people wanted Trump than Hillary. If we're counting only legal citizens, then the picture becomes clearer still yet.
It's not PROOF -- but it is entirely suspicious that there were about 1.5MILLION "provisional" ballots cast in Cali. When I last checked about 8 days after the election, Cali had just cleared less than 200,000 of these. So we KNOW that an extraordinary amount of questionable ballots were cast. And that's on the Cali system. Where people have the expectation of just walking into a polling place (or a dozen polling places) and be allowed to vote regardless of the fact that they don't APPEAR on the voting rolls.
That's a lousy way to run an election system.
Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.
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.
Trump did legitimately win. The outcome is not in disrepute. And my point would be that it could be argued that ultimately more people wanted Trump than Hillary. If we're counting only legal citizens, then the picture becomes clearer still yet.
No. There was no appreciable discrepancy in the legality of the voters, no matter how much right wing radio claims. Come up with proof, and try again.
It's wink, wink; eyes closed in California and other places. It's more than apparent to anyone paying attention. The media has no incentive to investigate. You should be demanding they investigate if you truly give a fuck, which you don't (so, don't be asking me for sh** you don't care about and will immediately dismiss).
Yes she got a majority except she didn't get a majority? Something tells me you are a wee bit fucked up.Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.
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.
Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.
... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.
Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.
Okay, but say it had came down to a runoff between two candidates; the data shows that it wouldn't have been in the bag for Hillary. My overarching point is that the Hillary winning the popular vote by 2.5 percent is superficial if not just outright phony.
3 million more votes is not superficial, and not phony. The country didn't want Trump as president
30 of 50 states disagree with you.
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.
Trump did legitimately win. The outcome is not in disrepute. And my point would be that it could be argued that ultimately more people wanted Trump than Hillary. If we're counting only legal citizens, then the picture becomes clearer still yet.
No. There was no appreciable discrepancy in the legality of the voters, no matter how much right wing radio claims. Come up with proof, and try again.
It's wink, wink; eyes closed in California and other places. It's more than apparent to anyone paying attention. The media has no incentive to investigate. You should be demanding they investigate if you truly give a fuck, which you don't (so, don't be asking me for sh** you don't care about and will immediately dismiss).
You're right. I don't care about the shit you have produced so far. Come up with something verifiable, and I might listen.
Still whining about imaginary illegal citizens voting. Come up with proof of more than a tiny fraction of a percent, and you might have a point.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.
Trump did legitimately win. The outcome is not in disrepute. And my point would be that it could be argued that ultimately more people wanted Trump than Hillary. If we're counting only legal citizens, then the picture becomes clearer still yet.
It's not PROOF -- but it is entirely suspicious that there were about 1.5MILLION "provisional" ballots cast in Cali. When I last checked about 8 days after the election, Cali had just cleared less than 200,000 of these. So we KNOW that an extraordinary amount of questionable ballots were cast. And that's on the Cali system. Where people have the expectation of just walking into a polling place (or a dozen polling places) and be allowed to vote regardless of the fact that they don't APPEAR on the voting rolls.
That's a lousy way to run an election system.
I live in Cali. They give away provisional ballots like candy.
Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.
... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.
Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.
Okay, but say it had came down to a runoff between two candidates; the data shows that it wouldn't have been in the bag for Hillary. My overarching point is that the Hillary winning the popular vote by 2.5 percent is superficial if not just outright phony.
3 million more votes is not superficial, and not phony. The country didn't want Trump as president
It is. People knew going into this that the popular vote was not the deciding factor and voted accordingly. I know plenty of people who made statement votes or non votes who likely otherwise vote differently under a popular vote system. But as it is, people did vote at larger numbers for conservative principles.
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.
Trump did legitimately win. The outcome is not in disrepute. And my point would be that it could be argued that ultimately more people wanted Trump than Hillary. If we're counting only legal citizens, then the picture becomes clearer still yet.
No. There was no appreciable discrepancy in the legality of the voters, no matter how much right wing radio claims. Come up with proof, and try again.
It's wink, wink; eyes closed in California and other places. It's more than apparent to anyone paying attention. The media has no incentive to investigate. You should be demanding they investigate if you truly give a fuck, which you don't (so, don't be asking me for sh** you don't care about and will immediately dismiss).
You're right. I don't care about the shit you have produced so far. Come up with something verifiable, and I might listen.
You're a partisan hack. I only regard you at all for the fun of it. I'd never go digging for sh** for you or your ilk. I make this clear upfront.
Still whining about imaginary illegal citizens voting. Come up with proof of more than a tiny fraction of a percent, and you might have a point.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.
Trump did legitimately win. The outcome is not in disrepute. And my point would be that it could be argued that ultimately more people wanted Trump than Hillary. If we're counting only legal citizens, then the picture becomes clearer still yet.
It's not PROOF -- but it is entirely suspicious that there were about 1.5MILLION "provisional" ballots cast in Cali. When I last checked about 8 days after the election, Cali had just cleared less than 200,000 of these. So we KNOW that an extraordinary amount of questionable ballots were cast. And that's on the Cali system. Where people have the expectation of just walking into a polling place (or a dozen polling places) and be allowed to vote regardless of the fact that they don't APPEAR on the voting rolls.
That's a lousy way to run an election system.
I live in Cali. They give away provisional ballots like candy.
1.5MILLION is an indication of something very wrong or rotten in the Registration process. That needs to fix. Right after they decide what kind of shopping bags to make illegal or whether to secede from the Union. .
But the LARGE MAJORITY of the 3.8% LParty vote would have stayed home.
Majority? I doubt that very much. While they are very principled voters, we know that libertarians vote Republican in lieu of Democrats at a high clip, likely more than 90 percent.
Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.
... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.
Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.
Okay, but say it had came down to a runoff between two candidates; the data shows that it wouldn't have been in the bag for Hillary. My overarching point is that the Hillary winning the popular vote by 2.5 percent is superficial if not just outright phony.
3 million more votes is not superficial, and not phony. The country didn't want Trump as president
30 of 50 states disagree with you.
At a minimum. Info Wars contests that Hillary stole five states, though I've never heard which ones they believe this is true of.
Nevada, Virginia, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, Maine would be the prime targets.
Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.
... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.
Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.
Okay, but say it had came down to a runoff between two candidates; the data shows that it wouldn't have been in the bag for Hillary. My overarching point is that the Hillary winning the popular vote by 2.5 percent is superficial if not just outright phony.
3 million more votes is not superficial, and not phony. The country didn't want Trump as president
It is. People knew going into this that the popular vote was not the deciding factor and voted accordingly. I know plenty of people who made statement votes or non votes who likely otherwise vote differently under a popular vote system. But as it is, people did vote at larger numbers for conservative principles.
Voted accordingly? What is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to say Trump supporters voted for someone else, or that people that didn't support him voted for him anyway? Explain what you mean by voted accordingly, and how could that make 3000 more votes mean anything but 3000 more people wanted her.
But the LARGE MAJORITY of the 3.8% LParty vote would have stayed home.
Majority? I doubt that very much. While they are very principled voters, we know that libertarians vote Republican in lieu of Democrats at a high clip, likely more than 90 percent.
That's a big misconception. Internal LParty polling showed that EARLY in election (pre-October) when Johnson was polling 10% or higher in 5 states -- we were stealing MORE from Clinton than Trump. Even national polls sometimes asked 2 different scenarios. One with just the R/D candidates and the other with at least the LParty and Greens. So you can go back and check.
For MONTHS I was yelling at the TV when they would report polling on ClinTrump. They'd post up numbers that were missing a whole 12 or 16% !!!!!! And they never even commented on it.
The LParty agreed with Bernie on some fundamental issues. The ones that did not involve economics or math..
So it's a fallacy that we don't draw from BOTH sides.
Ms. Clinton got more votes than anyone else.
... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.
Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.
Okay, but say it had came down to a runoff between two candidates; the data shows that it wouldn't have been in the bag for Hillary. My overarching point is that the Hillary winning the popular vote by 2.5 percent is superficial if not just outright phony.
3 million more votes is not superficial, and not phony. The country didn't want Trump as president
30 of 50 states disagree with you.
At a minimum. Info Wars contests that Hillary stole five states, though I've never heard which ones they believe this is true of.
Nevada, Virginia, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, Maine would be the prime targets.
Still whining about imaginary illegal citizens voting. Come up with proof of more than a tiny fraction of a percent, and you might have a point.Trump did legitimately win. The outcome is not in disrepute. And my point would be that it could be argued that ultimately more people wanted Trump than Hillary. If we're counting only legal citizens, then the picture becomes clearer still yet.
It's not PROOF -- but it is entirely suspicious that there were about 1.5MILLION "provisional" ballots cast in Cali. When I last checked about 8 days after the election, Cali had just cleared less than 200,000 of these. So we KNOW that an extraordinary amount of questionable ballots were cast. And that's on the Cali system. Where people have the expectation of just walking into a polling place (or a dozen polling places) and be allowed to vote regardless of the fact that they don't APPEAR on the voting rolls.
That's a lousy way to run an election system.
I live in Cali. They give away provisional ballots like candy.
1.5MILLION is an indication of something very wrong or rotten in the Registration process. That needs to fix. Right after they decide what kind of shopping bags to make illegal or whether to secede from the Union. .
Now, they give away these bags that don't degrade (fast) cos we're paying for them. Whereas the old ones degraded quite fast. It seems like another scam by the liberals.
... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.
Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.
Okay, but say it had came down to a runoff between two candidates; the data shows that it wouldn't have been in the bag for Hillary. My overarching point is that the Hillary winning the popular vote by 2.5 percent is superficial if not just outright phony.
3 million more votes is not superficial, and not phony. The country didn't want Trump as president
30 of 50 states disagree with you.
At a minimum. Info Wars contests that Hillary stole five states, though I've never heard which ones they believe this is true of.
Nevada, Virginia, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, Maine would be the prime targets.
InfoWars also said there were shape shifting lizard people, and the military was attacking Texas. Only a tinfoil hat fool would believe that source.
Still whining about imaginary illegal citizens voting. Come up with proof of more than a tiny fraction of a percent, and you might have a point.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.
Trump did legitimately win. The outcome is not in disrepute. And my point would be that it could be argued that ultimately more people wanted Trump than Hillary. If we're counting only legal citizens, then the picture becomes clearer still yet.
It's not PROOF -- but it is entirely suspicious that there were about 1.5MILLION "provisional" ballots cast in Cali. When I last checked about 8 days after the election, Cali had just cleared less than 200,000 of these. So we KNOW that an extraordinary amount of questionable ballots were cast. And that's on the Cali system. Where people have the expectation of just walking into a polling place (or a dozen polling places) and be allowed to vote regardless of the fact that they don't APPEAR on the voting rolls.
That's a lousy way to run an election system.
So some keyboard warrior can sit on his couch, probably several states away, and find widespread laws being broken, but the professionals that were actually there, and had the authority to view every step of the procedure didn't find a thing. You are truly a legend in your own mind.
... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.
Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.
Okay, but say it had came down to a runoff between two candidates; the data shows that it wouldn't have been in the bag for Hillary. My overarching point is that the Hillary winning the popular vote by 2.5 percent is superficial if not just outright phony.
3 million more votes is not superficial, and not phony. The country didn't want Trump as president
It is. People knew going into this that the popular vote was not the deciding factor and voted accordingly. I know plenty of people who made statement votes or non votes who likely otherwise vote differently under a popular vote system. But as it is, people did vote at larger numbers for conservative principles.
Voted accordingly? What is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to say Trump supporters voted for someone else, or that people that didn't support him voted for him anyway? Explain what you mean by voted accordingly, and how could that make 3000 more votes mean anything but 3000 more people wanted her.
It was pretty clear the first time, honestly. People vote differently based on different parameters. I'll let you do some actual critical thinking if you give a fuck. No spoonfeeding you twice.
... more than any other SINGLE candidate. However, her pop vote margin over Trump was about 1/3 of the 3rd party/independent vote that voted AGAINST her. This election was determined, not quite by conservatives as it says in the OP, but by the rapidly growing independent/3rd party sector of the electorate. In fact, probably THIS YEAR, the number of voters declaring independence from 2 tribal brand name parties will reach a landmark of being BIGGER than both the Dem and Rep faithful put together.
Don't discount that percentage of votes that went for NEITHER candidate. It's the future of American politics.
Okay, but say it had came down to a runoff between two candidates; the data shows that it wouldn't have been in the bag for Hillary. My overarching point is that the Hillary winning the popular vote by 2.5 percent is superficial if not just outright phony.
3 million more votes is not superficial, and not phony. The country didn't want Trump as president
30 of 50 states disagree with you.
At a minimum. Info Wars contests that Hillary stole five states, though I've never heard which ones they believe this is true of.
Nevada, Virginia, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, Maine would be the prime targets.
Not Colorado, the front rang where all the colleges and the large population centers are is solidly liberal. Sprinkle in the ski/tourist areas are Colorao has turned blue.
BTW, we have a Democrat governor and Democrat controlled state houses.
