Are Snowflakes Stupid Enough To Pay $1200 A Ticket?

[Toddsterpatriot]

His argument, if I remember correctly, centers around the 2 electoral votes each state gets representing their Senators regardless of whether they're the least populated state or the most populated. He claims it gives a unfair favor to the small states because they are less populated. His argument would make sense except he ignores what those 2 votes were designed to represent. He wants to make it appear as if those 2 EV represent the people when they actually represent the State. That's why each STATE gets 2. It's even across the board just like the EV representing House members is even in a matter of proportions because they actually represent the body that represents the people. There's a reason each House district has as much of the same population as possible.

No, I'm talking overall EC votes per state. Currently Alaska has 3 votes for its 600,000 people. California has 55 for its 40 million people. So there is one vote for every 200,000 Alaskans. There is one EC vote for every 727,000 Californians. As the EC is used to elect presidents the weight of the Alaskan vote is three times that of the Californian. Fact. That is intrinsically unfair. My point has NOTHING to do with the 2 for the senators.

An EC vote in Alaska or New Hampshire is worth more than one in California.

^
Your above claim was false.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More people voted against her than for her. Same thing happened to Bill, twice.

I have already explained why it matters. Um, no, more people voted for her, fact. He received more EC votes. EC votes are not people.

More people voted against her than for her.

Um, no, more people voted for her, fact.

View attachment 146733

Last time I looked, 51.8% > 48.2%.

I've said it before, liberals are bad at math.

 

[Conservative65]

His argument, if I remember correctly, centers around the 2 electoral votes each state gets representing their Senators regardless of whether they're the least populated state or the most populated. He claims it gives a unfair favor to the small states because they are less populated. His argument would make sense except he ignores what those 2 votes were designed to represent. He wants to make it appear as if those 2 EV represent the people when they actually represent the State. That's why each STATE gets 2. It's even across the board just like the EV representing House members is even in a matter of proportions because they actually represent the body that represents the people. There's a reason each House district has as much of the same population as possible.

No, I'm talking overall EC votes per state. Currently Alaska has 3 votes for its 600,000 people. California has 55 for its 40 million people. So there is one vote for every 200,000 Alaskans. There is one EC vote for every 727,000 Californians. As the EC is used to elect presidents the weight of the Alaskan vote is three times that of the Californian. Fact. That is intrinsically unfair. My point has NOTHING to do with the 2 for the senators.

Only 1 of Alaska's 3 EV represent the people. The other two represent the STATE and don't have anything to do with the number of people. You're trying to include electoral votes that represent a number whatsoever when it comes to population.

If your calculation includes EV that represent the Senators, and they do since you used 3 for Alaska and only 1 represents the population, it's exactly what you're doing. You're saying I'm going to use the total number of EV, which includes 2 for the Senators, in a calculation to show something I claim is unfair then say your calculations have nothing to do with the 2 for the Senators. If those two don't, you can't divide by 3 for Alaska. You're trying to include something related to population when those 2 for Alaska have nothing to do with nor were ever designed to have anything to do with the population.

When it comes to the 435 that are used to represent the House members, each EV counts exactly the same or as close to the same as they can be based on provisions of the ruling in Wesbury v. Sanders (1962).

 

[Conservative65]

His argument, if I remember correctly, centers around the 2 electoral votes each state gets representing their Senators regardless of whether they're the least populated state or the most populated. He claims it gives a unfair favor to the small states because they are less populated. His argument would make sense except he ignores what those 2 votes were designed to represent. He wants to make it appear as if those 2 EV represent the people when they actually represent the State. That's why each STATE gets 2. It's even across the board just like the EV representing House members is even in a matter of proportions because they actually represent the body that represents the people. There's a reason each House district has as much of the same population as possible.

No, I'm talking overall EC votes per state. Currently Alaska has 3 votes for its 600,000 people. California has 55 for its 40 million people. So there is one vote for every 200,000 Alaskans. There is one EC vote for every 727,000 Californians. As the EC is used to elect presidents the weight of the Alaskan vote is three times that of the Californian. Fact. That is intrinsically unfair. My point has NOTHING to do with the 2 for the senators.

An EC vote in Alaska or New Hampshire is worth more than one in California.

^
Your above claim was false.

He says he wasn't using the 2 EV in Alaska for the Senators related to population yet he divided something into the total population of Alaska to present a false premise.

 

[Conservative65]

More people voted against her than for her. Same thing happened to Bill, twice.

I have already explained why it matters. Um, no, more people voted for her, fact. He received more EC votes. EC votes are not people.

More people voted against her than for her.

Um, no, more people voted for her, fact.

View attachment 146733

Last time I looked, 51.8% > 48.2%.

I've said it before, liberals are bad at math.

I won't argue that she got more than any other single person. However, that's not how we pick a President. What she didn't get was the most of an overall total. Interesting how the lefties argue overall popular vote then run from it when more of the overall popular vote didn't go to her.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More people voted against her than for her. Same thing happened to Bill, twice.

I have already explained why it matters. Um, no, more people voted for her, fact. He received more EC votes. EC votes are not people.

More people voted against her than for her.

Um, no, more people voted for her, fact.

View attachment 146733

Last time I looked, 51.8% > 48.2%.

I've said it before, liberals are bad at math.

I won't argue that she got more than any other single person. However, that's not how we pick a President. What she didn't get was the most of an overall total. Interesting how the lefties argue overall popular vote then run from it when more of the overall popular vote didn't go to her.

You said more voted against her than for her. You were right.

 

[Conservative65]

I have already explained why it matters. Um, no, more people voted for her, fact. He received more EC votes. EC votes are not people.

More people voted against her than for her.

Um, no, more people voted for her, fact.

View attachment 146733

Last time I looked, 51.8% > 48.2%.

I've said it before, liberals are bad at math.

I won't argue that she got more than any other single person. However, that's not how we pick a President. What she didn't get was the most of an overall total. Interesting how the lefties argue overall popular vote then run from it when more of the overall popular vote didn't go to her.

You said more voted against her than for her. You were right.

I also won't argue that of all the individuals she got more than anyone else. The point I make is that is not how we elect a President.

 

[jillian]

I am eager to see how many STUPID snowflakes are willing to pay $1,200 a ticket to see this corrupt, criminal blame anyone and everyone else but herself for her losing the 2016 Presidential Election!

Bwuhahahaha.......

Hillary – the live show: Clinton launching book tour | Daily Mail Online

Hillary – the live show: Clinton to tell audiences her 'personal, raw, detailed and surprisingly funny story' in unprecedented nationwide tour with tickets selling for up to $1,200

aw... bitter hack. can't afford a $1200 ticket.

don't worry maybe Vlad will buy you one.

 

[jillian]

I have already explained why it matters. Um, no, more people voted for her, fact. He received more EC votes. EC votes are not people.

More people voted against her than for her.

Um, no, more people voted for her, fact.

View attachment 146733

Last time I looked, 51.8% > 48.2%.

I've said it before, liberals are bad at math.

I won't argue that she got more than any other single person. However, that's not how we pick a President. What she didn't get was the most of an overall total. Interesting how the lefties argue overall popular vote then run from it when more of the overall popular vote didn't go to her.

You said more voted against her than for her. You were right.

you do understand most of the country is nauseated by the orange sociopath, right?

 

[jillian]

More people voted against her than for her.

Um, no, more people voted for her, fact.

View attachment 146733

Last time I looked, 51.8% > 48.2%.

I've said it before, liberals are bad at math.

I won't argue that she got more than any other single person. However, that's not how we pick a President. What she didn't get was the most of an overall total. Interesting how the lefties argue overall popular vote then run from it when more of the overall popular vote didn't go to her.

You said more voted against her than for her. You were right.

I also won't argue that of all the individuals she got more than anyone else. The point I make is that is not how we elect a President.

yes, because a winger in North Dakota has a vote worth 700 of mine. pathetic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More people voted against her than for her.

Um, no, more people voted for her, fact.

View attachment 146733

Last time I looked, 51.8% > 48.2%.

I've said it before, liberals are bad at math.

I won't argue that she got more than any other single person. However, that's not how we pick a President. What she didn't get was the most of an overall total. Interesting how the lefties argue overall popular vote then run from it when more of the overall popular vote didn't go to her.

You said more voted against her than for her. You were right.

you do understand most of the country is nauseated by the orange sociopath, right?

You do understand most of the country is nauseated by the drunken, corrupt sociopath, right?

How's that Clinton Foundation doing, now that she can't sell access?

 

[Dr Grump]

More people voted against her than for her. Same thing happened to Bill, twice.

I have already explained why it matters. Um, no, more people voted for her, fact. He received more EC votes. EC votes are not people.

More people voted against her than for her.

Um, no, more people voted for her, fact.

View attachment 146733

For her than The Orange Buffoon....

 

[Dr Grump]

His argument, if I remember correctly, centers around the 2 electoral votes each state gets representing their Senators regardless of whether they're the least populated state or the most populated. He claims it gives a unfair favor to the small states because they are less populated. His argument would make sense except he ignores what those 2 votes were designed to represent. He wants to make it appear as if those 2 EV represent the people when they actually represent the State. That's why each STATE gets 2. It's even across the board just like the EV representing House members is even in a matter of proportions because they actually represent the body that represents the people. There's a reason each House district has as much of the same population as possible.

No, I'm talking overall EC votes per state. Currently Alaska has 3 votes for its 600,000 people. California has 55 for its 40 million people. So there is one vote for every 200,000 Alaskans. There is one EC vote for every 727,000 Californians. As the EC is used to elect presidents the weight of the Alaskan vote is three times that of the Californian. Fact. That is intrinsically unfair. My point has NOTHING to do with the 2 for the senators.

An EC vote in Alaska or New Hampshire is worth more than one in California.

^
Your above claim was false.

No, it is not. Only a pedant would miss my point. Are you a pedant? Per head of population, your EC votes are NH are worth more than those in Cali

 

[Camp]

Last time I looked, 51.8% > 48.2%.

I've said it before, liberals are bad at math.

I won't argue that she got more than any other single person. However, that's not how we pick a President. What she didn't get was the most of an overall total. Interesting how the lefties argue overall popular vote then run from it when more of the overall popular vote didn't go to her.

You said more voted against her than for her. You were right.

you do understand most of the country is nauseated by the orange sociopath, right?

You do understand most of the country is nauseated by the drunken, corrupt sociopath, right?

How's that Clinton Foundation doing, now that she can't sell access?

They are doing way better than the trump foundation.

 

[jillian]

I've said it before, liberals are bad at math.

I won't argue that she got more than any other single person. However, that's not how we pick a President. What she didn't get was the most of an overall total. Interesting how the lefties argue overall popular vote then run from it when more of the overall popular vote didn't go to her.

You said more voted against her than for her. You were right.

you do understand most of the country is nauseated by the orange sociopath, right?

You do understand most of the country is nauseated by the drunken, corrupt sociopath, right?

How's that Clinton Foundation doing, now that she can't sell access?

They are doing way better than the trump foundation.

you mean the organization that steals money from its donors to pay trump businesses?

ya.. that trump foundation.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

You do understand most of the country is nauseated by the drunken, corrupt sociopath, right?

How's that Clinton Foundation doing, now that she can't sell access?

More fake news...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More people voted against her than for her. Same thing happened to Bill, twice.

I have already explained why it matters. Um, no, more people voted for her, fact. He received more EC votes. EC votes are not people.

More people voted against her than for her.

Um, no, more people voted for her, fact.

View attachment 146733

For her than The Orange Buffoon....

No one denied that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

His argument, if I remember correctly, centers around the 2 electoral votes each state gets representing their Senators regardless of whether they're the least populated state or the most populated. He claims it gives a unfair favor to the small states because they are less populated. His argument would make sense except he ignores what those 2 votes were designed to represent. He wants to make it appear as if those 2 EV represent the people when they actually represent the State. That's why each STATE gets 2. It's even across the board just like the EV representing House members is even in a matter of proportions because they actually represent the body that represents the people. There's a reason each House district has as much of the same population as possible.

No, I'm talking overall EC votes per state. Currently Alaska has 3 votes for its 600,000 people. California has 55 for its 40 million people. So there is one vote for every 200,000 Alaskans. There is one EC vote for every 727,000 Californians. As the EC is used to elect presidents the weight of the Alaskan vote is three times that of the Californian. Fact. That is intrinsically unfair. My point has NOTHING to do with the 2 for the senators.

An EC vote in Alaska or New Hampshire is worth more than one in California.

^
Your above claim was false.

No, it is not. Only a pedant would miss my point. Are you a pedant? Per head of population, your EC votes are NH are worth more than those in Cali

No, it is not.

Yes it is.

Per head of population, your EC votes are NH are worth more than those in Cali

Even as each EV vote is worth the same.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

You do understand most of the country is nauseated by the drunken, corrupt sociopath, right?

How's that Clinton Foundation doing, now that she can't sell access?

More fake news...

What's the real news on the Clinton Foundation?
Donations up?

 

[Dr Grump]

No, it is not.

Yes it is.

Per head of population, your EC votes are NH are worth more than those in Cali

Even as each EV vote is worth the same.

When it is counted, sure. But again, you miss my point. For each EC vote to have equal weight with regard to population California should have 165 ECs. You seem to think that it is okay for 600,000 Alaskans to have 3 ECs, meanwhile 727,000 Californians don't even have one between them. I don't think that is okay. That is disenfranchising Californians. I don't care if you think California is a liberal hellhole. It is part of the US. Their vote shouldn't count for any less than that of somebody living in Alaska. BTW, the same goes for Texas. They should have more EC votes too....