Donald Trump had more votes against him than he did for him.

[Pogo]

Trump won with the most votes ever....

Where do you suppose those 'Republicans' randomly spawned from? No, Republicans did not vote for the first time ever just to vote for Trump. To elaborate on the original post, the reason more Republicans voted for the other candidates was because the majority of "record votes" Trump was getting was from Democrats. It's why he consistently did better in open ballots, despite his lack of specifics on his policies. the Democrats were 'helping' us vote for the candidate they figured had the best chance of losing to Hillary. Yes, some Republicans did vote for Trump, but no, Republicans as a party did not nominate Trump.

Haha, that's a great myth. Pretty transparent though.

So, among the things Liberals don't believe in, are the Constitution AND Open Ballots.

That's an odd response. What would make you say such a thing?

The fact that they're actively working against it with gun control policies, the current president that violated the Constitution 64 times, and this guy that just denied that Trump was elected by Democrats, despite the "Record numbers of Republican voter turnout" and Trump consistently doing better in open primary ballots.

soooooo...... you don't know the difference between "Democrats" and "Liberals"?

That's uh, kind of... why I gave you that long link.

You seem to be mixing up today's Liberal with the classical Liberal.

Perhaps my previous tagline was somehow less than clear. So let me be blunt.
I don't believe in bullshit. I don't believe in perverting terms into what they're not to make cheap points. Words are not "negotiable". "Classical liberal" is a bullshit redundancy made up by dishonest hacks as an entry ramp to bastardize the term. Fuck them; I will not enable them. Period. "Liberal" means just what it says --- "Liberal". No qualifiers needed.

Clearer?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So, among the things Liberals don't believe in, are the Constitution AND Open Ballots.

That's an odd response. What would make you say such a thing?

The fact that they're actively working against it with gun control policies, the current president that violated the Constitution 64 times, and this guy that just denied that Trump was elected by Democrats, despite the "Record numbers of Republican voter turnout" and Trump consistently doing better in open primary ballots.

I didn't realize Trump was elected. What was he elected for?

Elected for Republican nominee.

Elected as he was chosen to hold the position of Republican nominee for president. Here I didn't think I'd have to explain what the word "Elect" meant.

Donald is the presumptive nominee.


Washington (CNN)Republican Party leaders, donors and important delegates will flock to Cleveland this week for a series of meetings and negotiations that will determine whether or not Donald Trump can be stopped.

The anti-Trump forces will make their last stand -- fighting to alter party rules that would free up delegates bound to Trump and potentially block the presumptive presidential nominee from actually winning the nomination.

The long-shot challenge will also be the first major test for the somewhat tenuous alliance for Trump and Republican Party loyalists led by chairman Reince Priebus.

This will likely be the final chance for Trump opponents to stop the New York billionaire. They will try to convince a majority of the Rules Committee to adopt a proposal to allow delegates to vote their "conscience" and break from primary results supporting Trump.

RNC preparation: What to watch for this week in Cleveland - CNNPolitics.com

Like I said, elected to be the nominee. As in chosen to be the nominee through an election. Regardless of whether he currently holds the position, he was still chosen for the position through the primary process. He was elected... voted for... people have caste their votes for him...

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Where do you suppose those 'Republicans' randomly spawned from? No, Republicans did not vote for the first time ever just to vote for Trump. To elaborate on the original post, the reason more Republicans voted for the other candidates was because the majority of "record votes" Trump was getting was from Democrats. It's why he consistently did better in open ballots, despite his lack of specifics on his policies. the Democrats were 'helping' us vote for the candidate they figured had the best chance of losing to Hillary. Yes, some Republicans did vote for Trump, but no, Republicans as a party did not nominate Trump.

Haha, that's a great myth. Pretty transparent though.

So, among the things Liberals don't believe in, are the Constitution AND Open Ballots.

That's an odd response. What would make you say such a thing?

The fact that they're actively working against it with gun control policies, the current president that violated the Constitution 64 times, and this guy that just denied that Trump was elected by Democrats, despite the "Record numbers of Republican voter turnout" and Trump consistently doing better in open primary ballots.

soooooo...... you don't know the difference between "Democrats" and "Liberals"?

That's uh, kind of... why I gave you that long link.

I know the difference, and I used proper terminology.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Perhaps my previous tagline was somehow less than clear. So let me be blunt.
I don't believe in bullshit. I don't believe in perverting terms into what they're not to make cheap points. Words are not "negotiable". "Classical liberal" is a bullshit redundancy made up by dishonest hacks as an entry ramp to bastardize the term. Fuck them; I will not enable them. Period. "Liberal" means just what it says --- "Liberal". No qualifiers needed.

Clearer?

And you apparently don't get what I said. Monarchies are no longer part of the 'traditional values', Liberals are no longer the people that are against those monarchies, they are against what is seen as traditional values today. The literal definition is not what has changed, the things that suit the definition for what they're against has. For example, a lot of Liberals are for abortion, while NOT doing so is seen as a traditional value.

The "New Behaviors" they are for are not what was being advocated back then.

Liberals themselves are the ones that bastardized the term, the usage of the word for supporters of FDR was accurate.

 

[Carla_Danger]

That's an odd response. What would make you say such a thing?

The fact that they're actively working against it with gun control policies, the current president that violated the Constitution 64 times, and this guy that just denied that Trump was elected by Democrats, despite the "Record numbers of Republican voter turnout" and Trump consistently doing better in open primary ballots.

I didn't realize Trump was elected. What was he elected for?

Elected for Republican nominee.

Elected as he was chosen to hold the position of Republican nominee for president. Here I didn't think I'd have to explain what the word "Elect" meant.

Donald is the presumptive nominee.


Washington (CNN)Republican Party leaders, donors and important delegates will flock to Cleveland this week for a series of meetings and negotiations that will determine whether or not Donald Trump can be stopped.

The anti-Trump forces will make their last stand -- fighting to alter party rules that would free up delegates bound to Trump and potentially block the presumptive presidential nominee from actually winning the nomination.

The long-shot challenge will also be the first major test for the somewhat tenuous alliance for Trump and Republican Party loyalists led by chairman Reince Priebus.

This will likely be the final chance for Trump opponents to stop the New York billionaire. They will try to convince a majority of the Rules Committee to adopt a proposal to allow delegates to vote their "conscience" and break from primary results supporting Trump.

RNC preparation: What to watch for this week in Cleveland - CNNPolitics.com

Like I said, elected to be the nominee. As in chosen to be the nominee through an election. Regardless of whether he currently holds the position, he was still chosen for the position through the primary process. He was elected... voted for... people have caste their votes for him...

Presumptive nominee. And that could change.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The fact that they're actively working against it with gun control policies, the current president that violated the Constitution 64 times, and this guy that just denied that Trump was elected by Democrats, despite the "Record numbers of Republican voter turnout" and Trump consistently doing better in open primary ballots.

I didn't realize Trump was elected. What was he elected for?

Elected for Republican nominee.

Elected as he was chosen to hold the position of Republican nominee for president. Here I didn't think I'd have to explain what the word "Elect" meant.

Donald is the presumptive nominee.


Washington (CNN)Republican Party leaders, donors and important delegates will flock to Cleveland this week for a series of meetings and negotiations that will determine whether or not Donald Trump can be stopped.

The anti-Trump forces will make their last stand -- fighting to alter party rules that would free up delegates bound to Trump and potentially block the presumptive presidential nominee from actually winning the nomination.

The long-shot challenge will also be the first major test for the somewhat tenuous alliance for Trump and Republican Party loyalists led by chairman Reince Priebus.

This will likely be the final chance for Trump opponents to stop the New York billionaire. They will try to convince a majority of the Rules Committee to adopt a proposal to allow delegates to vote their "conscience" and break from primary results supporting Trump.

RNC preparation: What to watch for this week in Cleveland - CNNPolitics.com

Like I said, elected to be the nominee. As in chosen to be the nominee through an election. Regardless of whether he currently holds the position, he was still chosen for the position through the primary process. He was elected... voted for... people have caste their votes for him...

Presumptive nominee. And that could change.

I don't think either of us would be disappointed if he were replaced...

 

[BluesLegend]

Liberals wrote the Constitution, dear.

You still peddling that LIE, pathetic.

 

[owebo]

So, among the things Liberals don't believe in, are the Constitution AND Open Ballots.

That's an odd response. What would make you say such a thing?

The fact that they're actively working against it with gun control policies, the current president that violated the Constitution 64 times, and this guy that just denied that Trump was elected by Democrats, despite the "Record numbers of Republican voter turnout" and Trump consistently doing better in open primary ballots.

I didn't realize Trump was elected. What was he elected for?

Elected for Republican nominee.

Elected as he was chosen to hold the position of Republican nominee for president. Here I didn't think I'd have to explain what the word "Elect" meant.

Donald is the presumptive nominee.


Washington (CNN)Republican Party leaders, donors and important delegates will flock to Cleveland this week for a series of meetings and negotiations that will determine whether or not Donald Trump can be stopped.

The anti-Trump forces will make their last stand -- fighting to alter party rules that would free up delegates bound to Trump and potentially block the presumptive presidential nominee from actually winning the nomination.

The long-shot challenge will also be the first major test for the somewhat tenuous alliance for Trump and Republican Party loyalists led by chairman Reince Priebus.

This will likely be the final chance for Trump opponents to stop the New York billionaire. They will try to convince a majority of the Rules Committee to adopt a proposal to allow delegates to vote their "conscience" and break from primary results supporting Trump.

RNC preparation: What to watch for this week in Cleveland - CNNPolitics.com

All the liberals fear Trump....

 

[Ravi]

I find it refreshing that some of you cons haven't jumped on the Trump wagon. Could you form your own party without fundies this time? It would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Mac1958]

In Raleigh, Trump claims he received most-ever GOP votes

To be specific he received around 14 million votes but 16 million Republicans voted for SOMEONE ELSE. This is not to suggest he didn't win because he did, fair & square. This is just to educate dumbfucks who don't understand basic math.
Trump set a record for most votes received but he also set another record.....the most votes against him.

The MAJORITY of gop voters voted AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. Those FACTS are undisputed.

4th grade math should not be hard but apparently for some it is.

And if he doesn't win, his supporters will blame the Republicans who refused to vote for him.

You know, those people who Trump and his supporters have been insulting for a couple of years.
.

They say that's why Romney lost; too many Republicans staying home. If the party wants to keep shooting its own foot.....

Evidently it does!
.

 

[owebo]

The fact that they're actively working against it with gun control policies, the current president that violated the Constitution 64 times, and this guy that just denied that Trump was elected by Democrats, despite the "Record numbers of Republican voter turnout" and Trump consistently doing better in open primary ballots.

I didn't realize Trump was elected. What was he elected for?

Elected for Republican nominee.

Elected as he was chosen to hold the position of Republican nominee for president. Here I didn't think I'd have to explain what the word "Elect" meant.

Donald is the presumptive nominee.


Washington (CNN)Republican Party leaders, donors and important delegates will flock to Cleveland this week for a series of meetings and negotiations that will determine whether or not Donald Trump can be stopped.

The anti-Trump forces will make their last stand -- fighting to alter party rules that would free up delegates bound to Trump and potentially block the presumptive presidential nominee from actually winning the nomination.

The long-shot challenge will also be the first major test for the somewhat tenuous alliance for Trump and Republican Party loyalists led by chairman Reince Priebus.

This will likely be the final chance for Trump opponents to stop the New York billionaire. They will try to convince a majority of the Rules Committee to adopt a proposal to allow delegates to vote their "conscience" and break from primary results supporting Trump.

RNC preparation: What to watch for this week in Cleveland - CNNPolitics.com

Like I said, elected to be the nominee. As in chosen to be the nominee through an election. Regardless of whether he currently holds the position, he was still chosen for the position through the primary process. He was elected... voted for... people have caste their votes for him...

Presumptive nominee. And that could change.

Your GOP has been completely destroyed by Trump....build a bridge and get over it, or go nackmtomtheirback democrat party where you belong....

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

In Raleigh, Trump claims he received most-ever GOP votes

To be specific he received around 14 million votes but 16 million Republicans voted for SOMEONE ELSE. This is not to suggest he didn't win because he did, fair & square. This is just to educate dumbfucks who don't understand basic math.
Trump set a record for most votes received but he also set another record.....the most votes against him.

The MAJORITY of gop voters voted AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. Those FACTS are undisputed.

4th grade math should not be hard but apparently for some it is.

And if he doesn't win, his supporters will blame the Republicans who refused to vote for him.

You know, those people who Trump and his supporters have been insulting for a couple of years.
.

They say that's why Romney lost; too many Republicans staying home. If the party wants to keep shooting its own foot.....

Evidently it does!
.

Of course, that's what "they say." But I think Republicans were plenty energized to get rid of Obama and that Dems were apathetic. But ballot box stuffing reverses that. I fear something similar this time around.

 

[Pogo]

Perhaps my previous tagline was somehow less than clear. So let me be blunt.
I don't believe in bullshit. I don't believe in perverting terms into what they're not to make cheap points. Words are not "negotiable". "Classical liberal" is a bullshit redundancy made up by dishonest hacks as an entry ramp to bastardize the term. Fuck them; I will not enable them. Period. "Liberal" means just what it says --- "Liberal". No qualifiers needed.

Clearer?

And you apparently don't get what I said. Monarchies are no longer part of the 'traditional values', Liberals are no longer the people that are against those monarchies, they are against what is seen as traditional values today. The literal definition is not what has changed, the things that suit the definition for what they're against has. For example, a lot of Liberals are for abortion, while NOT doing so is seen as a traditional value.

The "New Behaviors" they are for are not what was being advocated back then.

Liberals themselves are the ones that bastardized the term, the usage of the word for supporters of FDR was accurate.

WWWWHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHH......

​

Thought I made it clear, I'm not here to play stupid can-you-out-obtuse-this word games.
Unsubscribed.

 

[ptbw forever]

Let's boil this down to the basics.

1. Did Trump receive more votes than that of the other candidates combined?

2. Does that mean more people were for him or against him?

3. Did you fail 4th grade?

And you counted only those who (actively) chose somebody else, not those who (passively) sat it out and didn't see any viable choice at all, including Rump. There's no number for that but they all didn't want Rump either.

Also this is an open primary state. Independents like me can vote in whichever party's election they want, but we have to pick one. I didn't vote against Rump because I figured my vote would be better served on the other side. But obviously I would have voted against him vehemently if that had not been the case. And there's a lot more of me where I come from.

Trump won with the most votes ever....

Where do you suppose those 'Republicans' randomly spawned from? No, Republicans did not vote for the first time ever just to vote for Trump. To elaborate on the original post, the reason more Republicans voted for the other candidates was because the majority of "record votes" Trump was getting was from Democrats. It's why he consistently did better in open ballots, despite his lack of specifics on his policies. the Democrats were 'helping' us vote for the candidate they figured had the best chance of losing to Hillary. Yes, some Republicans did vote for Trump, but no, Republicans as a party did not nominate Trump.

Is that why he is getting 20% of the Sanders supporters even today?

He got a lot of Democrat votes because he isn't a traditional Republican. Democrats actually like him almost as much as Republicans do.

 

[bendog]

Let's boil this down to the basics.

1. Did Trump receive more votes than that of the other candidates combined?

2. Does that mean more people were for him or against him?

3. Did you fail 4th grade?

And you counted only those who (actively) chose somebody else, not those who (passively) sat it out and didn't see any viable choice at all, including Rump. There's no number for that but they all didn't want Rump either.

Also this is an open primary state. Independents like me can vote in whichever party's election they want, but we have to pick one. I didn't vote against Rump because I figured my vote would be better served on the other side. But obviously I would have voted against him vehemently if that had not been the case. And there's a lot more of me where I come from.

Trump won with the most votes ever....

Where do you suppose those 'Republicans' randomly spawned from? No, Republicans did not vote for the first time ever just to vote for Trump. To elaborate on the original post, the reason more Republicans voted for the other candidates was because the majority of "record votes" Trump was getting was from Democrats. It's why he consistently did better in open ballots, despite his lack of specifics on his policies. the Democrats were 'helping' us vote for the candidate they figured had the best chance of losing to Hillary. Yes, some Republicans did vote for Trump, but no, Republicans as a party did not nominate Trump.

Is that why he is getting 20% of the Sanders supporters even today?

He got a lot of Democrat votes because he isn't a traditional Republican. Democrats actually like him almost as much as Republicans do.

Of course they do. Repeat it three times, click your heels together, and spin in a circle, and maybe it will come true!

 

[ptbw forever]

Let's boil this down to the basics.

1. Did Trump receive more votes than that of the other candidates combined?

2. Does that mean more people were for him or against him?

3. Did you fail 4th grade?

And you counted only those who (actively) chose somebody else, not those who (passively) sat it out and didn't see any viable choice at all, including Rump. There's no number for that but they all didn't want Rump either.

Also this is an open primary state. Independents like me can vote in whichever party's election they want, but we have to pick one. I didn't vote against Rump because I figured my vote would be better served on the other side. But obviously I would have voted against him vehemently if that had not been the case. And there's a lot more of me where I come from.

Trump won with the most votes ever....

Where do you suppose those 'Republicans' randomly spawned from? No, Republicans did not vote for the first time ever just to vote for Trump. To elaborate on the original post, the reason more Republicans voted for the other candidates was because the majority of "record votes" Trump was getting was from Democrats. It's why he consistently did better in open ballots, despite his lack of specifics on his policies. the Democrats were 'helping' us vote for the candidate they figured had the best chance of losing to Hillary. Yes, some Republicans did vote for Trump, but no, Republicans as a party did not nominate Trump.

Is that why he is getting 20% of the Sanders supporters even today?

He got a lot of Democrat votes because he isn't a traditional Republican. Democrats actually like him almost as much as Republicans do.

Of course they do. Repeat it three times, click your heels together, and spin in a circle, and maybe it will come true!

The principled ones actually do like him far more than they tend to like traditional Republican candidates, yes.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Let's boil this down to the basics.

1. Did Trump receive more votes than that of the other candidates combined?

2. Does that mean more people were for him or against him?

3. Did you fail 4th grade?

And you counted only those who (actively) chose somebody else, not those who (passively) sat it out and didn't see any viable choice at all, including Rump. There's no number for that but they all didn't want Rump either.

Also this is an open primary state. Independents like me can vote in whichever party's election they want, but we have to pick one. I didn't vote against Rump because I figured my vote would be better served on the other side. But obviously I would have voted against him vehemently if that had not been the case. And there's a lot more of me where I come from.

Trump won with the most votes ever....

Where do you suppose those 'Republicans' randomly spawned from? No, Republicans did not vote for the first time ever just to vote for Trump. To elaborate on the original post, the reason more Republicans voted for the other candidates was because the majority of "record votes" Trump was getting was from Democrats. It's why he consistently did better in open ballots, despite his lack of specifics on his policies. the Democrats were 'helping' us vote for the candidate they figured had the best chance of losing to Hillary. Yes, some Republicans did vote for Trump, but no, Republicans as a party did not nominate Trump.

Is that why he is getting 20% of the Sanders supporters even today?

He got a lot of Democrat votes because he isn't a traditional Republican. Democrats actually like him almost as much as Republicans do.

Disliking Hillary more does not mean someone actually likes Trump. It's a case of voting against Hillary, not a case of voting for Trump.

 

[Pogo]

Let's boil this down to the basics.

1. Did Trump receive more votes than that of the other candidates combined?

2. Does that mean more people were for him or against him?

3. Did you fail 4th grade?

And you counted only those who (actively) chose somebody else, not those who (passively) sat it out and didn't see any viable choice at all, including Rump. There's no number for that but they all didn't want Rump either.

Also this is an open primary state. Independents like me can vote in whichever party's election they want, but we have to pick one. I didn't vote against Rump because I figured my vote would be better served on the other side. But obviously I would have voted against him vehemently if that had not been the case. And there's a lot more of me where I come from.

Trump won with the most votes ever....

Where do you suppose those 'Republicans' randomly spawned from? No, Republicans did not vote for the first time ever just to vote for Trump. To elaborate on the original post, the reason more Republicans voted for the other candidates was because the majority of "record votes" Trump was getting was from Democrats. It's why he consistently did better in open ballots, despite his lack of specifics on his policies. the Democrats were 'helping' us vote for the candidate they figured had the best chance of losing to Hillary. Yes, some Republicans did vote for Trump, but no, Republicans as a party did not nominate Trump.

Is that why he is getting 20% of the Sanders supporters even today?

He got a lot of Democrat votes because he isn't a traditional Republican. Democrats actually like him almost as much as Republicans do.

Sanders isn't a Democrat either. And his voters have nothing whatsoever in common with Rump. The two candidates could not possibly be more opposite of each other.

Being "not a traditional Democrat/Republican" is not a trait per se. It's simply the absence of something. Neither one has a tail either but that doesn't make them 'similar'.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Let's boil this down to the basics.

1. Did Trump receive more votes than that of the other candidates combined?

2. Does that mean more people were for him or against him?

3. Did you fail 4th grade?

And you counted only those who (actively) chose somebody else, not those who (passively) sat it out and didn't see any viable choice at all, including Rump. There's no number for that but they all didn't want Rump either.

Also this is an open primary state. Independents like me can vote in whichever party's election they want, but we have to pick one. I didn't vote against Rump because I figured my vote would be better served on the other side. But obviously I would have voted against him vehemently if that had not been the case. And there's a lot more of me where I come from.

Trump won with the most votes ever....

Where do you suppose those 'Republicans' randomly spawned from? No, Republicans did not vote for the first time ever just to vote for Trump. To elaborate on the original post, the reason more Republicans voted for the other candidates was because the majority of "record votes" Trump was getting was from Democrats. It's why he consistently did better in open ballots, despite his lack of specifics on his policies. the Democrats were 'helping' us vote for the candidate they figured had the best chance of losing to Hillary. Yes, some Republicans did vote for Trump, but no, Republicans as a party did not nominate Trump.

Is that why he is getting 20% of the Sanders supporters even today?

He got a lot of Democrat votes because he isn't a traditional Republican. Democrats actually like him almost as much as Republicans do.

Sanders isn't a Democrat either. And his voters have nothing whatsoever in common with Rump. The two candidates could not possibly be more opposite of each other.

Being "not a traditional Democrat/Republican" is not a trait per se. It's simply the absence of something. Neither one has a tail either but that doesn't make them 'similar'.

They're both varying degrees of delusional, also, but that's not a policy similarity~

 

[Faun]

Who's 'against?' Did see her on the ballot....

Exhibit A

Ok, ^^^ that ^^^ was funny.