Donald Trump Will Never Be President of the United States

[Toro]

Except for not gaining the support of at least a plurality of people.

So?, Trump won the majority of the electoral college which makes him every bit as legit as any other
president we've had. That is where the rubber meets the road....right?

Not even close. It is the deciding factor for winning the presidency, but it has nothing to do with acceptance by the country as a whole. Trump and Shrub are the only two presidents in modern history that became president without winning the popular vote. Both are reviled by the majority of the country.

Truth. When you win on a technicality and a plurality of people did not vote for you and you don't do anything to win them over and in Trump's case push the envelope further then most likely you're not going to fair well in the popularity game. A game Trump so much would love to win but hasn't a fucking clue how.

There is not and never has been a condition that the American President has to win the most votes to be elected President.

That's also not what I said.

When a U.S. President loses the popular vote and then parades around like he won some sort of mandate and claims some sort of historic landslide election win then yes, there is a difference to when a president actually does win by some historic measure (other than being the guy who was elected and losing the popular vote by the highest margin).

I'd say at this point it;s impossible for Trump to bring the rest of the country on whatever agenda he has in mind and it started with him losing the popular vote.

The votes that matter are the electoral college votes. Period. Full stop. End of story. It he can pass his agenda through Congress, it absolutely does not matter if he lost the popular vote. Those tax cuts are real.

 

[bluzman61]

I'm sure that there will be another one just as funny for the 2020 election.

I'm hopeing for mass suicide.

THAT would be nice........

 

[Crixus]

I'm sure that there will be another one just as funny for the 2020 election.

I'm hopeing for mass suicide.

THAT would be nice........

Jim Jones style, except with out all the shooting.

 

[bluzman61]

I'm sure that there will be another one just as funny for the 2020 election.

I'm hopeing for mass suicide.

THAT would be nice........

Jim Jones style, except with out all the shooting.

Good idea! I have a feeling some that post on these threads WILL be considering suicide after Trump is re-elected.

 

[BULLDOG]

Truth. When you win on a technicality and a plurality of people did not vote for you and you don't do anything to win them over and in Trump's case push the envelope further then most likely you're not going to fair well in the popularity game. A game Trump so much would love to win but hasn't a fucking clue how.

There is not and never has been a condition that the American President has to win the most votes to be elected President.

And that is a glitch that has only surfaced twice in modern history. Trump and Shrub.

Glitch??

It only happened twice. Yes, it is a glitch.

4 times by my count.

1876 and 1888 were both a long time ago. Voting procedures, and the way they were monitored only vaguely resembled how we do it now. You might note that in #161 and in #170, I did say "in modern history" Try to pay attention.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yeah, he's legit in the sense that the legal obligations were met. Absolutely does not extend beyond that. There is a huge difference between winning a plurality of the vote and losing it. Trump lost. A normal human being would feel some sort of humility and perhaps be more inclusive of all Americans.

Trump earned his first asterisk on election day.

It doesn’t matter.

Not to the 1/3 of the country that supports him, but they don't care about anything other than praising him anyway. It means a lot to the rest of the country.

There was only a third that supported the shrilary, so you're even. The fact that 1.5 million people decide to live in a ghetto of their own creation just shows how ignorant, and useless they are.

No idea what you are talking about with 1.5 million, but Trump's opponent got 3 million more votes than he did.

1.5 million were found to be illegal. The rest were in California so they wasted their votes.

Credible link?

 

[HappyJoy]

So?, Trump won the majority of the electoral college which makes him every bit as legit as any other
president we've had. That is where the rubber meets the road....right?

Not even close. It is the deciding factor for winning the presidency, but it has nothing to do with acceptance by the country as a whole. Trump and Shrub are the only two presidents in modern history that became president without winning the popular vote. Both are reviled by the majority of the country.

Truth. When you win on a technicality and a plurality of people did not vote for you and you don't do anything to win them over and in Trump's case push the envelope further then most likely you're not going to fair well in the popularity game. A game Trump so much would love to win but hasn't a fucking clue how.

There is not and never has been a condition that the American President has to win the most votes to be elected President.

That's also not what I said.

When a U.S. President loses the popular vote and then parades around like he won some sort of mandate and claims some sort of historic landslide election win then yes, there is a difference to when a president actually does win by some historic measure (other than being the guy who was elected and losing the popular vote by the highest margin).

I'd say at this point it;s impossible for Trump to bring the rest of the country on whatever agenda he has in mind and it started with him losing the popular vote.

The votes that matter are the electoral college votes. Period. Full stop. End of story. It he can pass his agenda through Congress, it absolutely does not matter if he lost the popular vote. Those tax cuts are real.

I get it, you're hung up on the bare minimum.

I say if my candidate won the way Trump did then I'd hope (and they should anyway) make an attempt to represent all Americans, not piss off the more than half that didn't vote for them. It makes a difference in what a president can and can't do and sets a mood for the country one way or the other.

The country is angry, Trump share much of the blame and him losing the popular vote was not helpful to his cause and how he has acted. Of course it makes a difference.

 

[HappyJoy]

It doesn’t matter.

Not to the 1/3 of the country that supports him, but they don't care about anything other than praising him anyway. It means a lot to the rest of the country.

There was only a third that supported the shrilary, so you're even. The fact that 1.5 million people decide to live in a ghetto of their own creation just shows how ignorant, and useless they are.

No idea what you are talking about with 1.5 million, but Trump's opponent got 3 million more votes than he did.

1.5 million were found to be illegal. The rest were in California so they wasted their votes.

Credible link?

This should be good.

 

[BULLDOG]

So?, Trump won the majority of the electoral college which makes him every bit as legit as any other
president we've had. That is where the rubber meets the road....right?

Not even close. It is the deciding factor for winning the presidency, but it has nothing to do with acceptance by the country as a whole. Trump and Shrub are the only two presidents in modern history that became president without winning the popular vote. Both are reviled by the majority of the country.

Truth. When you win on a technicality and a plurality of people did not vote for you and you don't do anything to win them over and in Trump's case push the envelope further then most likely you're not going to fair well in the popularity game. A game Trump so much would love to win but hasn't a fucking clue how.

There is not and never has been a condition that the American President has to win the most votes to be elected President.

That's also not what I said.

When a U.S. President loses the popular vote and then parades around like he won some sort of mandate and claims some sort of historic landslide election win then yes, there is a difference to when a president actually does win by some historic measure (other than being the guy who was elected and losing the popular vote by the highest margin).

I'd say at this point it;s impossible for Trump to bring the rest of the country on whatever agenda he has in mind and it started with him losing the popular vote.

The votes that matter are the electoral college votes. Period. Full stop. End of story. It he can pass his agenda through Congress, it absolutely does not matter if he lost the popular vote. Those tax cuts are real.

They are real for the upper income people. For the rest of us, they are small and temporary.

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm sure that there will be another one just as funny for the 2020 election.

I'm hopeing for mass suicide.

THAT would be nice........

Jim Jones style, except with out all the shooting.

Good idea! I have a feeling some that post on these threads WILL be considering suicide after Trump is re-elected.

You guys know how to bring the morbid. You know, this country is actually better than your weird fantasies.

 

[Toro]

Not even close. It is the deciding factor for winning the presidency, but it has nothing to do with acceptance by the country as a whole. Trump and Shrub are the only two presidents in modern history that became president without winning the popular vote. Both are reviled by the majority of the country.

Truth. When you win on a technicality and a plurality of people did not vote for you and you don't do anything to win them over and in Trump's case push the envelope further then most likely you're not going to fair well in the popularity game. A game Trump so much would love to win but hasn't a fucking clue how.

There is not and never has been a condition that the American President has to win the most votes to be elected President.

That's also not what I said.

When a U.S. President loses the popular vote and then parades around like he won some sort of mandate and claims some sort of historic landslide election win then yes, there is a difference to when a president actually does win by some historic measure (other than being the guy who was elected and losing the popular vote by the highest margin).

I'd say at this point it;s impossible for Trump to bring the rest of the country on whatever agenda he has in mind and it started with him losing the popular vote.

The votes that matter are the electoral college votes. Period. Full stop. End of story. It he can pass his agenda through Congress, it absolutely does not matter if he lost the popular vote. Those tax cuts are real.

I get it, you're hung up on the bare minimum.

I say if my candidate won the way Trump did then I'd hope (and they should anyway) make an attempt to represent all Americans, not piss off the more than half that didn't vote for them. It makes a difference in what a president can and can't do and sets a mood for the country one way or the other.

The country is angry, Trump share much of the blame and him losing the popular vote was not helpful to his cause and how he has acted. Of course it makes a difference.

I’m not making the argument that Trump is a good President. I’m arguing that he is the legitimate President. The popular vote is irrelevant.

Focusing on the popular vote is like focusing on first downs or total yards in football when you’ve lost the game.

 

[BULLDOG]

Not to the 1/3 of the country that supports him, but they don't care about anything other than praising him anyway. It means a lot to the rest of the country.

There was only a third that supported the shrilary, so you're even. The fact that 1.5 million people decide to live in a ghetto of their own creation just shows how ignorant, and useless they are.

No idea what you are talking about with 1.5 million, but Trump's opponent got 3 million more votes than he did.

1.5 million were found to be illegal. The rest were in California so they wasted their votes.

Credible link?

This should be good.

Being good implies that he actually has a credible link of some kind. I will agree that it should be funny

 

[Toro]

Not even close. It is the deciding factor for winning the presidency, but it has nothing to do with acceptance by the country as a whole. Trump and Shrub are the only two presidents in modern history that became president without winning the popular vote. Both are reviled by the majority of the country.

Truth. When you win on a technicality and a plurality of people did not vote for you and you don't do anything to win them over and in Trump's case push the envelope further then most likely you're not going to fair well in the popularity game. A game Trump so much would love to win but hasn't a fucking clue how.

There is not and never has been a condition that the American President has to win the most votes to be elected President.

That's also not what I said.

When a U.S. President loses the popular vote and then parades around like he won some sort of mandate and claims some sort of historic landslide election win then yes, there is a difference to when a president actually does win by some historic measure (other than being the guy who was elected and losing the popular vote by the highest margin).

I'd say at this point it;s impossible for Trump to bring the rest of the country on whatever agenda he has in mind and it started with him losing the popular vote.

The votes that matter are the electoral college votes. Period. Full stop. End of story. It he can pass his agenda through Congress, it absolutely does not matter if he lost the popular vote. Those tax cuts are real.

They are real for the upper income people. For the rest of us, they are small and temporary.

And did it matter that he lost the popular vote when he passed those tax cuts? No.

 

[HappyJoy]

Truth. When you win on a technicality and a plurality of people did not vote for you and you don't do anything to win them over and in Trump's case push the envelope further then most likely you're not going to fair well in the popularity game. A game Trump so much would love to win but hasn't a fucking clue how.

There is not and never has been a condition that the American President has to win the most votes to be elected President.

That's also not what I said.

When a U.S. President loses the popular vote and then parades around like he won some sort of mandate and claims some sort of historic landslide election win then yes, there is a difference to when a president actually does win by some historic measure (other than being the guy who was elected and losing the popular vote by the highest margin).

I'd say at this point it;s impossible for Trump to bring the rest of the country on whatever agenda he has in mind and it started with him losing the popular vote.

The votes that matter are the electoral college votes. Period. Full stop. End of story. It he can pass his agenda through Congress, it absolutely does not matter if he lost the popular vote. Those tax cuts are real.

I get it, you're hung up on the bare minimum.

I say if my candidate won the way Trump did then I'd hope (and they should anyway) make an attempt to represent all Americans, not piss off the more than half that didn't vote for them. It makes a difference in what a president can and can't do and sets a mood for the country one way or the other.

The country is angry, Trump share much of the blame and him losing the popular vote was not helpful to his cause and how he has acted. Of course it makes a difference.

I’m not making the argument that Trump is a good President. I’m arguing that he is the legitimate President. The popular vote is irrelevant.

I'm not arguing that he's not the president. I'm saying there is a difference when they win by losing the popular vote. And when that president doesn't even try to unite the country then there are repercussions.

Focusing on the popular vote is like focusing on first downs or total yards in football when you’ve lost the game.

The football season is more than one game. If you win for example however the other team gained a hundred yards more than you then you're going to look at that and make adjustments for the next game, right?

Not to be a dick, but that's kind of a lousy over simplified analogy you gave there.

 

[Crixus]

I'm sure that there will be another one just as funny for the 2020 election.

I'm hopeing for mass suicide.

THAT would be nice........

Jim Jones style, except with out all the shooting.

Good idea! I have a feeling some that post on these threads WILL be considering suicide after Trump is re-elected.

You guys know how to bring the morbid. You know, this country is actually better than your weird fantasies.

The majority of it agrees with me. Even other libtards just want y'all to shut up already. Sick of the crying.

 

[Toro]

There is not and never has been a condition that the American President has to win the most votes to be elected President.

That's also not what I said.

When a U.S. President loses the popular vote and then parades around like he won some sort of mandate and claims some sort of historic landslide election win then yes, there is a difference to when a president actually does win by some historic measure (other than being the guy who was elected and losing the popular vote by the highest margin).

I'd say at this point it;s impossible for Trump to bring the rest of the country on whatever agenda he has in mind and it started with him losing the popular vote.

The votes that matter are the electoral college votes. Period. Full stop. End of story. It he can pass his agenda through Congress, it absolutely does not matter if he lost the popular vote. Those tax cuts are real.

I get it, you're hung up on the bare minimum.

I say if my candidate won the way Trump did then I'd hope (and they should anyway) make an attempt to represent all Americans, not piss off the more than half that didn't vote for them. It makes a difference in what a president can and can't do and sets a mood for the country one way or the other.

The country is angry, Trump share much of the blame and him losing the popular vote was not helpful to his cause and how he has acted. Of course it makes a difference.

I’m not making the argument that Trump is a good President. I’m arguing that he is the legitimate President. The popular vote is irrelevant.

I'm not arguing that he's not the president. I'm saying there is a difference when they win by losing the popular vote. And when that president doesn't even try to unite the country then there are repercussions.

Focusing on the popular vote is like focusing on first downs or total yards in football when you’ve lost the game.

The football season is more than one game. If you win for example however the other team gained a hundred yards more than you then you're going to look at that and make adjustments for the next game, right?

Not to be a dick, but that's kind of a lousy over simplified analogy you gave there.

And I’m saying that the popular vote is irrelevant. It has not had one iota of an effect on what Trump has done. It doesn’t matter whether or not a President has won the popular vote if a law is passed. What matters is if there are enough of the President’s party to get a law passed. Moral legitimacy doesn’t matter in a system that has gerrymandered most swing districts out of existence.

 

[Meister]

So why are you talking about the plurality of the vote? If you are not arguing about
how our system works regarding the electoral college?
I'm mean, you're coming off like the plurality should supersede the electoral college.

Hey, you've been around the block, you're a mod. Maybe try quoting the post you're responding to....hey? (I mean the post above you is Toddster and who wants to reply to that fuckwad, right?) Quite the concept, almost missed this.

I'm not arguing that Trump isn't the president I'm saying he earned that proverbial asterisk next to his name that I had previously mentioned, remember? it makes a difference and the responsibility is for that president to win under those conditions to maybe make an attempt to reach out to those (most Americans) who did not vote for him. There was no mandate, the country is not united behind him and there has been zero effort made to help this country chill it's shit out. I don't know, I think it's a leader's responsibility to take it upon themselves to at least attempt to lead the entire country, not just the 35% who are sycophantic, die hard, deadenders who would just assume paint a portrait of him on their ceiling if were ordered to.

We are the United States of America, by our own name we are meant to stick together even as we recognize our differences and we need a leader who also recognizes that. I mean unless you're one of those weirdos on this board who really does want that violent civil war. You know who they are, those guys whose posts you have to delete when they start targeting other members of this board and make violent threats, eh, enough about modding.

Anyway, long story short, Trump won with he lowest margin of victory and what I mean is he went deep into the negatives. Doesn't overturn the election but I don't see where our forefathers intention ed such a lost to be malformed into a victory.

It was exactly the intentions of our FF to have an electoral college....even if it meant to overturn the popular vote.

Under what situations? Give me a link...how the fuck hard is that?

The most important is that we want the presidential election to settle the question of legitimacy—who is entitled carry on the office of the president. Under the Constitution, the person who receives the most electoral votes becomes the president, even if he or she does not receive either a plurality or a majority of the popular vote.

Where is it documented that the intention of the electoral college was to randomly change the result?

This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.

I don't think you're going to find a link to any source coming from our forefathers who makes this distinction with 3rd party candidates. But now that you've made that claim the owness is on you.

If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.

What you are describing has never happened. If anything what you are describing a very, very rare occurrence (again it has not happened) that only the EC can solve (which is not true) and there fore not the reason as to why Trump won. There was a clear winner in the popular vote. I've asked time and time again where did our forefathers decide that the EC should intervene in this situation. You have been unable to give a reason or point to a source. Why not?

There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.

Would there? I mean especially in 2016 when a candidate did clearly win the popular vote. Anyway there are remedies to the unnecessary road blocks you bring up such as instant runoff voting or requiring a minimum vote percentage to win. Which I would say all that is better than leaving it up to the House. Though once again I have to say you're bringing a problem this country hasn't faced.

We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote.
Why We Need the Electoral College | RealClearPolitics

Yes. But that's not what were talking about. Again, I'll ask the question. When did our forefathers envision our popular vote election to be overturned by the EC in a situation like we saw in 2016 where one candidate got 3 million more votes than the other and lost? You have not been able to demonstrate this. Instead you get into details that quite frankly are not relevant to 2016 and its why you haven't provided a source that tackles this.

You failed Mod.

You can cry all you want, darling. We have the electoral college and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about it. So spin on that for a bit, okay?
You're still all butthurt that mob rule isn't ingrained in our political system. And all states are still being represented under our current system.
Socialists like yourself are going to have to wait a few more generations before the likes of you and your ilk can change it.
So please stop asking for some kind of proof of the validity what our FF had intended with the electoral college.
If they didn't want it to supersede the majority vote, they would have stipulated it, but they were a lot smarter than you and your BS.

 

[BluesLegend]

Trump is the president, but he will never be the legitimate leader of the United States.

Trump kicked your ass fair and square so stop whining snowflake.

He did win the election. That doesn't mean everything he has done from then on is correct.

That you disagree with Trump's policies doesn't mean he's not the legitimate president.

You are right. No reason why I would have to agree with all his policies for him to be legitimate. Cheating to get the position, and his childish behavior and lying, regardless of his policies is what makes him illegitimate.

LMAO okay right Trump "cheated" to win the election. The American people chose Trump over Hillary fair and square, get over it.