How many of the HILLARY VOTES are from illegal immigrants? Does Trump win Pop Vote?

[Pogo]

Monkeying with the Constitution has caused most of our problems.

Has it now.

You do know that same Constitution declared that slaves in the South could be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting population to determine degree of representation ----- and therefore Electoral Votes ----- while denying them a voice, i.e. a vote --- and that that directly contributed to six of our first seven Presidents being slaveholders from the South as this country was launching and ignoring for decades the elephant-in-the-room question of slavery, right?

Shall we just go back to that then? It does make 'monkeying' an interesting verb. Just sayin'

---- or don't you bother to read threads before jumping in with both feet?

Also the EC preserves and gives voice to the regions of the country. It saves us from all being ruled by California and New York if they can run up the vote. And they can.

There's no way to demonstrate that argument. The invitation to do that has been on the table the whole time. No one has.

Over six million voters in NY and Cali voted for Rump, yet their Electors will vote unanimously for Hillary. As if every New Yorker and every Californian cast their vote for the New Yorker. And now their votes will mean absolutely nothing --- they completely wasted their time.

--- That sound fair to you?

And it leads me to the question...is there no part of the Constitution the Democrats dont despise?

Is there a part the Ignorami actually read?

NOTHING in the Constitution requires the EC to vote "winner take all". NOWHERE. Even how the states choose their electors is left up to the several states' legislatures. They don't even have to hold an election if they choose some other method. Nor are they bound to vote the way their popular vote went if they see fit not to.

I see no reason for even discussing it.

Of course you don't. Ignorance is bliss and isn't that revealing.

I suspect the Southern slaveholders holding on to that practice saw no reason to discuss it either. And when that was done away with, the states who then counted women in their population for the purpose of representation and EVs without giving them the right to vote either, "saw no reason for even discussing it".

Guess what Goobernuts --- the Constitution was specifically designed to be discussed ... and amended as needed. Because they were at least smart enough to know they couldn't think of everything and couldn't look into the future.

You want to live in the 18th century, be my jest and invent a time machine. The rest of us will read about you in the history books. Which is btw something you might consider investing in.

 

[Pogo]

because the cattle farmers in Wyoming represent a larger number of legal U.S citizens than than are to be found in Miami or Austin?

NOt really. You guys keep claiming illegals are voting, but you never come up with any proof.

And it's all from the same fake-news generators that tried to sell "Rump wins popular vote" back at the beginning of this thread.

They just keep going to the same well over and over, expecting different results.

Perhaps they're all drinking bottled water from Flint. It's mind bogglling.

 

[BluesLegend]

...and if that's the case and Trump actually won the popular vote, then those protesting will stop....right?



Trump never went to Cali to campaign...if it was ONLY about POPULAR VOTE, he would have visited California.

You have ZERO evidence millions of illegals voted. It is wishful thinking. Stop being a rube.

"I want to bleev it, so it must be true!"

Its not the illegals, its their damn anchor babies who never should have been born here in the first place. Take away the anchor baby vote and Trump won the popular vote.

How do the anchor babies read the ballots? Are they super smart and able to read even as little babies? How do they stand up and reach the voting touch screen?

Are you dumb or just pretending? ^^^ idiot

I am making fun of you for promoting one of those fake news stories and your poor ability to write a comprehensive sentence.

You really need to get a life. lol

 

[koshergrl]

...and if that's the case and Trump actually won the popular vote, then those protesting will stop....right?



Trump never went to Cali to campaign...if it was ONLY about POPULAR VOTE, he would have visited California.

He won the popular vote. And everybody knows it.

 

[Pogo]

...and if that's the case and Trump actually won the popular vote, then those protesting will stop....right?



Trump never went to Cali to campaign...if it was ONLY about POPULAR VOTE, he would have visited California.

He won the popular vote. And everybody knows it.

Unfortunately for the self-deluding Echobubble --- the numbers don't know it. The numbers in fact know he's losing by, going on a million and a half votes and still counting:

Clinton: 63,049,607 (47.9%)

Rump: 61,610,484 (46.8%)

Others: 6,968,849

How many people is that difference, exactly? It's hard for the brain to conceive such abstracts.

Whelp -- it's more than the entire population --- not just voters, but every man woman and child --- in Wyoming.
Or Vermont. Or Alaska, or either of the Dakotas. More than Montana.

In fact it's more people than the entire populations of Alaska and Wyoming combined.
----- you know.... those "smaller states somehow protected by the Electrical College", yet we can't explain how?

But stay tuned because that's not final yet. The gap continues to grow.

Suffice to say, if Rump were a stock you would have been advised to sell off a week ago.

 

[ColonelAngus]

...and if that's the case and Trump actually won the popular vote, then those protesting will stop....right?



Trump never went to Cali to campaign...if it was ONLY about POPULAR VOTE, he would have visited California.

He won the popular vote. And everybody knows it.

Unfortunately for the self-deluding Echobubble --- the numbers don't know it. The numbers in fact know he's losing by, going on a million and a half votes and still counting:

Clinton: 63,049,607 (47.9%)

Rump: 61,610,484 (46.8%)

Others: 6,968,849

How many people is that difference, exactly? It's hard for the brain to conceive such abstracts.

Whelp -- it's more than the entire population --- not just voters, but every man woman and child --- in Wyoming.
Or Vermont. Or Alaska, or either of the Dakotas. More than Montana.

In fact it's more people than the entire populations of Alaska and Wyoming combined.
----- you know.... those "smaller states somehow protected by the Electrical College", yet we can't explain how?

But stay tuned because that's not final yet. The gap continues to grow.

Suffice to say, if Rump were a stock you would have been advised to sell off a week ago.

The popular vote doesn't mean jack shit. If it did, Trump would have spent all of his time in NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, and TEXAS. HOWEVER, his campaign knew it needed to win the ELECTORAL COLLEGE...so it employed a strategy to actually WIN THE FUCKING ELECTION.

If Hillary won the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, but TRUMP won the POPULAR VOTE, would libs be crying about the EC being UNFAIR? OF COURSE NOT.....

Liberals crying about the ELECTORAL COLLEGE:

 

[Pogo]

...and if that's the case and Trump actually won the popular vote, then those protesting will stop....right?



Trump never went to Cali to campaign...if it was ONLY about POPULAR VOTE, he would have visited California.

He won the popular vote. And everybody knows it.

Unfortunately for the self-deluding Echobubble --- the numbers don't know it. The numbers in fact know he's losing by, going on a million and a half votes and still counting:

Clinton: 63,049,607 (47.9%)

Rump: 61,610,484 (46.8%)

Others: 6,968,849

How many people is that difference, exactly? It's hard for the brain to conceive such abstracts.

Whelp -- it's more than the entire population --- not just voters, but every man woman and child --- in Wyoming.
Or Vermont. Or Alaska, or either of the Dakotas. More than Montana.

In fact it's more people than the entire populations of Alaska and Wyoming combined.
----- you know.... those "smaller states somehow protected by the Electrical College", yet we can't explain how?

But stay tuned because that's not final yet. The gap continues to grow.

Suffice to say, if Rump were a stock you would have been advised to sell off a week ago.

The popular vote doesn't mean jack shit. If it did, Trump would have spent all of his time in NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, and TEXAS. HOWEVER, his campaign knew it needed to win the ELECTORAL COLLEGE...so it employed a strategy to actually WIN THE FUCKING ELECTION.

Hey, KG brought it up. It's nested right above, and she's demonstrably WRONG. And I just demonstrated it.

Learn the fuck to read.

If Hillary won the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, but TRUMP won the POPULAR VOTE, would libs be crying about the EC being UNFAIR? OF COURSE NOT.....

Liberals crying about the ELECTORAL COLLEGE:

The post isn't ABOUT the Electoral College, stupid. Its about the popular vote, which is what the poster brought up. Again, learn how the fuck to read.

But as far as the actual Electoral College --- I've been posting on that for this entire campaign. So you and your infantile speculation fallacies can go bite it. Fucking moron.

Know what else, Nimrod?

If somebody else brings up fake numbers or fake facts again --- they'll get set straight again, wid a quickness. And there ain't a goddam thing in the world you can do about that.

 

[koshergrl]

...and if that's the case and Trump actually won the popular vote, then those protesting will stop....right?



Trump never went to Cali to campaign...if it was ONLY about POPULAR VOTE, he would have visited California.

He won the popular vote. And everybody knows it.

Unfortunately for the self-deluding Echobubble --- the numbers don't know it. The numbers in fact know he's losing by, going on a million and a half votes and still counting:

Clinton: 63,049,607 (47.9%)

Rump: 61,610,484 (46.8%)

Others: 6,968,849

How many people is that difference, exactly? It's hard for the brain to conceive such abstracts.

Whelp -- it's more than the entire population --- not just voters, but every man woman and child --- in Wyoming.
Or Vermont. Or Alaska, or either of the Dakotas. More than Montana.

In fact it's more people than the entire populations of Alaska and Wyoming combined.
----- you know.... those "smaller states somehow protected by the Electrical College", yet we can't explain how?

But stay tuned because that's not final yet. The gap continues to grow.

Suffice to say, if Rump were a stock you would have been advised to sell off a week ago.

The popular vote doesn't mean jack shit. If it did, Trump would have spent all of his time in NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, and TEXAS. HOWEVER, his campaign knew it needed to win the ELECTORAL COLLEGE...so it employed a strategy to actually WIN THE FUCKING ELECTION.

If Hillary won the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, but TRUMP won the POPULAR VOTE, would libs be crying about the EC being UNFAIR? OF COURSE NOT.....

Liberals crying about the ELECTORAL COLLEGE:

Well it means something because the popular vote is how you get the county vote, the county vote is how you get the state vote, and the state vote is how you get the electoral vote.

 

[koshergrl]

If we're going to go by popular vote then we need to divide up the country by county and let us all have our individual presidents. Because probably 80 percent of the land mass of Oregon and many other *blue* states did NOT vote blue. People who are clustered together in tiny areas, no matter how many retards they can shove together, do NOT get to decide for all the rest of the world what is best for them.

I swear. Put a fucking fence around the blue and let them eat each other.

 

[DOTR]

...and if that's the case and Trump actually won the popular vote, then those protesting will stop....right?



Trump never went to Cali to campaign...if it was ONLY about POPULAR VOTE, he would have visited California.

He won the popular vote. And everybody knows it.

Unfortunately for the self-deluding Echobubble --- the numbers don't know it. The numbers in fact know he's losing by, going on a million and a half votes and still counting:

Clinton: 63,049,607 (47.9%)

Rump: 61,610,484 (46.8%)

Others: 6,968,849

How many people is that difference, exactly? It's hard for the brain to conceive such abstracts.

Whelp -- it's more than the entire population --- not just voters, but every man woman and child --- in Wyoming.
Or Vermont. Or Alaska, or either of the Dakotas. More than Montana.

In fact it's more people than the entire populations of Alaska and Wyoming combined.
----- you know.... those "smaller states somehow protected by the Electrical College", yet we can't explain how?

But stay tuned because that's not final yet. The gap continues to grow.

Suffice to say, if Rump were a stock you would have been advised to sell off a week ago.

If Trump were a stock only a fool would have listened to the chattering class and sold.

 

[DOTR]

Has it now.

You do know that same Constitution declared that slaves in the South could be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting population to determine degree of representation ----- and therefore Electoral Votes ----- while denying them a voice, i.e. a vote --- and that that directly contributed to six of our first seven Presidents being slaveholders from the South as this country was launching and ignoring for decades the elephant-in-the-room question of slavery, right?

Shall we just go back to that then? It does make 'monkeying' an interesting verb. Just sayin'

---- or don't you bother to read threads before jumping in with both feet?

Best seven presidents we ever had I might add. And of course it wasn't ingoring slavery. the 3/5 compromise was designed to gain an advantage from slavery. We didnt ignore it for decades either. It was the center of almost every fight in the Senate for many decades to come.
Nor was the electoral college designed with slavery in mind. The votes were allocated according to a compromise between free and slave states but that was only details. The EC was designed for a purpose and is still valuable as such.
And we still have our own form of compromise...illegal immigrants are counted in apportioning electoral votes while getting no vote themselves. Democrats cast their votes for them in California and New York. And would in Texas and Florida if allowed. But California is the problem.
You dont mind that compromise do you?

 

[DOTR]

There's no way to demonstrate that argument. The invitation to do that has been on the table the whole time. No one has.

Over six million voters in NY and Cali voted for Rump, yet their Electors will vote unanimously for Hillary. As if every New Yorker and every Californian cast their vote for the New Yorker. And now their votes will mean absolutely nothing --- they completely wasted their time.

--- That sound fair to you?

Sounds Constitutional to me.

 

[DOTR]

You want to live in the 18th century, be my jest and invent a time machine. The rest of us will read about you in the history books. Which is btw something you might consider investing in.

You will do nothing of the sort. What you will do is abide by the Constitution...which gave Trump a resounding win with no room for doubt. Its a great system. And its one Hillary didnt object to and in fact agreed to when she entered the race.

 

[DOTR]

...and if that's the case and Trump actually won the popular vote, then those protesting will stop....right?



Trump never went to Cali to campaign...if it was ONLY about POPULAR VOTE, he would have visited California.

He won the popular vote. And everybody knows it.

Unfortunately for the self-deluding Echobubble --- the numbers don't know it. The numbers in fact know he's losing by, going on a million and a half votes and still counting:

Clinton: 63,049,607 (47.9%)

Rump: 61,610,484 (46.8%)

Others: 6,968,849

How many people is that difference, exactly? It's hard for the brain to conceive such abstracts.

Whelp -- it's more than the entire population --- not just voters, but every man woman and child --- in Wyoming.
Or Vermont. Or Alaska, or either of the Dakotas. More than Montana.

In fact it's more people than the entire populations of Alaska and Wyoming combined.
----- you know.... those "smaller states somehow protected by the Electrical College", yet we can't explain how?

But stay tuned because that's not final yet. The gap continues to grow.

Suffice to say, if Rump were a stock you would have been advised to sell off a week ago.

The popular vote doesn't mean jack shit. If it did, Trump would have spent all of his time in NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, and TEXAS. HOWEVER, his campaign knew it needed to win the ELECTORAL COLLEGE...so it employed a strategy to actually WIN THE FUCKING ELECTION.

If Hillary won the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, but TRUMP won the POPULAR VOTE, would libs be crying about the EC being UNFAIR? OF COURSE NOT.....

Liberals crying about the ELECTORAL COLLEGE:

It is very possible that without the electoral college Trump would have campaigned more and carried more votes in California or New York and thus won the popular vote as well.
But since the popular vote, the unpopular vote, Dancing With the Stars votes, Top Chef votes and EK Jones Elementary School Mock Election votes dont decide who is President he chose to go after and win Electoral Votes.
Worked out great.

 

[DOTR]

because the cattle farmers in Wyoming represent a larger number of legal U.S citizens than than are to be found in Miami or Austin?

NOt really. You guys keep claiming illegals are voting, but you never come up with any proof.

And it's all from the same fake-news generators that tried to sell "Rump wins popular vote" back at the beginning of this thread.

I have noticed that the "fake news" talking point is out among liberals everywhere. The Washington Post devoted six stories to it in two days. Weird how you people follow each other along.

 

[Pogo]

because the cattle farmers in Wyoming represent a larger number of legal U.S citizens than than are to be found in Miami or Austin?

NOt really. You guys keep claiming illegals are voting, but you never come up with any proof.

And it's all from the same fake-news generators that tried to sell "Rump wins popular vote" back at the beginning of this thread.

I have noticed that the "fake news" talking point is out among liberals everywhere. The Washington Post devoted six stories to it in two days. Weird how you people follow each other along.

That's because, ironically or not, a story about fake news generators ---- is a real news story.
And that's kind of how you know it's real news....... it doesn't just morph as needed; it's the same story regardless who tells it.

Fake news: "Hillary has Parkinsons"... no, "Hillary has dementia".... no wait, "Hillary has cancer".... no, "Hillary has drug interactions"...

Real news: Hillary had pneumonia.

See? Not malleable but quantifiable. Single story, regardless who relates it.

 

[Pogo]

...and if that's the case and Trump actually won the popular vote, then those protesting will stop....right?



Trump never went to Cali to campaign...if it was ONLY about POPULAR VOTE, he would have visited California.

He won the popular vote. And everybody knows it.

Unfortunately for the self-deluding Echobubble --- the numbers don't know it. The numbers in fact know he's losing by, going on a million and a half votes and still counting:

Clinton: 63,049,607 (47.9%)

Rump: 61,610,484 (46.8%)

Others: 6,968,849

How many people is that difference, exactly? It's hard for the brain to conceive such abstracts.

Whelp -- it's more than the entire population --- not just voters, but every man woman and child --- in Wyoming.
Or Vermont. Or Alaska, or either of the Dakotas. More than Montana.

In fact it's more people than the entire populations of Alaska and Wyoming combined.
----- you know.... those "smaller states somehow protected by the Electrical College", yet we can't explain how?

But stay tuned because that's not final yet. The gap continues to grow.

Suffice to say, if Rump were a stock you would have been advised to sell off a week ago.

The popular vote doesn't mean jack shit. If it did, Trump would have spent all of his time in NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, and TEXAS. HOWEVER, his campaign knew it needed to win the ELECTORAL COLLEGE...so it employed a strategy to actually WIN THE FUCKING ELECTION.

If Hillary won the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, but TRUMP won the POPULAR VOTE, would libs be crying about the EC being UNFAIR? OF COURSE NOT.....

Liberals crying about the ELECTORAL COLLEGE:

It is very possible that without the electoral college Trump would have campaigned more and carried more votes in California or New York and thus won the popular vote as well.
But since the popular vote, the unpopular vote, Dancing With the Stars votes, Top Chef votes and EK Jones Elementary School Mock Election votes dont decide who is President he chose to go after and win Electoral Votes.
Worked out great.

Of course --- if the system is such that popular vote directly elects the head of state (as it works in every other country except Pakistan) --- then everybody knows the rules, and they campaign differently Which is one of the arguments against the EC; it renders red states pointless for blue candidates and blue states pointless for red ones. A PV makes them go everywhere.

But Rump wasn't about to win votes in California or even in his home state. He would have gone where he had an easier sell. As it is the EC nullified some six million votes from those two states. They went to the ballot box for nothing.

 

[Pogo]

You want to live in the 18th century, be my jest and invent a time machine. The rest of us will read about you in the history books. Which is btw something you might consider investing in.

You will do nothing of the sort. What you will do is abide by the Constitution...which gave Trump a resounding win with no room for doubt. Its a great system. And its one Hillary didnt object to and in fact agreed to when she entered the race.

Yyyyyeah ummm... the Electoral College hasn't voted yet Dumbass. They don't do that until well after the fraud case.

 

[Pogo]

And of course it wasn't ingoring slavery. the 3/5 compromise was designed to gain an advantage from slavery. We didnt ignore it for decades either. It was the center of almost every fight in the Senate for many decades to come.

Oh but we did. It sat and festered for the aforementioned decades and it took a Civil War to abolish slavery in 1865 --- after most of the world had already done so including Britain, France and Spain as well as Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico and Peru. The Whig Party, which had a few Presidents after those seven, dried up and evaporated BECAUSE it couldn't deal with the question. So don't come in here with a bucket of whitewash.

And yes, the Three-Fifths Compromise was designed to gain advantage from slavery, while taking none of the responsibilities THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID.

Nor was the electoral college designed with slavery in mind. The votes were allocated according to a compromise between free and slave states but that was only details. The EC was designed for a purpose and is still valuable as such.

Do tell. Maybe news travels slow in your 18th century world but here in the future even WE abolished slavery. So that purpose no longer exists.

There's no way to demonstrate that argument. The invitation to do that has been on the table the whole time. No one has.

Over six million voters in NY and Cali voted for Rump, yet their Electors will vote unanimously for Hillary. As if every New Yorker and every Californian cast their vote for the New Yorker. And now their votes will mean absolutely nothing --- they completely wasted their time.

--- That sound fair to you?

Sounds Constitutional to me.

---- wasn't the question, was it?

 

[DOTR]

Yyyyyeah ummm... the Electoral College hasn't voted yet Dumbass. They don't do that until well after the fraud case.

Care to make a wager on how they vote? Ill delete my account if they vote Hillary into office. You delete your account if they vote Trump into office. Deal?