Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nothing wrong with acknowledging our way of electing Presidents is fucked up. It was designed to STOP a moron like Trump from becoming President, not enable it. It failed.
It actually stopped mob rule where a few cities or states have the ability to choose a President for the entire country.
View attachment 164141
So are we back to saying that some people are only worth 3/5ths of a person because of where they live?
Haven't they always been?
If you live in Rhode Island, you get two Senators to represent you. If you live in California, you only get two Senators to represent you. Or are you against that too?
We are less a country of people than we are a country of states. Each state gives their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote of that state. It's the fairest way to have an election because a President is not just the leader of the people, the President is also the leader of our land as well.
NYC alone has over seven million people. That's more people than our four least populated states. If we just let places like that decide who is going to run the country, what would be the use for everybody else to go out and vote?
No. I believe in the popular vote where everyone in the country has an equal vote. There is no reason why if I move to another state like New York, my vote no longer means as much as if I stayed in Kentucky.
This year proved something very important, and that is that the entire election can be swung by only concentrating on the vote totals of less than 5 states. It showed that the Electoral College robbed Peter to pay Paul. Instead of big states like Texas, California, and New York dominating the election, now the "swing states" like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin can swing the entire election.
So what is your suggestion, that we allow Texas, California, New York and Florida to choose the President for the entire country.....each and every presidential election?
And if we did that, why would politicians pay attention to any other states? Screw them, right? I mean, if they get wiped out by a hurricane, don't send them any federal money. They don't have enough population there to give a shit. Or perhaps a tornado takes out part of a town in a least populated state. Why give them a dime? Give it to New York city to fund studies on why many lesbians are fat.
A popular vote means over 90% of the country has no say-so in presidential elections. At least with an electoral college, candidates must look out for the interests of lower populated states as well.
It actually stopped mob rule where a few cities or states have the ability to choose a President for the entire country.
View attachment 164141
So are we back to saying that some people are only worth 3/5ths of a person because of where they live?
Haven't they always been?
If you live in Rhode Island, you get two Senators to represent you. If you live in California, you only get two Senators to represent you. Or are you against that too?
We are less a country of people than we are a country of states. Each state gives their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote of that state. It's the fairest way to have an election because a President is not just the leader of the people, the President is also the leader of our land as well.
NYC alone has over seven million people. That's more people than our four least populated states. If we just let places like that decide who is going to run the country, what would be the use for everybody else to go out and vote?
No. I believe in the popular vote where everyone in the country has an equal vote. There is no reason why if I move to another state like New York, my vote no longer means as much as if I stayed in Kentucky.
This year proved something very important, and that is that the entire election can be swung by only concentrating on the vote totals of less than 5 states. It showed that the Electoral College robbed Peter to pay Paul. Instead of big states like Texas, California, and New York dominating the election, now the "swing states" like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin can swing the entire election.
So what is your suggestion, that we allow Texas, California, New York and Florida to choose the President for the entire country.....each and every presidential election?
And if we did that, why would politicians pay attention to any other states? Screw them, right? I mean, if they get wiped out by a hurricane, don't send them any federal money. They don't have enough population there to give a shit. Or perhaps a tornado takes out part of a town in a least populated state. Why give them a dime? Give it to New York city to fund studies on why many lesbians are fat.
A popular vote means over 90% of the country has no say-so in presidential elections. At least with an electoral college, candidates must look out for the interests of lower populated states as well.
You didn't understand a simple statement. A popular vote means EVERY citizen has an equal say in who the President is. Are you a citizen of the United States or a citizen of Ohio?
Texas, California, and New York aren't electing anyone... the citizens that live there are.
I'd rather have every citizen's vote be equal than have the election decided by just a couple of swing states every year.
So are we back to saying that some people are only worth 3/5ths of a person because of where they live?
Haven't they always been?
If you live in Rhode Island, you get two Senators to represent you. If you live in California, you only get two Senators to represent you. Or are you against that too?
We are less a country of people than we are a country of states. Each state gives their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote of that state. It's the fairest way to have an election because a President is not just the leader of the people, the President is also the leader of our land as well.
NYC alone has over seven million people. That's more people than our four least populated states. If we just let places like that decide who is going to run the country, what would be the use for everybody else to go out and vote?
No. I believe in the popular vote where everyone in the country has an equal vote. There is no reason why if I move to another state like New York, my vote no longer means as much as if I stayed in Kentucky.
This year proved something very important, and that is that the entire election can be swung by only concentrating on the vote totals of less than 5 states. It showed that the Electoral College robbed Peter to pay Paul. Instead of big states like Texas, California, and New York dominating the election, now the "swing states" like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin can swing the entire election.
So what is your suggestion, that we allow Texas, California, New York and Florida to choose the President for the entire country.....each and every presidential election?
And if we did that, why would politicians pay attention to any other states? Screw them, right? I mean, if they get wiped out by a hurricane, don't send them any federal money. They don't have enough population there to give a shit. Or perhaps a tornado takes out part of a town in a least populated state. Why give them a dime? Give it to New York city to fund studies on why many lesbians are fat.
A popular vote means over 90% of the country has no say-so in presidential elections. At least with an electoral college, candidates must look out for the interests of lower populated states as well.
You didn't understand a simple statement. A popular vote means EVERY citizen has an equal say in who the President is. Are you a citizen of the United States or a citizen of Ohio?
Texas, California, and New York aren't electing anyone... the citizens that live there are.
I'd rather have every citizen's vote be equal than have the election decided by just a couple of swing states every year.
Of course you would, because those larger populated areas are full of Socialists and Communists. If the popular vote always went Republican, you wouldn't hear a peep out of Democrats about changing the system.
Haven't they always been?
If you live in Rhode Island, you get two Senators to represent you. If you live in California, you only get two Senators to represent you. Or are you against that too?
We are less a country of people than we are a country of states. Each state gives their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote of that state. It's the fairest way to have an election because a President is not just the leader of the people, the President is also the leader of our land as well.
NYC alone has over seven million people. That's more people than our four least populated states. If we just let places like that decide who is going to run the country, what would be the use for everybody else to go out and vote?
No. I believe in the popular vote where everyone in the country has an equal vote. There is no reason why if I move to another state like New York, my vote no longer means as much as if I stayed in Kentucky.
This year proved something very important, and that is that the entire election can be swung by only concentrating on the vote totals of less than 5 states. It showed that the Electoral College robbed Peter to pay Paul. Instead of big states like Texas, California, and New York dominating the election, now the "swing states" like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin can swing the entire election.
So what is your suggestion, that we allow Texas, California, New York and Florida to choose the President for the entire country.....each and every presidential election?
And if we did that, why would politicians pay attention to any other states? Screw them, right? I mean, if they get wiped out by a hurricane, don't send them any federal money. They don't have enough population there to give a shit. Or perhaps a tornado takes out part of a town in a least populated state. Why give them a dime? Give it to New York city to fund studies on why many lesbians are fat.
A popular vote means over 90% of the country has no say-so in presidential elections. At least with an electoral college, candidates must look out for the interests of lower populated states as well.
You didn't understand a simple statement. A popular vote means EVERY citizen has an equal say in who the President is. Are you a citizen of the United States or a citizen of Ohio?
Texas, California, and New York aren't electing anyone... the citizens that live there are.
I'd rather have every citizen's vote be equal than have the election decided by just a couple of swing states every year.
Of course you would, because those larger populated areas are full of Socialists and Communists. If the popular vote always went Republican, you wouldn't hear a peep out of Democrats about changing the system.
Wrong. You still don't get it, and you probably never will.
No. I believe in the popular vote where everyone in the country has an equal vote. There is no reason why if I move to another state like New York, my vote no longer means as much as if I stayed in Kentucky.
This year proved something very important, and that is that the entire election can be swung by only concentrating on the vote totals of less than 5 states. It showed that the Electoral College robbed Peter to pay Paul. Instead of big states like Texas, California, and New York dominating the election, now the "swing states" like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin can swing the entire election.
So what is your suggestion, that we allow Texas, California, New York and Florida to choose the President for the entire country.....each and every presidential election?
And if we did that, why would politicians pay attention to any other states? Screw them, right? I mean, if they get wiped out by a hurricane, don't send them any federal money. They don't have enough population there to give a shit. Or perhaps a tornado takes out part of a town in a least populated state. Why give them a dime? Give it to New York city to fund studies on why many lesbians are fat.
A popular vote means over 90% of the country has no say-so in presidential elections. At least with an electoral college, candidates must look out for the interests of lower populated states as well.
You didn't understand a simple statement. A popular vote means EVERY citizen has an equal say in who the President is. Are you a citizen of the United States or a citizen of Ohio?
Texas, California, and New York aren't electing anyone... the citizens that live there are.
I'd rather have every citizen's vote be equal than have the election decided by just a couple of swing states every year.
Of course you would, because those larger populated areas are full of Socialists and Communists. If the popular vote always went Republican, you wouldn't hear a peep out of Democrats about changing the system.
Wrong. You still don't get it, and you probably never will.
Oh please. Can you explain to me why popular vote was such an issue this year? Why was it never an issue the two elections before? Because you won, that's why.
Maybe if the Democrats would quit using time to make excuses why they lost instead of using the time to figure out what they are doing wrong where they are getting voted out, maybe they might change their strategy a little bit and do something good for the people. Instead, they spend their time insulting and trying to berate the other side to win elections; calling their constituents things like "deplorables."
You don't win elections by insulting half the people in this country, and if you continue to do that, no election system in the world is going to put them back on top.
So what is your suggestion, that we allow Texas, California, New York and Florida to choose the President for the entire country.....each and every presidential election?
And if we did that, why would politicians pay attention to any other states? Screw them, right? I mean, if they get wiped out by a hurricane, don't send them any federal money. They don't have enough population there to give a shit. Or perhaps a tornado takes out part of a town in a least populated state. Why give them a dime? Give it to New York city to fund studies on why many lesbians are fat.
A popular vote means over 90% of the country has no say-so in presidential elections. At least with an electoral college, candidates must look out for the interests of lower populated states as well.
You didn't understand a simple statement. A popular vote means EVERY citizen has an equal say in who the President is. Are you a citizen of the United States or a citizen of Ohio?
Texas, California, and New York aren't electing anyone... the citizens that live there are.
I'd rather have every citizen's vote be equal than have the election decided by just a couple of swing states every year.
Of course you would, because those larger populated areas are full of Socialists and Communists. If the popular vote always went Republican, you wouldn't hear a peep out of Democrats about changing the system.
Wrong. You still don't get it, and you probably never will.
Oh please. Can you explain to me why popular vote was such an issue this year? Why was it never an issue the two elections before? Because you won, that's why.
Maybe if the Democrats would quit using time to make excuses why they lost instead of using the time to figure out what they are doing wrong where they are getting voted out, maybe they might change their strategy a little bit and do something good for the people. Instead, they spend their time insulting and trying to berate the other side to win elections; calling their constituents things like "deplorables."
You don't win elections by insulting half the people in this country, and if you continue to do that, no election system in the world is going to put them back on top.
It's been an issue many times before. Why was it a big deal this year? Because Russia used the fact that a small handful of states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin swung the ENTIRE election. Those three states are worth 46 electoral votes. It's called playing the margins. Trump won Wisconsin by 1% point. Trump won Michigan by .3% percentage points. Trump won Pennsylvania by 1.2% percentage points. Going into the election it was well known those states were going to be close calls and Russia focused their propaganda campaign to focus in those areas...
"Warner said in the latest case, the paid trolls apparently focused on swing states in an attempt to influence votes there — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where people were “reading during the waning days of the election that “‘Clinton is sick,’ or ‘Clinton is taking money from whoever for some source’ … fake news.”"
1,000 Paid Russian Trolls Spread Fake News On Hillary Clinton, Senate Intelligence Heads Told | HuffPost
So you'd rather have a flawed system where something like this could happen rather than just having the entire country vote and the one that gets the most votes wins.
It actually stopped mob rule where a few cities or states have the ability to choose a President for the entire country.
View attachment 164141
So are we back to saying that some people are only worth 3/5ths of a person because of where they live?
Haven't they always been?
If you live in Rhode Island, you get two Senators to represent you. If you live in California, you only get two Senators to represent you. Or are you against that too?
We are less a country of people than we are a country of states. Each state gives their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote of that state. It's the fairest way to have an election because a President is not just the leader of the people, the President is also the leader of our land as well.
NYC alone has over seven million people. That's more people than our four least populated states. If we just let places like that decide who is going to run the country, what would be the use for everybody else to go out and vote?
No. I believe in the popular vote where everyone in the country has an equal vote. There is no reason why if I move to another state like New York, my vote no longer means as much as if I stayed in Kentucky.
This year proved something very important, and that is that the entire election can be swung by only concentrating on the vote totals of less than 5 states. It showed that the Electoral College robbed Peter to pay Paul. Instead of big states like Texas, California, and New York dominating the election, now the "swing states" like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin can swing the entire election.
So what is your suggestion, that we allow Texas, California, New York and Florida to choose the President for the entire country.....each and every presidential election?
And if we did that, why would politicians pay attention to any other states? Screw them, right? I mean, if they get wiped out by a hurricane, don't send them any federal money. They don't have enough population there to give a shit. Or perhaps a tornado takes out part of a town in a least populated state. Why give them a dime? Give it to New York city to fund studies on why many lesbians are fat.
A popular vote means over 90% of the country has no say-so in presidential elections. At least with an electoral college, candidates must look out for the interests of lower populated states as well.
You didn't understand a simple statement. A popular vote means EVERY citizen has an equal say in who the President is. Are you a citizen of the United States or a citizen of Ohio?
Texas, California, and New York aren't electing anyone... the citizens that live there are.
I'd rather have every citizen's vote be equal than have the election decided by just a couple of swing states every year.
He took a strong stand in favor of churches’ right to public subsidies
So many communists! LOL! We want every state and every citizen to count in the presidential vote. Electoral college is a disgrace and always has been. Wrecks how campaigns are run. You don't care a damn about the good of the country Only the Good of the GOP brainwashers, super dupe.So are we back to saying that some people are only worth 3/5ths of a person because of where they live?
Haven't they always been?
If you live in Rhode Island, you get two Senators to represent you. If you live in California, you only get two Senators to represent you. Or are you against that too?
We are less a country of people than we are a country of states. Each state gives their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote of that state. It's the fairest way to have an election because a President is not just the leader of the people, the President is also the leader of our land as well.
NYC alone has over seven million people. That's more people than our four least populated states. If we just let places like that decide who is going to run the country, what would be the use for everybody else to go out and vote?
No. I believe in the popular vote where everyone in the country has an equal vote. There is no reason why if I move to another state like New York, my vote no longer means as much as if I stayed in Kentucky.
This year proved something very important, and that is that the entire election can be swung by only concentrating on the vote totals of less than 5 states. It showed that the Electoral College robbed Peter to pay Paul. Instead of big states like Texas, California, and New York dominating the election, now the "swing states" like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin can swing the entire election.
So what is your suggestion, that we allow Texas, California, New York and Florida to choose the President for the entire country.....each and every presidential election?
And if we did that, why would politicians pay attention to any other states? Screw them, right? I mean, if they get wiped out by a hurricane, don't send them any federal money. They don't have enough population there to give a shit. Or perhaps a tornado takes out part of a town in a least populated state. Why give them a dime? Give it to New York city to fund studies on why many lesbians are fat.
A popular vote means over 90% of the country has no say-so in presidential elections. At least with an electoral college, candidates must look out for the interests of lower populated states as well.
You didn't understand a simple statement. A popular vote means EVERY citizen has an equal say in who the President is. Are you a citizen of the United States or a citizen of Ohio?
Texas, California, and New York aren't electing anyone... the citizens that live there are.
I'd rather have every citizen's vote be equal than have the election decided by just a couple of swing states every year.
Of course you would, because those larger populated areas are full of Socialists and Communists. If the popular vote always went Republican, you wouldn't hear a peep out of Democrats about changing the system.
You didn't understand a simple statement. A popular vote means EVERY citizen has an equal say in who the President is. Are you a citizen of the United States or a citizen of Ohio?
Texas, California, and New York aren't electing anyone... the citizens that live there are.
I'd rather have every citizen's vote be equal than have the election decided by just a couple of swing states every year.
Of course you would, because those larger populated areas are full of Socialists and Communists. If the popular vote always went Republican, you wouldn't hear a peep out of Democrats about changing the system.
Wrong. You still don't get it, and you probably never will.
Oh please. Can you explain to me why popular vote was such an issue this year? Why was it never an issue the two elections before? Because you won, that's why.
Maybe if the Democrats would quit using time to make excuses why they lost instead of using the time to figure out what they are doing wrong where they are getting voted out, maybe they might change their strategy a little bit and do something good for the people. Instead, they spend their time insulting and trying to berate the other side to win elections; calling their constituents things like "deplorables."
You don't win elections by insulting half the people in this country, and if you continue to do that, no election system in the world is going to put them back on top.
It's been an issue many times before. Why was it a big deal this year? Because Russia used the fact that a small handful of states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin swung the ENTIRE election. Those three states are worth 46 electoral votes. It's called playing the margins. Trump won Wisconsin by 1% point. Trump won Michigan by .3% percentage points. Trump won Pennsylvania by 1.2% percentage points. Going into the election it was well known those states were going to be close calls and Russia focused their propaganda campaign to focus in those areas...
"Warner said in the latest case, the paid trolls apparently focused on swing states in an attempt to influence votes there — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where people were “reading during the waning days of the election that “‘Clinton is sick,’ or ‘Clinton is taking money from whoever for some source’ … fake news.”"
1,000 Paid Russian Trolls Spread Fake News On Hillary Clinton, Senate Intelligence Heads Told | HuffPost
So you'd rather have a flawed system where something like this could happen rather than just having the entire country vote and the one that gets the most votes wins.
Nobody pays attention to crap like that. Russia had nothing to do with it. People who were going to vote Democrat did and people who were going to vote Republican did. On both sides, a lot of people stayed home because they were unhappy with the candidates, but Trump brought in new blood to replace the old blood so he won. He had a message that resinated with the public; something Hillary didn't have.
But you ran a candidate that was under FBI investigation, a candidate that was let off the hook because she was part of the club, a candidate who was totally careless with top government information, and a candidate that disobeyed the US Congress in an investigation. But it was Russia's fault. Give me a break.
And he is the one paying attention to fake news more than anyone... It's the base of the GOP platform..."the rich pay too much in taxes the clintons are perverted evil incredibly corrupt Liars, the Clinton Foundation is a total scam Elizabeth Warren got all her jobs by being an Indian Obamacare has fallen apart. Obama was a huge Spender... It just goes on forever...Of course you would, because those larger populated areas are full of Socialists and Communists. If the popular vote always went Republican, you wouldn't hear a peep out of Democrats about changing the system.
Wrong. You still don't get it, and you probably never will.
Oh please. Can you explain to me why popular vote was such an issue this year? Why was it never an issue the two elections before? Because you won, that's why.
Maybe if the Democrats would quit using time to make excuses why they lost instead of using the time to figure out what they are doing wrong where they are getting voted out, maybe they might change their strategy a little bit and do something good for the people. Instead, they spend their time insulting and trying to berate the other side to win elections; calling their constituents things like "deplorables."
You don't win elections by insulting half the people in this country, and if you continue to do that, no election system in the world is going to put them back on top.
It's been an issue many times before. Why was it a big deal this year? Because Russia used the fact that a small handful of states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin swung the ENTIRE election. Those three states are worth 46 electoral votes. It's called playing the margins. Trump won Wisconsin by 1% point. Trump won Michigan by .3% percentage points. Trump won Pennsylvania by 1.2% percentage points. Going into the election it was well known those states were going to be close calls and Russia focused their propaganda campaign to focus in those areas...
"Warner said in the latest case, the paid trolls apparently focused on swing states in an attempt to influence votes there — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where people were “reading during the waning days of the election that “‘Clinton is sick,’ or ‘Clinton is taking money from whoever for some source’ … fake news.”"
1,000 Paid Russian Trolls Spread Fake News On Hillary Clinton, Senate Intelligence Heads Told | HuffPost
So you'd rather have a flawed system where something like this could happen rather than just having the entire country vote and the one that gets the most votes wins.
Nobody pays attention to crap like that. Russia had nothing to do with it. People who were going to vote Democrat did and people who were going to vote Republican did. On both sides, a lot of people stayed home because they were unhappy with the candidates, but Trump brought in new blood to replace the old blood so he won. He had a message that resinated with the public; something Hillary didn't have.
But you ran a candidate that was under FBI investigation, a candidate that was let off the hook because she was part of the club, a candidate who was totally careless with top government information, and a candidate that disobeyed the US Congress in an investigation. But it was Russia's fault. Give me a break.
how can you say nobody pay attention to fake news stories when this forum gets about 100 threads a day full of fake news?
Clearly people are paying attention to it
You didn't understand a simple statement. A popular vote means EVERY citizen has an equal say in who the President is. Are you a citizen of the United States or a citizen of Ohio?
Texas, California, and New York aren't electing anyone... the citizens that live there are.
I'd rather have every citizen's vote be equal than have the election decided by just a couple of swing states every year.
Of course you would, because those larger populated areas are full of Socialists and Communists. If the popular vote always went Republican, you wouldn't hear a peep out of Democrats about changing the system.
Wrong. You still don't get it, and you probably never will.
Oh please. Can you explain to me why popular vote was such an issue this year? Why was it never an issue the two elections before? Because you won, that's why.
Maybe if the Democrats would quit using time to make excuses why they lost instead of using the time to figure out what they are doing wrong where they are getting voted out, maybe they might change their strategy a little bit and do something good for the people. Instead, they spend their time insulting and trying to berate the other side to win elections; calling their constituents things like "deplorables."
You don't win elections by insulting half the people in this country, and if you continue to do that, no election system in the world is going to put them back on top.
It's been an issue many times before. Why was it a big deal this year? Because Russia used the fact that a small handful of states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin swung the ENTIRE election. Those three states are worth 46 electoral votes. It's called playing the margins. Trump won Wisconsin by 1% point. Trump won Michigan by .3% percentage points. Trump won Pennsylvania by 1.2% percentage points. Going into the election it was well known those states were going to be close calls and Russia focused their propaganda campaign to focus in those areas...
"Warner said in the latest case, the paid trolls apparently focused on swing states in an attempt to influence votes there — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where people were “reading during the waning days of the election that “‘Clinton is sick,’ or ‘Clinton is taking money from whoever for some source’ … fake news.”"
1,000 Paid Russian Trolls Spread Fake News On Hillary Clinton, Senate Intelligence Heads Told | HuffPost
So you'd rather have a flawed system where something like this could happen rather than just having the entire country vote and the one that gets the most votes wins.
Nobody pays attention to crap like that. Russia had nothing to do with it. People who were going to vote Democrat did and people who were going to vote Republican did. On both sides, a lot of people stayed home because they were unhappy with the candidates, but Trump brought in new blood to replace the old blood so he won. He had a message that resinated with the public; something Hillary didn't have.
But you ran a candidate that was under FBI investigation, a candidate that was let off the hook because she was part of the club, a candidate who was totally careless with top government information, and a candidate that disobeyed the US Congress in an investigation. But it was Russia's fault. Give me a break.
Of course you would, because those larger populated areas are full of Socialists and Communists. If the popular vote always went Republican, you wouldn't hear a peep out of Democrats about changing the system.
Wrong. You still don't get it, and you probably never will.
Oh please. Can you explain to me why popular vote was such an issue this year? Why was it never an issue the two elections before? Because you won, that's why.
Maybe if the Democrats would quit using time to make excuses why they lost instead of using the time to figure out what they are doing wrong where they are getting voted out, maybe they might change their strategy a little bit and do something good for the people. Instead, they spend their time insulting and trying to berate the other side to win elections; calling their constituents things like "deplorables."
You don't win elections by insulting half the people in this country, and if you continue to do that, no election system in the world is going to put them back on top.
It's been an issue many times before. Why was it a big deal this year? Because Russia used the fact that a small handful of states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin swung the ENTIRE election. Those three states are worth 46 electoral votes. It's called playing the margins. Trump won Wisconsin by 1% point. Trump won Michigan by .3% percentage points. Trump won Pennsylvania by 1.2% percentage points. Going into the election it was well known those states were going to be close calls and Russia focused their propaganda campaign to focus in those areas...
"Warner said in the latest case, the paid trolls apparently focused on swing states in an attempt to influence votes there — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where people were “reading during the waning days of the election that “‘Clinton is sick,’ or ‘Clinton is taking money from whoever for some source’ … fake news.”"
1,000 Paid Russian Trolls Spread Fake News On Hillary Clinton, Senate Intelligence Heads Told | HuffPost
So you'd rather have a flawed system where something like this could happen rather than just having the entire country vote and the one that gets the most votes wins.
Nobody pays attention to crap like that. Russia had nothing to do with it. People who were going to vote Democrat did and people who were going to vote Republican did. On both sides, a lot of people stayed home because they were unhappy with the candidates, but Trump brought in new blood to replace the old blood so he won. He had a message that resinated with the public; something Hillary didn't have.
But you ran a candidate that was under FBI investigation, a candidate that was let off the hook because she was part of the club, a candidate who was totally careless with top government information, and a candidate that disobeyed the US Congress in an investigation. But it was Russia's fault. Give me a break.
Sure they don't. Did you hear how many times fake news stories on Facebook were shared?
How many followers did some fake Russian accounts have on Twitter and instagram?
"@TEN_GOP gained a large following that reached 136,000 followers "
Twitter took a year to close a fake GOP account run by Russians
People in Trump's team even re-tweeted information tweeted from THIS account.
So just stop it with the "No one paid attention to that stuff" bullshit.
You don't give your fellow citizens too much credit, do you? Who gets their news from FaceBook for crying out loud? Who would use anything posted there to make a decision on a President?
Why can't you just admit you ran a completely failed candidate? One who had more baggage than an airport. Not only was she suspicious, but she was not liked personally either. She is known to be a bitch and an alcoholic. She couldn't even attend a 911 ceremony without being rushed off and collapsing before she got into her van. She was so drunk on election night she couldn't even make a concession speech.
You don't give your fellow citizens too much credit, do you? Who gets their news from FaceBook for crying out loud? Who would use anything posted there to make a decision on a President?
Why can't you just admit you ran a completely failed candidate? One who had more baggage than an airport. Not only was she suspicious, but she was not liked personally either. She is known to be a bitch and an alcoholic. She couldn't even attend a 911 ceremony without being rushed off and collapsing before she got into her van. She was so drunk on election night she couldn't even make a concession speech.
You are right about one thing, she was a terrible candidate who ran an even worse campaign. She did just assume she was going to win and did very little to make it happen. She was out campaigned by a mile by Trump, nobody can deny that.
Think about this though, all those things you said about her are true, yet your candidate barely beat her and lost the popular vote. That should give you cause for concern because the chances of another equally bad candidate being ran in 2020 are pretty slim.
Wrong. You still don't get it, and you probably never will.
Oh please. Can you explain to me why popular vote was such an issue this year? Why was it never an issue the two elections before? Because you won, that's why.
Maybe if the Democrats would quit using time to make excuses why they lost instead of using the time to figure out what they are doing wrong where they are getting voted out, maybe they might change their strategy a little bit and do something good for the people. Instead, they spend their time insulting and trying to berate the other side to win elections; calling their constituents things like "deplorables."
You don't win elections by insulting half the people in this country, and if you continue to do that, no election system in the world is going to put them back on top.
It's been an issue many times before. Why was it a big deal this year? Because Russia used the fact that a small handful of states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin swung the ENTIRE election. Those three states are worth 46 electoral votes. It's called playing the margins. Trump won Wisconsin by 1% point. Trump won Michigan by .3% percentage points. Trump won Pennsylvania by 1.2% percentage points. Going into the election it was well known those states were going to be close calls and Russia focused their propaganda campaign to focus in those areas...
"Warner said in the latest case, the paid trolls apparently focused on swing states in an attempt to influence votes there — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where people were “reading during the waning days of the election that “‘Clinton is sick,’ or ‘Clinton is taking money from whoever for some source’ … fake news.”"
1,000 Paid Russian Trolls Spread Fake News On Hillary Clinton, Senate Intelligence Heads Told | HuffPost
So you'd rather have a flawed system where something like this could happen rather than just having the entire country vote and the one that gets the most votes wins.
Nobody pays attention to crap like that. Russia had nothing to do with it. People who were going to vote Democrat did and people who were going to vote Republican did. On both sides, a lot of people stayed home because they were unhappy with the candidates, but Trump brought in new blood to replace the old blood so he won. He had a message that resinated with the public; something Hillary didn't have.
But you ran a candidate that was under FBI investigation, a candidate that was let off the hook because she was part of the club, a candidate who was totally careless with top government information, and a candidate that disobeyed the US Congress in an investigation. But it was Russia's fault. Give me a break.
Sure they don't. Did you hear how many times fake news stories on Facebook were shared?
How many followers did some fake Russian accounts have on Twitter and instagram?
"@TEN_GOP gained a large following that reached 136,000 followers "
Twitter took a year to close a fake GOP account run by Russians
People in Trump's team even re-tweeted information tweeted from THIS account.
So just stop it with the "No one paid attention to that stuff" bullshit.
You don't give your fellow citizens too much credit, do you? Who gets their news from FaceBook for crying out loud? Who would use anything posted there to make a decision on a President?
Why can't you just admit you ran a completely failed candidate? One who had more baggage than an airport. Not only was she suspicious, but she was not liked personally either. She is known to be a bitch and an alcoholic. She couldn't even attend a 911 ceremony without being rushed off and collapsing before she got into her van. She was so drunk on election night she couldn't even make a concession speech.
More like the 2015's USSC is out of touch with the limit of their power.Seems our society is also out of touch with our constitution.Seems he is out of touch with our society
Oh please. Can you explain to me why popular vote was such an issue this year? Why was it never an issue the two elections before? Because you won, that's why.
Maybe if the Democrats would quit using time to make excuses why they lost instead of using the time to figure out what they are doing wrong where they are getting voted out, maybe they might change their strategy a little bit and do something good for the people. Instead, they spend their time insulting and trying to berate the other side to win elections; calling their constituents things like "deplorables."
You don't win elections by insulting half the people in this country, and if you continue to do that, no election system in the world is going to put them back on top.
It's been an issue many times before. Why was it a big deal this year? Because Russia used the fact that a small handful of states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin swung the ENTIRE election. Those three states are worth 46 electoral votes. It's called playing the margins. Trump won Wisconsin by 1% point. Trump won Michigan by .3% percentage points. Trump won Pennsylvania by 1.2% percentage points. Going into the election it was well known those states were going to be close calls and Russia focused their propaganda campaign to focus in those areas...
"Warner said in the latest case, the paid trolls apparently focused on swing states in an attempt to influence votes there — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where people were “reading during the waning days of the election that “‘Clinton is sick,’ or ‘Clinton is taking money from whoever for some source’ … fake news.”"
1,000 Paid Russian Trolls Spread Fake News On Hillary Clinton, Senate Intelligence Heads Told | HuffPost
So you'd rather have a flawed system where something like this could happen rather than just having the entire country vote and the one that gets the most votes wins.
Nobody pays attention to crap like that. Russia had nothing to do with it. People who were going to vote Democrat did and people who were going to vote Republican did. On both sides, a lot of people stayed home because they were unhappy with the candidates, but Trump brought in new blood to replace the old blood so he won. He had a message that resinated with the public; something Hillary didn't have.
But you ran a candidate that was under FBI investigation, a candidate that was let off the hook because she was part of the club, a candidate who was totally careless with top government information, and a candidate that disobeyed the US Congress in an investigation. But it was Russia's fault. Give me a break.
Sure they don't. Did you hear how many times fake news stories on Facebook were shared?
How many followers did some fake Russian accounts have on Twitter and instagram?
"@TEN_GOP gained a large following that reached 136,000 followers "
Twitter took a year to close a fake GOP account run by Russians
People in Trump's team even re-tweeted information tweeted from THIS account.
So just stop it with the "No one paid attention to that stuff" bullshit.
You don't give your fellow citizens too much credit, do you? Who gets their news from FaceBook for crying out loud? Who would use anything posted there to make a decision on a President?
Why can't you just admit you ran a completely failed candidate? One who had more baggage than an airport. Not only was she suspicious, but she was not liked personally either. She is known to be a bitch and an alcoholic. She couldn't even attend a 911 ceremony without being rushed off and collapsing before she got into her van. She was so drunk on election night she couldn't even make a concession speech.
Who gets their news from Facebook? More people than you realize. When 25% of the U.S. population believes in the Geocentric theory, some people still believe the world is flat, and more people can identify the members of the Three Stooges than the three branches of government.
Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate, but if you can't see that there are dumbasses out there that will believe some stupid shit and can be influenced to vote a certain way because of these stories, then you might be one of them.
