One of the many examples of R-W hypocrisy....

[Eaglewings]

Mention to right wingers that Trump won election because of the outdated electoral college system.....and they quickly respond with....."LOOK at the Constitution..."

Or dare mention that stricter gun laws should be enacted to curb the butchery....and they quickly respond with........"LOOK at the Constitution."

But when one of their ilk is convicted of breaking tenets within the Constitution, like the old goat Joe Arpaio did and this bigot gets pardoned....some of them quickly respond with......"us racists stick together."

It is quite entertaining to watch the righties on here do flip flops, and then deny that they ever held that view..

These Constitution Righties are the worst at flip flopping..

.

 

[2aguy]

LOL, what a whiner. Oh yeah, Trump sucks.

You call it whining. I call it math. A vote in WY is worth lots more than a vote in Ca. You think that is right?

Yep......otherwise candidates would only campaign in California, New York and Chicago.....that is why our system is set up the way it is.....it forces the political morons to pay attention to the rest of the country.

Of course. Devalue the votes in areas that don't support RWNJs. Same reason for all the whining about wanting voter ID. The right can't compete if everybody's vote is counted equally.

Here you go......this is what you morons think about Blacks and voter i.d......hey...did Ami Horowitz interview you for this video....dumb ass...

Quit stalking me idiot.

Wow...that hurts......you post about me and when I reply, you get mad...typical left winger.......

 

[2aguy]

and again, your math gives the most populous states to rule the country.

Why bother with a vote at all, just assign someone from one of the most populous states to be president for 4 years.

the top 14 can take turns picking one.

Got it. You think people in states with higher population should have their votes devalued. Instead of 1 person - 1 vote, you want voters in some states to be limited to 1/4 of a vote. Typical RWNJ.

LOL, what a whiner. Oh yeah, Trump sucks.

You call it whining. I call it math. A vote in WY is worth lots more than a vote in Ca. You think that is right?

Well if we went to a popular vote system, that would mean New York city alone would have more power than four entire states like Nebraska. Do you think that would be fair?

You tell me. 1 person 1 vote.

Yep.....that is how it works...and that is why we need voter i.d. laws........

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The population of California is about 70 times that of Wy. For EC votes to be distributed equally, California should have 70 and Wy should have 1. You do the math, or get a 4th grader to help you. Do you think some citizens should have their votes devalued just because of where they live? That's what the EC does.

Okay, so that's the way we do it. Now one of those less populated states has a disaster of some kind: a flood, a massive fire, a tornado. Then the sitting President decides he's not going to give federal aid to those thousands or tens of thousands of people because there are not enough votes there to worry about them. There's only a half million people or so. Take out the children and non-voters, that's about 150,000 votes. Why worry about them?

Instead, take our federal money and give it to California to study the effects on little old ladies when they go to the bathroom with transgender weirdos. Maybe New York is running out of place to dump their garbage. Send the garbage to Montana. Only about a million people living there.

 

[2aguy]

The population of California is about 70 times that of Wy. For EC votes to be distributed equally, California should have 70 and Wy should have 1. You do the math, or get a 4th grader to help you. Do you think some citizens should have their votes devalued just because of where they live? That's what the EC does.

Okay, so that's the way we do it. Now one of those less populated states has a disaster of some kind: a flood, a massive fire, a tornado. Then the sitting President decides he's not going to give federal aid to those thousands or tens of thousands of people because there are not enough votes there to worry about them. There's only a half million people or so. Take out the children and non-voters, that's about 150,000 votes. Why worry about them?

Instead, take our federal money and give it to California to study the effects on little old ladies when they go to the bathroom with transgender weirdos. Maybe New York is running out of place to dump their garbage. Send the garbage to Montana. Only about a million people living there.

If you saw the movie "Idiocracy" then you know that explaining the truth to bulldog and the other left wingers is like trying to explain that Brawndo is not what plants really need....plants actually need water....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

and again, your math gives the most populous states to rule the country.

Why bother with a vote at all, just assign someone from one of the most populous states to be president for 4 years.

the top 14 can take turns picking one.

Got it. You think people in states with higher population should have their votes devalued. Instead of 1 person - 1 vote, you want voters in some states to be limited to 1/4 of a vote. Typical RWNJ.

LOL, what a whiner. Oh yeah, Trump sucks.

You call it whining. I call it math. A vote in WY is worth lots more than a vote in Ca. You think that is right?

Well if we went to a popular vote system, that would mean New York city alone would have more power than four entire states like Nebraska. Do you think that would be fair?

Of course he does.....those states would be where they put the death camps and the work camps once the left gains absolute power.....

Or down the road we will need some place to bury our nuclear waste. Why not one of those states that have no vote power in the presidency?

 

[2aguy]

You call it whining. I call it math. A vote in WY is worth lots more than a vote in Ca. You think that is right?

nope, it's not right.

votes should be tallied per state, winner of the state gets one vote.

Majority of 50 states becomes president.

Right. So 1 vote in Wyoming is equal to 70 votes in California. That sounds completely fair.

So 1 vote in Wyoming is equal to 70 votes in California.

no

majority of votes in Wyoming equals one vote for president.

Majority of votes in California equals one vote for president.

That sounds completely fair.

I agree

Are you really that dumb?

Just coming down to your level.

You dont' like the electoral college.

I don't like the idea that without it, California and New York will appoint the president, because of the size of their populations.


Without the EC, there is no need to have a national vote at all.

In reality....they don't even want California and New York appointing the left wing President....they want their left wing leader of choice to just take power for life........that is what they really want...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The population of California is about 70 times that of Wy. For EC votes to be distributed equally, California should have 70 and Wy should have 1. You do the math, or get a 4th grader to help you. Do you think some citizens should have their votes devalued just because of where they live? That's what the EC does.

Okay, so that's the way we do it. Now one of those less populated states has a disaster of some kind: a flood, a massive fire, a tornado. Then the sitting President decides he's not going to give federal aid to those thousands or tens of thousands of people because there are not enough votes there to worry about them. There's only a half million people or so. Take out the children and non-voters, that's about 150,000 votes. Why worry about them?

Instead, take our federal money and give it to California to study the effects on little old ladies when they go to the bathroom with transgender weirdos. Maybe New York is running out of place to dump their garbage. Send the garbage to Montana. Only about a million people living there.

If you saw the movie "Idiocracy" then you know that explaining the truth to bulldog and the other left wingers is like trying to explain that Brawndo is not what plants really need....plants actually need water....

I hope you don't seriously think you can get through to them.

They are left.....

Wonderkinds in their own minds.

Morons to the rest of us.

But the left only cares about it's point of view because (in their minds....and I am making a huge assumption here that they have functioning minds....) it's the only one that matters.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The population of California is about 70 times that of Wy. For EC votes to be distributed equally, California should have 70 and Wy should have 1. You do the math, or get a 4th grader to help you. Do you think some citizens should have their votes devalued just because of where they live? That's what the EC does.

Okay, so that's the way we do it. Now one of those less populated states has a disaster of some kind: a flood, a massive fire, a tornado. Then the sitting President decides he's not going to give federal aid to those thousands or tens of thousands of people because there are not enough votes there to worry about them. There's only a half million people or so. Take out the children and non-voters, that's about 150,000 votes. Why worry about them?

Instead, take our federal money and give it to California to study the effects on little old ladies when they go to the bathroom with transgender weirdos. Maybe New York is running out of place to dump their garbage. Send the garbage to Montana. Only about a million people living there.

If you saw the movie "Idiocracy" then you know that explaining the truth to bulldog and the other left wingers is like trying to explain that Brawndo is not what plants really need....plants actually need water....

Yeah, or the look at you the way a dog does when you make funny noises with your mouth.

 

[2aguy]

The population of California is about 70 times that of Wy. For EC votes to be distributed equally, California should have 70 and Wy should have 1. You do the math, or get a 4th grader to help you. Do you think some citizens should have their votes devalued just because of where they live? That's what the EC does.

Okay, so that's the way we do it. Now one of those less populated states has a disaster of some kind: a flood, a massive fire, a tornado. Then the sitting President decides he's not going to give federal aid to those thousands or tens of thousands of people because there are not enough votes there to worry about them. There's only a half million people or so. Take out the children and non-voters, that's about 150,000 votes. Why worry about them?

Instead, take our federal money and give it to California to study the effects on little old ladies when they go to the bathroom with transgender weirdos. Maybe New York is running out of place to dump their garbage. Send the garbage to Montana. Only about a million people living there.

If you saw the movie "Idiocracy" then you know that explaining the truth to bulldog and the other left wingers is like trying to explain that Brawndo is not what plants really need....plants actually need water....

I hope you don't seriously think you can get through to them.

They are left.....

Wonderkinds in their own minds.

Morons to the rest of us.

But the left only cares about it's point of view because (in their minds....and I am making a huge assumption here that they have functioning minds....) it's the only one that matters.

Oh...I know.....but just like a good boxer needs to spar......conservatives and libertarians need to debate morons like this....see what new idiocy they come up with so we can deal with it before they get any more power...

 

[2aguy]

The population of California is about 70 times that of Wy. For EC votes to be distributed equally, California should have 70 and Wy should have 1. You do the math, or get a 4th grader to help you. Do you think some citizens should have their votes devalued just because of where they live? That's what the EC does.

Okay, so that's the way we do it. Now one of those less populated states has a disaster of some kind: a flood, a massive fire, a tornado. Then the sitting President decides he's not going to give federal aid to those thousands or tens of thousands of people because there are not enough votes there to worry about them. There's only a half million people or so. Take out the children and non-voters, that's about 150,000 votes. Why worry about them?

Instead, take our federal money and give it to California to study the effects on little old ladies when they go to the bathroom with transgender weirdos. Maybe New York is running out of place to dump their garbage. Send the garbage to Montana. Only about a million people living there.

If you saw the movie "Idiocracy" then you know that explaining the truth to bulldog and the other left wingers is like trying to explain that Brawndo is not what plants really need....plants actually need water....

Yeah, or the look at you the way a dog does when you make funny noises with your mouth.

View attachment 146180

Yeah...but dogs are lovable.....and know how to go poop outside instead of on the carpet.....you can't really say that about many left wingers...

 

[nat4900]

Yeah...but dogs are lovable.....and know how to go poop outside instead of on the carpet.....you can't really say that about many left wingers...

A right winger's show of "intelligentsia" at work......Be proud, fellow right wingers......LOL

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Mention to right wingers that Trump won election because of the outdated electoral college system.....and they quickly respond with....."LOOK at the Constitution..."

Or dare mention that stricter gun laws should be enacted to curb the butchery....and they quickly respond with........"LOOK at the Constitution."

But when one of their ilk is convicted of breaking tenets within the Constitution, like the old goat Joe Arpaio did and this bigot gets pardoned....some of them quickly respond with......"us racists stick together."

what did the 'old goat' joe do, that he didn't deserve a pardon?

Well, for starters Joe defied a court order issued by the DOJ which means that Trump obstructed his own DOJ in pardoning him.

The Sherrif knowingly violated the Constitutional rights of thousands of American citizens over the years by subjecting them to illegal searches with no probable cause just based on their physical appearance.

He cost taxpayers millions of dollars in court settlements paid to settle claims that he violated the rights of US citizens. And he continued to do so despite numerous court orders to cease and desist.

If Sherrif Arpaio had been stopping cars driven by white teenagers on the grounds that they were probably drug users with marijuana on board, the white nationalists would be screaming for his head on a platter, but you ignore the number of legal citizens he hassled while looking for illegals.

Not really. In fact, I got stopped yesterday for no reason at all. Of course I'm a truck driver so we don't count.

I asked the trooper why he stopped me, and he replied I was the eight truck to go by him, and he stops the eight truck. So he took my license, asked me to give him our insurance card, our DOT tax card, the registration to the truck and trailer, and he proceeded to look inside and underneath the trailer, he even looked into my tractor.

Then he did a total light check on the tractor and trailer. By the time he got done, it was 40 minutes of my time he wasted. Not one white nationalist to protest these illegal searches, and it's been going on for decades.

 

[OKTexas]

The job the feds authorized him to do.

I don't think"profiling" anyone with dark skin was in Joe's position description.

That's no what happened, they checked immigration status after a normal traffic stop, which they were authorized by ICE to do at the time. Every idiot wetback claimed profiling when the were stopped for speeding or expired registration.

Then Joe was also denied due process, he asked for a jury trial, he didn't get one. It was all political BS brought on by your dear leader and regressive judges.


.

 

[my2¢]

The OP was quite a stretch. I have voted against Sheriff Joe at least the last three times he's been up for election as I felt the notoriety long ago had gone to his head. The Obama birth certificate silliness he dived into was especially self-promotion of an egotistical blow-hard. However, I do see the side of those that believe Arpaio was the victim of the Obama justice department's "if it's white, it ain't right" policies.

Regarding hypocrisy, I go my own way and call them as I see them and don't follow any political ideology. If I'm called out for being a hypocrite, at least that hypocrisy is my own.

 

[nat4900]

That's no what happened, they checked immigration status after a normal traffic stop, which they were authorized by ICE to do at the time. Every idiot wetback claimed profiling when the were stopped for speeding or expired registration.

Then Joe was also denied due process, he asked for a jury trial, he didn't get one. It was all political BS brought on by your dear leader and regressive judges.

Arpaio OPENLY admits that he is either a racist OR an idiot.....You choose:

"In December 2011, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow issued a preliminary injunction ordering Arpaio and his deputies to stop targeting Latino drivers. Prosecutors allege that Arpaio's deputies defied the injunction for at least 18 months. In May 2013, Snow ruled that Arpaio's office had engaged in racial profiling.

"Arpaio and his deputies have admitted to violating the judge's order, but they claim their defiance wasn't intentional."

For these violations, Arpaio was found to have committed civil contempt. But Arpaio has long maintained he did not do so intentionally — and so is innocent of criminal contempt — because the judge's order was unclear. ....... "his attorneys argued that the violations were a result of poor communication and a lack of understanding by Arpaio and his command staff."

Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio Convicted Of Criminal Contempt

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There have only been 2 presidents who assumed the presidency with less than the popular vote since the 1800s Bush and Trump, and Bush didn't even win........he was appointed by the SC.

One of two things here about that lie: you either are informed and realize you are lying, or you are uninformed and don't realize you're lying.

Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org
Q: How many times was a president elected who did not win the popular vote?

A: It has happened five times.

FULL ANSWER

The 2016 election was the most recent when the candidate who received the greatest number of electoral votes, and thus won the presidency, didn’t win the popular vote. But this scenario has played out in our nation’s history before.

In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

Update, Dec. 23, 2016: We have updated this article to include the results of the 2016 election.
Sources
Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration Web site, 2000 Presidential Election: Electoral Vote Totals, 12 March 2008

Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration Web site, 2000 Presidential Election: Popular Vote Totals, 12 March 2008

Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration Web site, Historical Election Results: 1789-2004 Presidential Elections, 12 March 2008

Excellent!

Now,

How many have been elected without winning the Electoral Vote?

That's just dumb. The electoral vote is an anomaly. It has only differed from the popular vote 5 times in the history of our country, and only twice since the 1800s.
The larger part of the country didn't want Trump as president. The electoral college glitch put him in that position. Yes, he did technically win, but he's illegitimate.

How is he illegitimate when he played by the rules and won by the rules?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There have only been 2 presidents who assumed the presidency with less than the popular vote since the 1800s Bush and Trump, and Bush didn't even win........he was appointed by the SC.

One of two things here about that lie: you either are informed and realize you are lying, or you are uninformed and don't realize you're lying.

Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org
Q: How many times was a president elected who did not win the popular vote?

A: It has happened five times.

FULL ANSWER

The 2016 election was the most recent when the candidate who received the greatest number of electoral votes, and thus won the presidency, didn’t win the popular vote. But this scenario has played out in our nation’s history before.

In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

Update, Dec. 23, 2016: We have updated this article to include the results of the 2016 election.
Sources
Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration Web site, 2000 Presidential Election: Electoral Vote Totals, 12 March 2008

Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration Web site, 2000 Presidential Election: Popular Vote Totals, 12 March 2008

Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration Web site, Historical Election Results: 1789-2004 Presidential Elections, 12 March 2008

No, I was talking about the lie that GW won by the Supreme Court nominating him. Care to debate that? My links are ready.

 

[BULLDOG]

There have only been 2 presidents who assumed the presidency with less than the popular vote since the 1800s Bush and Trump, and Bush didn't even win........he was appointed by the SC.

One of two things here about that lie: you either are informed and realize you are lying, or you are uninformed and don't realize you're lying.

Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org
Q: How many times was a president elected who did not win the popular vote?

A: It has happened five times.

FULL ANSWER

The 2016 election was the most recent when the candidate who received the greatest number of electoral votes, and thus won the presidency, didn’t win the popular vote. But this scenario has played out in our nation’s history before.

In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

Update, Dec. 23, 2016: We have updated this article to include the results of the 2016 election.
Sources
Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration Web site, 2000 Presidential Election: Electoral Vote Totals, 12 March 2008

Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration Web site, 2000 Presidential Election: Popular Vote Totals, 12 March 2008

Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration Web site, Historical Election Results: 1789-2004 Presidential Elections, 12 March 2008

No, I was talking about the lie that GW won by the Supreme Court nominating him. Care to debate that? My links are ready.

No need to debate that. It's what happened.

 

[nat4900]

No, I was talking about the lie that GW won by the Supreme Court nominating him. Care to debate that? My links are ready.

In Bush v. Gore (2000), a divided Supreme Court ruled that the state of Florida's court-ordered manual recount of vote ballots in the 2000 presidential election was unconstitutional. ... With the race so close, Florida law allowed Gore the option of "manual vote recounts" in the counties of his choosing.