What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

[Lakhota]

Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.

And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!

She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

Too bad for snowflakes that the Constitution specifies otherwise.

Just another example of the Constitution being obsolete.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That tells me Hillary was too stupid to understand how our elections work.

Bill tried telling the dumb bitch she needed to visit certain states, but ignored his advice because she’s lazy.

Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.

And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!

She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200.

Silly twat, Wyoming and California each get 2 EC votes for their Senate seats.
If you want to whine, more accurately, California has 53 House seats to Wyoming's one House seat.
California has 39.5 million people (not sure how many illegals in that total) to Wyoming with 579,000.
About a 68-1 ratio. To be more in line with population, California would have 70 EC votes, not 200.

 

[rich stacy]

We know Democrats and their minions in the FBI are all liars.

Please don't let your love of Trump lead you down the anti-government path. The FBI and the rest of the "deep state" are nothing but hard working honest employees, whose loyalty isn't to any political party, but to the constitution. If here was a democratic deep state, why did it never manifest during Reagan, Bush or Bush.

 

[kaz]

That tells me Hillary was too stupid to understand how our elections work.

Bill tried telling the dumb bitch she needed to visit certain states, but ignored his advice because she’s lazy.

Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.

And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!

She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

You want to live in a tyranny of the majority country. Of course you do

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is an excellent idea.
All the big, liberal states should assign their EC votes by congressional district.
If it works out, we can talk about doing the same in conservative states in 20 years. Maybe.

That's as dumb as having the conservative states impose term limits on their congressmen, and if it works out, the liberal states would do the same.

Why do you feel term limits would somehow be bad for conservative states?

 

[Trump The Mad King]

If that were true, then Trump wouldn't whine about losing the popular vote. He would be bragging about his "master strategy".

You give Trump way too much credit. This is the most incompetent White House ever assembled. Full of the same bumble fucks that were involved in his campaign.

Actually you give his campaign managers too little credit. Between his managers who ran the numbers, and Trump who ran the crowds, they pushed the right buttons in the right places.

As far as Trump not bragging about the master strategy, it's became he didn't come up with it. Trump knows little about the nuts and bolts of politics, which is why he thinks being president would be easy. But he did surround himself with people who knew what to do.

Trump suffers from expanded ego. He should just thank his campaign people for doing a good job with the EC count, just like Trump should thank his tax guys for minimizing what he pays in taxes.

Both are perfectly legal.

You seem like a reasonable guy, so I will politely disagree with you.

Even if Trump didn't come up with the strategy, he would still take credit for it. That's just the type of egomaniac that he is.

Anyway, it's nice to find someone on here who I can disagree with in a respectful manner.

 

[kaz]

That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.

Ummmm.....

Article II
Section 1


2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.

And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states?

I know you're really bad at math, but Wyoming's 3 EC votes is not 3 times California's 55 EC votes.

Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.

Not according to the Constitution. Sorry.

You simply don't get it, goober. You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios. Re-read my first post. And the Constitution does not address this. Sorry to keep pointing this out to you.

You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios.

55:3, I understand ratios just fine.
You obviously can't read.

2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

Yes, and California should have about 200 representatives in the House. Again, this is not a Constitutional issue.

What do you mean it's "not a Constitutional issue." It's specifically in the Constitution how votes are apportioned to States.

No wonder Obama was such a dumb ass with worshipers like you picking him. He sat in the oval office all day behind the desk doing this ...



Hey, remember how the moron told his publisher he was born in Kenya? What a stupid fuck. Who gets their own birth location wrong ???

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.

Ummmm.....

Article II
Section 1


2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.

And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states?

I know you're really bad at math, but Wyoming's 3 EC votes is not 3 times California's 55 EC votes.

Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.

Not according to the Constitution. Sorry.

You simply don't get it, goober. You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios. Re-read my first post. And the Constitution does not address this. Sorry to keep pointing this out to you.

You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios.

55:3, I understand ratios just fine.
You obviously can't read.

2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

Yes, and California should have about 200 representatives in the House. Again, this is not a Constitutional issue.

In 1911 they passed a law to limit the House to 435 members. Sorry.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.

And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!

She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

You want to live in a tyranny of the majority country. Of course you do

I want to live in "tyranny" of the majority of voters. Yep, you got me.

Why should a voter in Wyoming have more power than a voter in California?

 

[rich stacy]

Actually, some conservative states tried to impose term limits on their Congressmen until the douchebag Supreme Court overruled them.

A wise decision by the court. Term limits have to be either universally mandated, or outlawed. The house and senate are run based on senority, for a state to give that up would be a penalty on it's own people. Even if their people thought it was a good idea.

 

[kaz]

And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!

She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

You want to live in a tyranny of the majority country. Of course you do

I want to live in "tyranny" of the majority of voters. Yep, you got me.

Why should a voter in Wyoming have more power than a voter in California?

They don't. The House is apportioned by population and they can't get any new laws through without passing the House. Well, unless the SCOTUS wants to legislate them.

And majority rule is just two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner

 

[Thinker101]

WTF!?

I was being sarcastic. Had Hillary won like Trump did, there would be a different song being sang around here.

Republicans would not have rioted like the Democrats did and if the Republicans actually did riot. Obama would have asked the National Guard to step in, instead of praising the rioters.

Yes republicans would have and it would have been worse.

Democrats have staged all the Temper tantrums resulting from election results, not Republicans.

Birtherism and the Tea Party were tantrums by republicans.

Seems to be a problem with definition.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.

And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states?

I know you're really bad at math, but Wyoming's 3 EC votes is not 3 times California's 55 EC votes.

Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.

Not according to the Constitution. Sorry.

You simply don't get it, goober. You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios. Re-read my first post. And the Constitution does not address this. Sorry to keep pointing this out to you.

You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios.

55:3, I understand ratios just fine.
You obviously can't read.

2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

Yes, and California should have about 200 representatives in the House. Again, this is not a Constitutional issue.

In 1911 they passed a law to limit the House to 435 members. Sorry.

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed. It makes little sense for the least populated states to have significantly more political power than the most populated states. A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

And like I said...it's not a Constitutional issue.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

You want to live in a tyranny of the majority country. Of course you do

I want to live in "tyranny" of the majority of voters. Yep, you got me.

Why should a voter in Wyoming have more power than a voter in California?

They don't. The House is apportioned by population and they can't get any new laws through without passing the House. Well, unless the SCOTUS wants to legislate them.

And majority rule is just two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner

That simply isn't true. Wyoming has much greater representation than California, as has been previously explained.

 

[tycho1572]

Hillary is "corrupt", yet she still defeated Trump by 3 million votes. Probably a lot more than that when you factor in voter suppression.

So what does that say about how sorry Trump is that he couldn't win the popular vote against a flawed candidate like Hillary?

That tells me Hillary was too stupid to understand how our elections work.

Bill tried telling the dumb bitch she needed to visit certain states, but ignored his advice because she’s lazy.

Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.

He did win the popular vote with legal voters.

Great retort, Repug goober. And of course you have evidence to show that over 3 million people illegally voted? Of course not, troll.

I’m going to assume you didn’t see this.....

No comment on the vid, Trump The Mad King? lol

 

[bripat9643]

And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!

She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

Too bad for snowflakes that the Constitution specifies otherwise.

Just another example of the Constitution being obsolete.

Hardly. Preventing douchebags like you from getting what you want is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent.

Furthermore, the Constitution is the law of the land, whether it's "obsolete" or not.

 

[rich stacy]

Why should a voter in Wyoming have more power than a voter in California?

Sam Colt's "peacemaker" was the great equalizer. The EC serves to arm the small states with the power to stand up to the big states.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states?

I know you're really bad at math, but Wyoming's 3 EC votes is not 3 times California's 55 EC votes.

Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.

Not according to the Constitution. Sorry.

You simply don't get it, goober. You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios. Re-read my first post. And the Constitution does not address this. Sorry to keep pointing this out to you.

You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios.

55:3, I understand ratios just fine.
You obviously can't read.

2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

Yes, and California should have about 200 representatives in the House. Again, this is not a Constitutional issue.

In 1911 they passed a law to limit the House to 435 members. Sorry.

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed. It makes little sense for the least populated states to have significantly more political power than the most populated states. A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

And like I said...it's not a Constitutional issue.

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed.

Well, you can either change the law that limits Reps, or change the Constitution that apportions EC votes.

Or you can keep whining how unfair it is that your drunken candidate was defeated.

A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

By population, California would have 68 times the congressmen Wyoming has.
They only have 53 times.

68/53 = 1.28

That's a ratio much lower than the 2 to 1 you said you could live with.
It's a math issue.

 

[bripat9643]

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

You want to live in a tyranny of the majority country. Of course you do

I want to live in "tyranny" of the majority of voters. Yep, you got me.

Why should a voter in Wyoming have more power than a voter in California?

They don't. The House is apportioned by population and they can't get any new laws through without passing the House. Well, unless the SCOTUS wants to legislate them.

And majority rule is just two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner

That simply isn't true. Wyoming has much greater representation than California, as has been previously explained.

It's 100% true, moron. Wyoming has the number of members in the House specified by the Constitution. Are you claiming it should have none?

 

[rich stacy]

Furthermore, the Constitution is the law of the land, whether it's "obsolete" or not.

The constitution is never obsolete because the courts through interpretation can constantly update it to fit changing times.

Your observation actually explains why the "originalist" vs "living constitution" argument, goes to the left.