A very simple question to ask yourself

[Stewey]

What purpose does it serve to post false quotes? You may not agree with Obama, but that doesn't mean he hates America. That's just silly.

He hated America period. You are lo-information. Your contention that Trump won on a technicality further proves it.

 

[Stewey]

Anyone can be wrong. The data did not support a Trump win, and even his own camp wasn't sure. Keep in mind that Trump did not win a majority of the electorate, or the votes. He won on a technicality. It's fully within reason not to predict such an outcome.

And make no mistake, I was dead *** wrong about Trump winning. I said on this board he would never be President, and he proved me wrong.

He won on a technicality? And what technicality may that be?

 

[oneforthebus]

You say "most of America" doesn't want wharingt he "far left" is selling, but use the electoral college as an example when it was the college itself that went against the will of the majority. You can't have it both ways.

When I say "most of America" I am not referring to population. Clearly the major urban population centers tend to swing left, there is a whole big country out there that does not. That is exactly how the framers intended it...every region, geographic area, demographic, gets a voice. Not an equal one necessarily but enough of a voice that theirs isn't drowned out by a few small geographic areas with large populations whose interests are very different from the interests of the rest of the geographic nation.

 

[oneforthebus]

Trump has been a spoiled crybaby his whole life. He has never known struggle. Ever. He is a megalomaniac for exactly this reason. He will never listen because he has never had to. He will go on stomping around like an elephant in a rose garden until his days in office are done. Fighting with the media does not help his cause, or yours. The only people who felt "the media" was at fault during his tirade are the people already on his side. For the massively larger "other" it was just another nail in his coffin and bulletin board material for the "media" to attack him more.

To be effective he's going to have to build bridges. I don't see that happening any time soon.

I'm not "on his side" but there is so much evidence of media collusion with Democrats and Hillary in particular you have to be blind to deny it exists. In the information age they can no longer hide it. People know about it and they don't like it. Trump is trusted by more people than the media.

We'll see. I don't hold out a lot of hope that the corrupt and cowardly GOP legislators will follow through on much of what he wants to do anyway, so I don't think you have much to fear if you like things the way they are.

Either way he won the election and therefore has earned his shot. .

 

[Steel Vanguard]

He won on a technicality? And what technicality may that be?

The other side got more votes. Name another democratic system that is run that way: one side gets less votes but still wins.

When I say "most of America" I am not referring to population. Clearly the major urban population centers tend to swing left, there is a whole big country out there that does not. That is exactly how the framers intended it...every region, geographic area, demographic, gets a voice. Not an equal one necessarily but enough of a voice that theirs isn't drowned out by a few small geographic areas with large populations whose interests are very different from the interests of the rest of the geographic nation.

Not to be sarcastic, but are you saying the cows and the fields should get a vote over actual human beings? Because horses and crops don't pay taxes. Californians and New Yorkers do.

I would be VERY curious to see how Trump Republicans, who called Obama a Muslim Terrorist Indonesian from Kenya, would have reacted had he won the Presidency in this manner. My enduring respect for McCain comes not only from his service to country, but his unwillingness to use such tactics during that election. Would you have considered Obama a legitimate President had he lost the popular vote by such a wide margin?

 

[oneforthebus]

The other side got more votes. Name another democratic system that is run that way: one side gets less votes but still wins.



Not to be sarcastic, but are you saying the cows and the fields should get a vote over actual human beings? Because horses and crops don't pay taxes. Californians and New Yorkers do.

I would be VERY curious to see how Trump Republicans, who called Obama a Muslim Terrorist Indonesian from Kenya, would have reacted had he won the Presidency in this manner. My enduring respect for McCain comes not only from his service to country, but his unwillingness to use such tactics during that election. Would you have considered Obama a legitimate President had he lost the popular vote by such a wide margin?

Would I consider Obama a legitimate president? Of course, I understand the law and the Constitution and why it is set up the way it is.

Would I be happy about it? Hell no.

If you don't like the way we set up elections feel free propose a constitutional amendment to change it. You'll lose because the majority of the states will not want to cede power to the couple of most populous ones. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...power distributed down closer to the people (aka the states) instead of weighted heavily to one central federal government.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

If you don't like the way we set up elections feel free propose a constitutional amendment to change it. You'll lose because the majority of the states will not want to cede power to the couple of most populous ones. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...power distributed down closer to the people (aka the states) instead of weighted heavily to one central federal government.

Fixing the electoral college is a nonstarter, I agree. Just not for the reasons you stated. The Republican party will not allow it because they benefit from the broken system. Next year it will have been three full decades since George H W Bush was elected president by a landslide. In that time, do you know how many Republicans have won the popular vote for President? Exactly ONE. In thirty years. Were the Republicans not benefiting so handily from a broken system they would, of course, oppose it and an amendment would pass. But no it wouldn't. Because if the shoe were on the other foot, and the Republicans were winning the vote and losing elections then the Democrats would oppose fixing the college because they would be benefiting.

The electoral college endures not because of any high minded ideals of protecting the little guy. Just rank party politics.

For example: For years the Democrats in power railed against procedural obstructions in congress like the filibuster. No sooner did they lose power than they deployed the filibuster. Democrats in congress railed against the use of executive orders by the president to govern by fiat, until a Democrat became president. Then it became "the only way to get things done". You will get your broken electoral college, just not for the reasons you state.

Lastly, there is major logical leap in your assessment of the electoral college. If you weight power towards the people (which you say are the states) then the states with the most people would surely have the most power. Otherwise you end up with a tyranny of the minority which is exactly what you're seeking to prevent. A state with 50 people in it should not be able to decide the fate of a state with 200 people in it. That is plainly and purely undemocratic. That's Apartheid South Africa. But beyond that, you've shown no evidence that minority rule would prevent bloated government: see the Trump Wall. A gigantic waste of money and resources that are better expended elsewhere (like infrastructure) that will not accomplish the stated mission. That's not just big government, it's bad government.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

A liberal arguing against a constitutional foundation - no way!

 

[oneforthebus]

We can go back and forth on the electoral college all day. The founders wanted individual states to share power with the federal government. States did not want to cede all the power to population centers. The electoral college is proportional to population so no, small states don't rule over large states. Neither are they completely silenced. Every state gets some say, just like they do in other national matters like amending the Constitution. Our legislature is composed of both proportionally elected representatives in the House as well as equal state representation in the Senate...again, so that the most populous states have their populations taken into account but also wouldn't always have ultimate authority over everything. They are compromises that have worked well for over 200 years, even though someone is always going to be unhappy when it doesn't go their way.



Democrats lost over 1000 legislative seats and governorships under Obama. While he personally is very popular, the Democrat party and its policies are not.

 

[Steelin]

The people crying about the Electoral College have no leg to stand on in my humble opinion. The Electoral College gifted us with Bill Clinton and all of the baggage that entails.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

A liberal arguing against a constitutional foundation - no way!

The protection of slavery and the 3/5ths compromise were "constitutional foundations". You want to bring them back too?

I didn't think so. Let's stay out of left field and on topic.

We can go back and forth on the electoral college all day. The founders wanted individual states to share power with the federal government. States did not want to cede all the power to population centers. The electoral college is proportional to population so no, small states don't rule over large states. Neither are they completely silenced. Every state gets some say, just like they do in other national matters like amending the Constitution. Our legislature is composed of both proportionally elected representatives in the House as well as equal state representation in the Senate...again, so that the most populous states have their populations taken into account but also wouldn't always have ultimate authority over everything. They are compromises that have worked well for over 200 years, even though someone is always going to be unhappy when it doesn't go their way.

Democrats lost over 1000 legislative seats and governorships under Obama. While he personally is very popular, the Democrat party and its policies are not.

Again, I suspect this conversation would be very different had Obama been elected after losing by 3 million votes. Having said that, I think your argument for the status quo wins only because nothing can be done about it. The merits of devaluing the votes of city dwellers are questionable at best if you're to claim that the vote of the people matters. City slickers are indeed the people you speak about. Now if we had two separate votes, one by the states and one by the people as we have in congress then your point would have more traction. As it stands, we don't have that balance and as a result we have a system that denied the votes of the entire population of Denver.

 

[Steelin]

Anyone can be wrong. The data did not support a Trump win, and even his own camp wasn't sure. Keep in mind that Trump did not win a majority of the electorate, or the votes. He won on a technicality. It's fully within reason not to predict such an outcome.

And make no mistake, I was dead *** wrong about Trump winning. I said on this board he would never be President, and he proved me wrong.

The data looked sketchy for the last six months of the campaign. She was not engaging anyone. Smoke and mirrors aside it was obviously a train wreck.

 

[hamster]

Why are we still talking about this election like the Dems got hosed? You lost. Get over it.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

The protection of slavery and the 3/5ths compromise were "constitutional foundations". You want to bring them back too?

Predictable and pathetic "argument".

 

[SteelChip]

Why are we still talking about this election like the Dems got hosed? You lost. Get over it.

Just think of what could of been hamy. The Libs will always believe that California and New York should run the Country regardless of what the rest of the place wants. Take out one state and the Hildebeast would have lost the popular vote as well but that doesn't matter, just like the voter fraud that doesn't exist.

 

[Stewey]

The protection of slavery and the 3/5ths compromise were "constitutional foundations". You want to bring them back too?

I didn't think so. Let's stay out of left field and on topic.



Again, I suspect this conversation would be very different had Obama been elected after losing by 3 million votes. Having said that, I think your argument for the status quo wins only because nothing can be done about it. The merits of devaluing the votes of city dwellers are questionable at best if you're to claim that the vote of the people matters. City slickers are indeed the people you speak about. Now if we had two separate votes, one by the states and one by the people as we have in congress then your point would have more traction. As it stands, we don't have that balance and as a result we have a system that denied the votes of the entire population of Denver.

It would be different because there wouldn't be conservatives having temper tantrums, rioting and protesting.

The conversation would also be different because it would only reflect huge disappointment, not outrage.

Disappointed that those 3 million Republican votes lost most likely came from people who knew the issues, who could name the branches of government, who could tell you the name of the vice president...unlike the majority of no nothing low information democrats who have for years been brainwashed to vote against Republicans because they're the bad guys.

Those 3 million extra idiot votes Hillary had were of no value, worthless. The system worked perfectly. This system was intentionally and brilliantly designed not to be about the popular vote, funny how many of you still struggle with that concept.

If you could weed out stupid people from voting, a democrat would never be elected again.

Yeah we need a constitutional change all right....some kind of test you have to take before voting to weed out stupidity. The Founders never envision this level of stupidity coming from one party.

 

[Spike]

Why are we still talking about this election like the Dems got hosed? You lost. Get over it.

Because the whiny losers STILL refuse to accept the reality that their candidate stunk, she got her crooked *** kicked by DONALD J TRUMP!

WINNING!

 

[IndySteel]

Because the whiny losers STILL refuse to accept the reality that their candidate stunk, she got her crooked *** kicked by DONALD J TRUMP!

She got SCHLONGED!!!!!!!! Yeah baby!!!!

 

[Steel Vanguard]

Predictable and pathetic "argument".

What's pathetic is that you, in your usual anti-intellectual manner, dodged the argument rather than address it.

You're still scared. Every time you even think about mixing it up with me you run away before the fight starts.

You know you'll get beat so you run, run, run away.

Because the whiny losers STILL refuse to accept the reality that their candidate stunk, she got her crooked *** kicked by DONALD J TRUMP!

This is a fascinating tactic given that you won on a technicality. It's like a fighter winning the belt because the other guy's gloves were tied wrong and he got DQed, and now you're celebrating like it's some kind of knockout.

Fact is America voted for someone else. And that really sticks in your craw, which is why all the fake posturing. You know your guy didn't earn it. That it was handed to him by the refs and not won on the field.

 

[Spike]

This is a fascinating tactic given that you won on a technicality.

BWAhahahahah - a BIG RED technicality - TURNING BLUE STATES RED!!

 

[Steel Vanguard]

BWAhahahahah - a BIG RED technicality - TURNING BLUE STATES RED!!

All the graphics in the world don't change the fact that America didn't vote for him. Your small hand insecurity is really showing here.

Maybe you should post a bigger graphic to compensate...

 

[IndySteel]

Take away the illegal votes for Hildatwat and it's an even bigger landslide. Loopy libtards in NY and CA are not the majority of America.

 

[Steelin]

I read that the overseas votes aren't even counted if the winner isn't in dispute. Does anyone know if those were ever counted? If not, her 3 million illegals mean even less. Technicality? What a bullshit analysis of the outcome!

 

[Spike]

All the graphics in the world don't change the fact that America didn't vote for him. Your small hand insecurity is really showing here.

Maybe you should post a bigger graphic to compensate...

It's not a graphic - it's reality - it's the ******* electoral map - DEAL WITH IT LOSER!

Just like I perdicted

LANDSLIDE!

So fun to hear the rationalizations and justifications from the libtards. They're STILL pissing their pants they got schlonged.

Right here is why he won!

"The BLUE WALL" came crashing DOWN!

BAM!

 

[Steel Vanguard]

Take away the illegal votes for Hildatwat and it's an even bigger landslide. Loopy libtards in NY and CA are not the majority of America.

I read that the overseas votes aren't even counted if the winner isn't in dispute. Does anyone know if those were ever counted? If not, her 3 million illegals mean even less. Technicality? What a bullshit analysis of the outcome!

No proof of large scale voter fraud or illegal immigrant voting has yet been presented, so until then: PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

And there is no evidence that the uncounted overseas vote (which would total less than 100,000) would have had any statistical effect or been overwhelmingly in Trump's favor.

It's not a graphic - it's reality - it's the ******* electoral map - DEAL WITH IT LOSER!

So instead of bigger graphics, you decided to compensate with more graphics!

Now. Show the one which says more Americans voted for Trump. Oh, that's right, you can't. Because it don't exist!