Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

'Riggin ironic: More Americans voted for Clinton


Recommended Posts

By William Howell

Updated 0440 GMT (1240 HKT) November 12, 2016

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/11/opinions/winning-the-popular-vote-losing-the-election-howell/

 

 

Hillar.y Clinton got hundreds of thousands more votes than Donald Trump in the presidential election

Andrew Griffin

Friday 11 November 2016

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-Hillarious-clinton-popular-vote-results-election-us-2016-winner-a7412046.html

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

What a Trump presidency means to China

 

Is there a better way to predict elections?

 

CNN commentators clash over Steve Bannon appointment

 

Students continue to stage anti-Trump protests

 

The controversial work of Trump's chief strategist

 

Who will be represented in a Trump Cabinet?

 

'Knife fight' as Trump builds Cabinet

 

New motion in Trump University case

 

Controversy over Trump staff appointments

 

Racist incidents after the election

 

Obama talks about passing the presidency to Trump

 

Don Lemon tears up talking about Gwen Ifill's death

 

What a Trump presidency means to China

 

Is there a better way to predict elections?

 

CNN commentators clash over Steve Bannon appointment

 

Students continue to stage anti-Trump protests

 

The controversial work of Trump's chief strategist

 

Who will be represented in a Trump Cabinet?

 

'Knife fight' as Trump builds Cabinet

 

New motion in Trump University case

 

Controversy over Trump staff appointments

 

Racist incidents after the election

 

Obama talks about passing the presidency to Trump

 

 
 
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

***///

Don't you believe it..... <_<

You're going by the 'gorged' soros count.... which doesn't count.

Sittin' there tweakin' the numbers this late in the game so it'll appear that she was popular....

PHOOEY.... <_<

Stick a fork in her... she's done.

(until we cuff her and put her in prison, anyway...

maybe a bolt of lightening'll strike her and we'll be spared more klinton drama ...

and save the US Taxpayers millions ! ) :D

 

.

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The people have spoken and they chose Trump.  Umbertino if you think you can help and reverse this, your wrong, we will not stand by and allow Clinton to continue  the false freedoms she advertised.  We are a nation that prides ourselves on freedoms and will not become dependent on the government.  In timeTrump will return this nation to become great again. 

Mr. Umbertino, if this is your life style of dependency with your government then that's just fine, but keep it away from America.  America takes their independence seriously, we will not be co-dependent.

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

***///

... HEAR !, HEAR ! Patriot PATRICKGOLD BRAVO !

Our resident kommie agitator, UMBERTINO, just loves to take advantage of our Freedom of Speech to

hack away at US, annoy US and try to shame US into believing we're horrible humans for not adhering

to his dangerous idiot-ology.

 

Too bad he's so driven by an evil dogma so deeply embedded when he handed over his own

God-given Liberty and Human Rights....

because we know deep inside there somewhere is still a helluva swell guy...

 

  Maybe we'll rub off on him and he'll break loose of  his kommie chains and join US as a Free Man someday...

See, we don't think he's a despicable unredeemable at all.... :)

 

.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SgtFuryUSCZ said:

***///

... HEAR !, HEAR ! Patriot PATRICKGOLD BRAVO !

Our resident kommie agitator, UMBERTINO, just loves to take advantage of our Freedom of Speech to

hack away at US, annoy US and try to shame US into believing we're horrible humans for not adhering

to his dangerous idiot-ology.

 

Too bad he's so driven by an evil dogma so deeply embedded when he handed over his own

God-given Liberty and Human Rights....

because we know deep inside there somewhere is still a helluva swell guy...

 

  Maybe we'll rub off on him and he'll break loose of  his kommie chains and join US as a Free Man someday...

See, we don't think he's a despicable unredeemable at all.... :)

 

.

 

Yes, Gals, and Patrick... deep down we really like our friend Umbertino, from another "worldly" land.  But, if he hasn't understood our objections to this point... I don't think he has any will to ascribe to the values of our Constitutional Republic.  After all, he is our local Kumbaya King, here at DV... as his views mandate that we all MUST get along at ANY and ALL cost... even if conservatives must suffer in the "ends justifies the means".  He knows my feelings toward this, for years now, but it is a discussion he avoids... so I don't expect anything to change.  But, we will simply remain vigilant in our confrontation of it... Carry on! :tiphat:

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

***///

Yuh... now that ya mention it....he never comes right out and admits it, does he.... <_<

 

We think he gets a check from 'em, so has to keep putting it out there so

he'll keep receiving his 2 lira-per-kommie-post stipend !  :P

 

Can't begrudge him that if it keeps his Chianti bill paid ! :lmao:

 

.

 

Edited by SgtFuryUSCZ
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

***///

She NEVER ONCE drew a larger crowd than Trump... never.

 

Even ho'bummer is on the record acknowledging this fact...

that she dropped the ball believing she was shoo-in,

laying waste to territory HE had claimed for the Dems back when he ran....

we saw him say it again just this morning ! :lol:

 

Everyone, even her OWN CAMPAIGN TEAM said her "like-ability factor" was a problem ! :P

 

She was and is a detestable, self-serving, arrogant, hater of what she refers to as

the detestable basket of deplorable unredeemables, remember...?   That means you, too, SHABS....

 

Are you blind....?

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SgtFuryUSCZ said:

***///

She NEVER ONCE drew a larger crowd than Trump... never.

 

Even ho'bummer is on the record acknowledging this fact...

that she dropped the ball believing she was shoo-in,

laying waste to territory HE had claimed for the Dems back when he ran....

we saw him say it again just this morning ! :lol:

 

Everyone, even her OWN CAMPAIGN TEAM said her "like-ability factor" was a problem ! :P

 

She was and is a detestable, self-serving, arrogant, hater of what she refers to as

the detestable basket of deplorable unredeemables, remember...?   That means you, too, SHABS....

 

Are you blind....?

I'm just siting the "popular" vote numbers, nothing more......Don't get your bustle in a bunch.   B) 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/14/blog-posting/no-donald-trump-not-beating-Hillarious-clinton-popula/

GO RV, then BV

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

She may have gotten more votes due to the population in liberal areas such as CA, Chicago etc but thanks to the electoral college the votes in rural America, like ND, the people's votes counted.  It's hard to compete with Chicago when the entire state only has 500,000 people so without the electoral college we would only have a president picked by the heavily populated area and the "fly over" states would go unheard. 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FlintNPebbles said:

She may have gotten more votes due to the population in liberal areas such as CA, Chicago etc but thanks to the electoral college the votes in rural America, like ND, the people's votes counted.  It's hard to compete with Chicago when the entire state only has 500,000 people so without the electoral college we would only have a president picked by the heavily populated area and the "fly over" states would go unheard. 

True statement.  :)

GO RV, then BV

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of the Electoral College was developed to prevent voters from choosing only local candidates that they were familiar with in their own areas. The reason was simple, getting information to all people in the 1700's was a bit more difficult than in today's world. So it's purpose made sense at the time. Does it today? Has it outgrown it's usefulness? Do Americans want their actual vote not to count?

Here is the history for those interested. Did you know it was created with inspiration from ancient Rome?

 

 

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:

 

  • was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
  • contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
  • believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  • felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").

How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?
 

Origins of the Electoral College

The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.

The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.
 

The First Design

In the first design of the Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):

 

  • Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representative (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.
  • The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.
  • Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  • Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.
  • In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice.
  • The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
  • The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
  • In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.

In all, this was quite an elaborate design. But it was also a very clever one when you consider that the whole operation was supposed to work without political parties and without national campaigns

while maintaining the balances and satisfying the fears in play at the time. Indeed, it is probably because the Electoral College was originally designed to operate in an environment so totally different from our own that many people think it is anachronistic and fail to appreciate the new purposes it now serves. But of that, more later.
 

The Second Design

The first design of the Electoral College lasted through only four presidential elections. For in the meantime, political parties had emerged in the United States. The very people who had been condemning parties publicly had nevertheless been building them privately. And too, the idea of political parties had gained respectability through the persuasive writings of such political philosophers as Edmund Burke and James Madison.

One of the accidental results of the development of political parties was that in the presidential election of 1800, the Electors of the Democratic-Republican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of that party) an equal number of electoral votes. The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor - but only after 36 tries and some serious political dealings which were considered unseemly at the time. Since this sort of bargaining over the presidency was the very thing the Electoral College was supposed to prevent, the Congress and the States hastily adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution by September of 1804.

To prevent tie votes in the Electoral College which were made probable, if not inevitable, by the rise of political parties (and no doubt to facilitate the election of a president and vice president of the same party), the 12th Amendment requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president. The Amendment also stipulates that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect. By the same token, if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office. All other features of the Electoral College remained the same including the requirements that, in order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons", either the presidential or vice presidential candidate has to be from a State other than that of the Electors.

In short, political party loyalties had, by 1800, begun to cut across State loyalties thereby creating new and different problems in the selection of a president. By making seemingly slight changes, the 12th Amendment fundamentally altered the design of the Electoral College and, in one stroke, accommodated political parties as a fact of life in American presidential elections.

It is noteworthy in passing that the idea of electing the president by direct popular vote was not widely promoted as an alternative to redesigning the Electoral College. This may be because the physical and demographic circumstances of the country had not changed that much in a dozen or so years. Or it may be because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid degeneration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect on the wisdom of too direct a democracy.
 

The Evolution of the Electoral College

Since the 12th Amendment, there have been several federal and State statutory changes which have affected both the time and manner of choosing Presidential Electors but which have not further altered the fundamental workings of the Electoral College. There have also been a few curious incidents which its critics cite as problems but which proponents of the Electoral College view as merely its natural and intended operation.

 

 

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php

 

 

B/A

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

I'm just siting the "popular" vote numbers, nothing more......Don't get your bustle in a bunch.   B) 

The proper word we believe you were intending to use is "citing", not "siting"....

And we don't wear bustles... both of us babys got back enough ! :eyebrows:

 

But to end the argument, klinton is NOT popular...

merely a pied piper of brainwashed indoctrinated delusionals reinforced by a dark cabal for evil.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

NOT to mention all the people who didn't double check their electronic ballot and didn't notice their Republican choices were usurped for Democratic ones.  Imagine having the machines set for Clinton by default!!!  How crooked is that scenario, especially when you had machines that wouldn't switch from Dem to Rep no matter how many times someone pushed that choice!!!

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the gals and BJ....Im getting real tired of FB with all the cry baby liberals....starting to piss me off.  No matter how many great changes Trump will make for this country they will still whine about something, geeezzzzzz. Just watch and learn you libbys!!!!

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SgtFuryUSCZ said:

***///

You tell 'em, GYPSYGIRL ! :lol:  Sock it to 'em, Sister ! :P

( and stay off the facebook thingy.... it's a bad place and you seem so nice... :))

I think that's a good idea !!!  Today I posted....o u don't want to know .... Im just going to stay off FB   lol

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Three million votes in the U.S. presidential election were cast by illegal aliens, according to Greg Phillips of the VoteFraud.org organization.
If true, this would mean that Donald Trump still won the contest despite widespread vote fraud and almost certainly won the popular vote.
“We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens,” tweeted Phillips after reporting that the group had completed an analysis of a database of 180 million voter registrations.

We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens.
We are joining .@TrueTheVote to initiate legal action. #unrigged
— Gregg Phillips (@JumpVote) November 13, 2016

According to current indications, Hillarious Clinton won the popular vote by around 630,000 votes, although around 7 million ballots remain uncounted.

Virtually all of the votes cast by 3 million illegal immigrants are likely to have been for Hillarious Clinton, meaning Trump might have won the popular vote when this number is taken into account.
Vote fraud using ballots cast in the name of dead people and illegal alien voters was a huge concern before the election.
On the morning of the election there were 4 million dead people on U.S. voter rolls.
Although some states require some form of ID before voting, California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C. all require no identification before voting.

 

               No surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gypsygirl11 said:

I think that's a good idea !!!  Today I posted....o u don't want to know .... Im just going to stay off FB   lol

***///

Thank heavens ! Now we won't worry ! :wub::)

As far as what you posted...

you probably picked up that profanity on that facebooking thingy anyway so we can just imagine ! :o

Now go wash out your mouth with soap....  ^_^:P

 

.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.