Civil War

It's the complete opposite of that, but whatever. The neocons were wholly content to throw the election and get Hillary into power. So were the jokes that call themselves libertarians.

What went wrong is that shit libs began to believe their own nonsensical propaganda. They constantly tarnish people as this or that to shut down discourse and to stifle dissent. But at some point they actually began to believe their own lies. You can see it here in this thread. People still cannot believe what happened because they are so emotionally invested in this batshit narrative spun by democrats and the MSM.
 
Well then, thank God for that anachronistic body known as the Electoral College, right? I mean, a true democracy would be so inconvenient, wouldn't it? All those nasty liberals' votes having the same weight as everyone else? Ugh! Makes me shudder.
 
If we actually had a popular vote, the democrats would have lost even more badly. Think about it. The electoral college is what keeps all the non-democratic voters at home in the most populous districts in the United States. They maybe be only like 20-30% of the electorate of a place like Chicago, but that's a lot of people. Multiply that by every major pozzed urban center in America.
 
Kairos said:
Think about it.
Click to expand...

Well, I've thought about it. And I think Mr. Trump lost the popular vote. Badly.

Don't misunderstand me, though. It matters not one whit to me who the President is. The electorate could have chosen a three-day old turkey sandwich to be the leader of the free world, and said world would just keep on spinnin'.
 
taykair said:
Well, I've thought about it. And I think Mr. Trump lost the popular vote. Badly.

Don't misunderstand me, though. It matters not one whit to me who the President is. The electorate could have chosen a three-day old turkey sandwich to be the leader of the free world, and said world would just keep on spinnin'.
Click to expand...


There was no popular vote. It was an electoral vote. If there were a popular vote, do you really think all the republicans in Chicago, New York, Boston, LA, San Diego, Seattle, Portland, etc. would have stayed home?

You obviously didn't think about it too hard.

The electoral college only helps democrats. I laugh my ass off every time I read democrats bitching about it. It literally suppresses a shit ton of republican votes.
 
Electoral College victories in spite of popular vote:

1824 - Adams (Democratic-Republican) beats Andrew Jackson (also Democratic-Republican, later Democrat)

1876 - Rutherford B. Hayes (Republican) beats Samuel Tilden (Democrat)

1888 - Benjamin Harrison (Republican) beats Grover Cleveland (Democrat)

2000 - George W. Bush (Republican) beats Al Gore (Democrat)

2016 - Donald Trump (Republican?) beats Hillary Clinton (Democrat?)

Looks as if the Dems got the short end of the stick every time.

Then again, there was the 1960 election, where it can be argued that Nixon actually won the popular vote, even though officially, Kennedy won both the popular vote and the electoral college. This was due to three main reasons: widespread voter fraud in Chicago, voter fraud in Texas (thanks to LBJ), and officials in Alabama who seemingly were unable to count properly.

About the Texas vote: There is a story that one voting precinct in Texas had a very orderly vote. It seems that the polls opened, the people all voted (in alphabetical order, no less, and for Kennedy) and then the polls closed. I'm not sure whether that story is true or not, but there were precincts in Texas where there were more votes for Kennedy than there were total registered voters. Quite a feat.

All that aside, as I've stated before, it makes no difference to me at all which crook is in charge.
 
Without the electoral college, a candidate would only have to campaign in a handful of big cities and ignore the opinion of the rest of the country.
Just say what you're gonna do for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and a couple of others. Who cares about Cincinnati, St Louis, Houston, Denver, Phoenix...

Harte
 
taykair said:
And I think Mr. Trump lost the popular vote. Badly.
Click to expand...
Losing the popular vote by little over 2% is not losing badly. Trump did very well in the popular vote. And if the 2016 election wasn't rigged badly (and it was), Trump would likely have won the popular vote by a landslide. Even with the rigging, if Libertarian Gary Johnson wasn't in the race, Trump would have won the popular vote, though not by much.
 
Woulda, coulda, shoulda... but didn't.

I really don't see the problem. Mr. Trump is the president. Legitimately. Why try to rewrite history to say that he also won the popular vote (but nobody noticed) or that more people attended his inauguration than there are stars in the galaxy? Accept it for what it was - a slim margin of victory amongst a badly divided and mostly apathetic citizenry. Geez.
 
Last edited:
Harte said:
Without the electoral college, a candidate would only have to campaign in a handful of big cities and ignore the opinion of the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

In other words: Without the electoral college, candidates would have to campaign in the most densely populated areas, and would have to receive a plurality of all of the voters' votes instead of a majority of the votes of 535 selected party hacks. Got it.

And this is better, how?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Top