PDA

View Full Version : Hillary and the Popular Vote


boxcar
11-14-2016, 05:31 PM
Report: Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens

Trump may have won popular vote

http://www.infowars.com/report-three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

I have no doubt whatsoever that Trump won the legal popular vote.

FantasticDan
11-14-2016, 05:51 PM
If you read the article, these are ACTUAL ALIENS Alex Jones is talking about. Demons Obama and Clinton are able to contact alien worlds via their dimensional telephones, and they got as many as they could to come to Earth and vote Dem. :ThmbUp:

http://www.nowandfutures.com/grins/FOMC_alien_group.jpg

EasyGoer89
11-14-2016, 06:38 PM
That's not even counting all the soros flipped machine votes, the corruption in broward county and the dead people.

mostpost
11-14-2016, 06:58 PM
Report: Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens

Trump may have won popular vote

http://www.infowars.com/report-three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

I have no doubt whatsoever that Trump won the legal popular vote.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Hillary won the legal popular vote. My opinion is based on the official election results not some whack job, half baked conspiracy site.

A bunch of tweets by some twit means nothing. Show us where these illegal aliens voted. Three million illegal alien votes means an average if 60,000 per state. How could that not have been detected? Are there no Republican election judges.

Greg Phillips claims that his group analyzed 180 Million voter registrations. Remarkable that they did that in five days. That must be one huge organization to analyze 25,000 registrations a minute.

You would think with all of those illegal votes, Hillary would have won the election. Instead, she under performed almost everywhere. Puzzling until you realize those alien voters are a figment of your imagination.

For God's sake, you won the election. Try to win graciously.

mostpost
11-14-2016, 07:21 PM
That's not even counting all the soros flipped machine votes, the corruption in broward county and the dead people.
You astound me with some of the things you post here. George Soros is a financial investor. He does not manufacture voting machines. He does not go around flipping votes.

If you vote for one candidate and the machine says you voted for the other candidate, there are two possible explanations. There is a technical problem with the machine or you are stupid and don't know how to vote. If it is a technical problem, bring it to the attention of the election judges. If you are stupid, I can't help you.

I know I am foolish, but if I were to change someone's vote, I would not do it while he is standing there and can see it happening right in front of him. All of these vote flipping stories came about because someone complained. They saw what happened and were able to correct it. Is it possible that this happened to someone who did not notice and was unable to correct the error?
Yes, but someone who is that unaware does not deserve to vote.

boxcar
11-14-2016, 08:01 PM
I have no doubt whatsoever that Hillary won the legal popular vote. My opinion is based on the official election results not some whack job, half baked conspiracy site.

A bunch of tweets by some twit means nothing. Show us where these illegal aliens voted. Three million illegal alien votes means an average if 60,000 per state. How could that not have been detected? Are there no Republican election judges.

Greg Phillips claims that his group analyzed 180 Million voter registrations. Remarkable that they did that in five days. That must be one huge organization to analyze 25,000 registrations a minute.

You would think with all of those illegal votes, Hillary would have won the election. Instead, she under performed almost everywhere. Puzzling until you realize those alien voters are a figment of your imagination.

For God's sake, you won the election. Try to win graciously.

An illegal alien asked Obama if illegals could vote without fear of repercussion and the lawless one gave her the green light! Why would she go on record to ask that kind of question if it wasn't on the behalf of the 11 million other illegals who are here who wanted to know if they'd be deported if they voted? Moreover, why didn't BO give the only answer any man of integrity and honor could and would give by telling her that the law limits voting to U.S. citizens only? But instead, this lawless reprobate encouraged illegals to break the law. In his mind, the more illegal aliens who voted the better it would be for Hillary because they would help neutralize the legal votes of U.S. citizens that were cast for Trump! Here again is the link that I posted several days '"the "Protests" over election results"' thread.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/obama-en...-aliens-to-vote

And that kind of vote would have easily gone undetected because numerous red states require no I.D. whatsoever to vote. Isn't that the leftist way? Would any leftist want to inconvenient an illegal alien or want to make him or her feel like an foreign alien ('scuse the redundancy) in a strange country? Therefore, spare me your phony sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, self-righteous indignation. I have no doubt whatsoever that millions of illegals voted for Hillary after the Reprobate-in-Chief publicly gave them the green light!

FantasticDan
11-14-2016, 08:20 PM
your WND link :rolleyes: is showing as page not found for me, but I'm sure you're referring to this discredited nonsense:

http://www.snopes.com/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/

EasyGoer89
11-14-2016, 08:26 PM
You astound me with some of the things you post here. George Soros is a financial investor. He does not manufacture voting machines. He does not go around flipping votes.

If you vote for one candidate and the machine says you voted for the other candidate, there are two possible explanations. There is a technical problem with the machine or you are stupid and don't know how to vote. If it is a technical problem, bring it to the attention of the election judges. If you are stupid, I can't help you.

I know I am foolish, but if I were to change someone's vote, I would not do it while he is standing there and can see it happening right in front of him. All of these vote flipping stories came about because someone complained. They saw what happened and were able to correct it. Is it possible that this happened to someone who did not notice and was unable to correct the error?
Yes, but someone who is that unaware does not deserve to vote.

There's quite a bit of information on the internet about Soros and his machines, maybe one day you can get around to reading some of it.

boxcar
11-14-2016, 08:27 PM
your WND link :rolleyes: is showing as page not found for me, but I'm sure you're referring to this discredited nonsense:

http://www.snopes.com/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/

Snopes? Are you serious? If Latino U.S. citizens' votes were on this dingbat's mind, why would she be worried about legal repercussions?

EasyGoer89
11-14-2016, 08:28 PM
your WND link :rolleyes: is showing as page not found for me, but I'm sure you're referring to this discredited nonsense:

http://www.snopes.com/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/
snopes has zero credibility.

boxcar
11-14-2016, 08:31 PM
FanDan, Obama lies early on in the vid. He said basically that here in America there's a tradition of making it hard to vote. That is simply not true in many red states! Then he lied again by saying that no one knows which states are the swing states? He must think everyone is a moron!

FantasticDan
11-14-2016, 08:36 PM
snopes has zero credibility.
Only to alt-right pinheads who like to spread misinformation and fake news.

boxcar
11-14-2016, 08:36 PM
Obama said in the interview the following in answering Rodriguez's question:

RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?

OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

So, in Obama's world if a Martian steps into a voting booth, that makes him a U.S. citizen. Perhaps someone could quote me the law that backs up Obama's definition of citizenship.

boxcar
11-14-2016, 08:38 PM
Only to alt-right pinheads who like to spread misinformation and fake news.

No, Snopes has no credibility in the real world. In their world, truth is a lie and a lie is truth.

EasyGoer89
11-14-2016, 08:57 PM
Only to alt-right pinheads who like to spread misinformation and fake news.

Um, no.

TJDave
11-14-2016, 10:11 PM
Report: Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens

I'm not surprised you believe that.

fast4522
11-14-2016, 10:35 PM
I'm not surprised you believe that.

Is the best accomplishment in your life putting gas on fires?

mostpost
11-15-2016, 01:26 AM
your WND link :rolleyes: is showing as page not found for me, but I'm sure you're referring to this discredited nonsense:

http://www.snopes.com/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/
Thanks once again for providing a dose of common sense. It is too bad that the Alt Right nitwits who post here will be unconvinced.

mostpost
11-15-2016, 01:28 AM
Snopes? Are you serious? If Latino U.S. citizens' votes were on this dingbat's mind, why would she be worried about legal repercussions?
If you had read the Snopes article, you would know the answer to that question.

mostpost
11-15-2016, 01:56 AM
There's quite a bit of information on the internet about Soros and his machines, maybe one day you can get around to reading some of it.

Riiight! It's on the internet so it must be true. Politifact says the story that George Soros owns a company that provided voting machines for sixteen states is Pants on Fire.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/31/sean-duffy/wisconsin-congressman-fuels-soros-voting-machine-r/

Business Insider called it "One of the more misguided conspiracy theories of the election.
http://www.businessinsider.com/george-soros-connection-to-voting-machines-2016-10

Snopes ruled the story as false.
http://www.snopes.com/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

One. George Soros has no ownership interest in Smartmatics. It is owned by a man who is also on the board of one of Soros' charitable endeavors.

Two. No Smartmatics machines were used in the November elections.

Those are the facts. Which will make no difference to you in your abysmal ignorance

Parkview_Pirate
11-15-2016, 03:02 AM
I have no doubt whatsoever that Hillary won the legal popular vote. My opinion is based on the official election results not some whack job, half baked conspiracy site.

With critical analysis like this, it shouldn't be long before there will only be a single candidate to cast votes for - then it won't matter if the voter is illegal or not.....

As for winning graciously, it applies even more so to the losers. Describing the opposition as deplorable "pinheads" won't necessarily be the road to gaining respect from others.

Tom
11-15-2016, 07:32 AM
She may have won the popular vote.
Who cares?

PRESIDENT TRUMP! is serving the term.
Too bad for the alt. left here. :lol::lol::lol:

Redboard
11-15-2016, 07:54 AM
If you read the article, these are ACTUAL ALIENS Alex Jones is talking about. Demons Obama and Clinton are able to contact alien worlds via their dimensional telephones, and they got as many as they could to come to Earth and vote Dem. :ThmbUp:

http://www.nowandfutures.com/grins/FOMC_alien_group.jpg

I don’t know where you get your information but that group was stopped at the Canadian border and denied entry. Obama said that letting them in would violate his campaign promise to make the country less white.

Clocker
11-15-2016, 08:50 AM
She may have won the popular vote.
Who cares?



The DNC jammed Hillary down the throats of the Democratic voters with party super delegates and now they whine that the Electoral College doesn't reflect the will of the people. :lol:

Inner Dirt
11-15-2016, 09:08 AM
Thanks once again for providing a dose of common sense. It is too bad that the Alt Right nitwits who post here will be unconvinced.

I was hoping you went away for good, what a shame that your pathetic condescending jack ass self have returned. Please crawl back in the hole you were hiding in. Glad to see that your party that got it's butt kicked that also preaches tolerance has none, what a bunch of hypocrites.

boxcar
11-15-2016, 09:19 AM
I'm not surprised you believe that.

I'm not surprised you don't. You most likely think that Obama has championed the Rule of Law these last 8 years with his open border policy.

boxcar
11-15-2016, 09:21 AM
If you had read the Snopes article, you would know the answer to that question.

I did read it! Are you afraid of legal repercussions when you vote!? Are you scared to death that jack-booted men in black are going to find you and cart off to some secret dungeon? :bang: :bang:

By the way...care to share with us who "Dreamers" are? :lol: :lol:

chadk66
11-15-2016, 09:41 AM
She may have won the popular vote.
Who cares?

PRESIDENT TRUMP! is serving the term.
Too bad for the alt. left here. :lol::lol::lol:the left cares because then they can give her a trophy too. :D

davew
11-15-2016, 10:01 AM
WHAT DIFFERENCE AT THIS POINT DOES IT MAKE ?

classhandicapper
11-15-2016, 10:16 AM
The popular vote is practically irrelevant because campaign strategies are designed to win the electoral college. Trump spent all his time and money in states where he had a chance to win the electoral votes. He did not spend a lot of time and money in large blue states like CA, NY, IL etc... because even if it netted him many more votes, it would net him zero electoral votes. He would lose anyway.

The same would be true of Clinton. I doubt she spent much time and money in West Virginia and other dominant red states where she had no shot either.

But where they went head to head and both competed, he beat her.

The media is too incompetent (more likely biased and corrupt) to figure this out.

No one really knows what would have happened if the vote were to be decided by popular vote because the strategies would have been totally different. On thing is certain, Trump would have spent a ton of time and money in the big blue states also because every vote would have counted. Of course, that's the very reason we have an electoral college. That way states like New Hampshire and Wisconsin still matter a lot and everyone is NOT JUST focused on CA, NY, FL, and Texas etc... where there are a lot of people.

Tom
11-15-2016, 10:26 AM
If Hillary ate this, she might be president! :p:lol::lol::lol:

jk3521
11-15-2016, 10:36 AM
I predicted that Trump would win the popular vote and Clinton the Electoral College . Figuring that that way Trump would consider himself the winner in that regard , even though it wouldn't mean anything. Wrong again . My handicapping of the election has gone south like my handicapping of the races.

Wish Trump the best of luck, but I wish he didn't pull out those same tired old Republican faces to fill his Cabinet. Half of his Cabinet will be in the grave before his first term is over.

woodtoo
11-15-2016, 10:49 AM
I predicted that Trump would win the popular vote and Clinton the Electoral College . Figuring that that way Trump would consider himself the winner in that regard , even though it wouldn't mean anything. Wrong again . My handicapping of the election has gone south like my handicapping of the races.

Wish Trump the best of luck, but I wish he didn't pull out those same tired old Republican faces to fill his Cabinet. Half of his Cabinet will be in the grave before his first term is over.
Good to see your grace here. Let Trump be Trump, he has a plan and it got him the Presidency as for snowflakes like Mostie......lifes a bitch ...carryon. :D

reckless
11-15-2016, 11:15 AM
The one million military votes have not been counted as of yet. Historically, the GOP gets close to 90% of the military vote.

Hillary now leads by only 200,000, including all the dead people from Philadelphia and Chicago.

When all is said and done, Trump will win this election in landslide fashion, as expected.

woodtoo
11-15-2016, 11:18 AM
The one million military votes have not been counted as of yet. Historically, the GOP gets close to 90% of the military vote.

Hillary now leads by only 200,000, including all the dead people from Philadelphia and Chicago.

When all is said and done, Trump will win this election in landslide fashion, as expected.
YES!!! I so like winning. Cheers. :ThmbUp:

MargieRose
11-15-2016, 11:35 AM
Obama said in the interview the following in answering Rodriguez's question:

RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?

OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

So, in Obama's world if a Martian steps into a voting booth, that makes him a U.S. citizen. Perhaps someone could quote me the law that backs up Obama's definition of citizenship.

My interpretation of what, in my view, is a very poorly worded answer/statement by Obama to Rodriguez's question:

I believe that the "you" that Obama was referring to was just to Rodriquez herself..."when you [Rodriguez] vote, you [Rodriquez] are a citizen yourself." Obama is assuming that Rodriguez IS a citizen herself, and that by she merely voting (as a US citizen) will not trigger an investigation into her family, friends, etc. whom, by virtue of her nationality (Hispanic), may possiblyinclude "undocumented citizens," as she so ignorantly calls them.

Now, my interpretation of Rodriguez's question leaves me wondering if she actually IS a U.S. citizen herself. She said: "Will they come for my family and deport us?" US?? Is she including herself in her group of concern? Why would she be worried about she herself being deported, if she herself IS a U.S. citizen? The inclusion of herself in her group of concern was stated for reason, I believe.

BTW: FYI, just so there is no confusion, I am a Republican; I voted Republican, and I'm delighted that Donald J. Trump will be the next President of the United States of America, come January 20, 2017.

Tom
11-15-2016, 12:07 PM
She would be a god place to start.
Haul her in and interrogate her.

boxcar
11-15-2016, 12:27 PM
WHAT DIFFERENCE AT THIS POINT DOES IT MAKE ?

Plenty to the leftists! Plenty! They will use the very skewed results of the popular vote to further divide the country while also claiming that Trump has absolutely no political mandate.

boxcar
11-15-2016, 12:41 PM
My interpretation of what, in my view, is a very poorly worded answer/statement by Obama to Rodriguez's question:

I believe that the "you" that Obama was referring to was just to Rodriquez herself..."when you [Rodriguez] vote, you [Rodriquez] are a citizen yourself." Obama is assuming that Rodriguez IS a citizen herself, and that by she merely voting (as a US citizen) will not trigger an investigation into her family, friends, etc. whom, by virtue of her nationality (Hispanic), may possiblyinclude "undocumented citizens," as she so ignorantly calls them.

Now, my interpretation of Rodriguez's question leaves me wondering if she actually IS a U.S. citizen herself. She said: "Will they come for my family and deport us?" US?? Is she including herself in her group of concern? Why would she be worried about she herself being deported, if she herself IS a U.S. citizen? The inclusion of herself in her group of concern was stated for reason, I believe.

BTW: FYI, just so there is no confusion, I am a Republican; I voted Republican, and I'm delighted that Donald J. Trump will be the next President of the United States of America, come January 20, 2017.

Yes, but her concern was for UNDOCUMENTED CITIZENS, DREAMERS and and MANY of the MILLENNIALS. And she considered all these groups to be U.S. Citizens! So, she was asking on their behalf and her own! She was very concerned for their welfare, as well as her own, if they were to vote!
And you can be certain that Obama understood this! And this accounts for Obama's equivocal, ambiguous, generalized reply.

As far as Obama's reply, the "you" could have been in the plural referring back to the three groups she mentioned.

But Obama clearly tipped his hand when he said, "first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself". That was the green light! Obama clearly believes as Rodriguez does that the illegals are citizens of the U.S., albeit undocumented ones -- and the way to really express that citizenship is at the polls.

FantasticDan
11-15-2016, 01:12 PM
Now, my interpretation of Rodriguez's question leaves me wondering if she actually IS a U.S. citizen herself.
Yes, Gina Rodriguez is indeed 100% American, as well as 100% adorable :ThmbUp:

https://d26oc3sg82pgk3.cloudfront.net/files/media/filer_private/2014/10/15/ginarodriguez1_1016_luc-richardelie.jpg

Tom
11-15-2016, 03:46 PM
Ve shall see, after der vater-bording.

MargieRose
11-15-2016, 03:47 PM
Yes, but her concern was for UNDOCUMENTED CITIZENS, DREAMERS and and MANY of the MILLENNIALS. And she considered all these groups to be U.S. Citizens! So, she was asking on their behalf and her own! She was very concerned for their welfare, as well as her own, if they were to vote!
And you can be certain that Obama understood this! And this accounts for Obama's equivocal, ambiguous, generalized reply.

As far as Obama's reply, the "you" could have been in the plural referring back to the three groups she mentioned.

But Obama clearly tipped his hand when he said, "first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself". That was the green light! Obama clearly believes as Rodriguez does that the illegals are citizens of the U.S., albeit undocumented ones -- and the way to really express that citizenship is at the polls.

"'first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself'."...meaning that the mere fact that you are able to legally vote indicates that you are already a citizen. He is not saying that by simply voting one becomes a citizen...that's impossible. Now, if he had said: "...when you vote, you BECOME a citizen yourself." that statement would have been enough to impeach him on grounds of insanity. It's a matter of semantics, here.

Where Obama failed big league ;), is by not stopping Rodriguez in her words, when she said "undocumented citizens," regardless of what she thinks is an appropriate label for long-term, law-abiding aliens...she's wrong. As a talk-show host, actress, rapper and whatever else it is that she does, her increasing public visibility requires a higher standard of responsibility, since she is speaking out to her peers. Obama should have reminded her of that...maybe he didn't intentionally. That phrase is going to stick and be played on...he knows that! IMO, Obama failed in HIS required higher standard of responsibility, one more time.

boxcar
11-15-2016, 03:58 PM
"'first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself'."...meaning, that the mere fact that you are able to legally vote indicates that you are already a citizen. He is not saying that by simply voting one becomes a citizen...that's impossible. Now, if he had said: "...when you vote, you BECOME a citizen yourself." that statement would have been enough to impeach him on grounds of insanity. It's a matter of semantics, here.

Where Obama failed big league ;), is by not stopping Rodriguez in her words, when she said "undocumented citizens," regardless of what she thinks is an appropriate label for long-term, law abiding aliens...she's wrong. As a talk-show host, actress, rapper or whatever else it is that she does, her increasing public visibility requires a higher standard of responsibility, since she is speaking out to her peers. Obama should have reminded her of that...maybe he didn't intentionally. That phrase is going to stick and be played on...he knows that! IMO, Obama failed in HIS required higher standard of responsibility, one more time.

No, it's not impossible! With a liberal, it's perfectly okay to suspend laws when it suits their agenda. Hasn't Obama done that with his open border policy? Has Obama ever moved to shut down "sanctuary cities" that illegally harbor illegal aliens? Has Obama ever gone after employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens?

Obama was answering Rodriguez's question -- a question that dealt specifically with illegals. Her concern was over their welfare if they were to vote! Obama believes exactly as she does -- that these illegals are merely "undocumented CITIZENS of the U.S." In reality, according to the Rule of Law, there is no such animal as an "undocumented citizen". There are U.S. citizens both natural born and naturalized; there are legal immigrants with all the proper documentation; and there are illegal aliens who have legal documentation.

The problem with your explanation is that Obama didn't say when you LEGALLY vote. You're reading that into his statement. He just said, "when you vote..."! The Lawless One has no regard for the Rule of Law whenever that law interferes with leftist political agendas.

Greyfox
11-15-2016, 04:10 PM
The Lawless One has no regard for the Rule of Law whenever that law interferes with leftist political agendas.

Right on the money. :ThmbUp:

MargieRose
11-15-2016, 04:31 PM
No, it's not impossible! With a liberal, it's perfectly okay to suspend laws when it suits their agenda. Hasn't Obama done that with his open border policy? Has Obama ever moved to shut down "sanctuary cities" that illegally harbor illegal aliens? Has Obama ever gone after employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens?

Obama was answering Rodriguez's question -- a question that dealt specifically with illegals. Her concern was over their welfare if they were to vote! Obama believes exactly as she does -- that these illegals are merely "undocumented CITIZENS of the U.S." In reality, according to the Rule of Law, there is no such animal as an "undocumented citizen". There are U.S. citizens both natural born and naturalized; there are legal immigrants with all the proper documentation; and there are illegal aliens who have legal documentation.

The problem with your explanation is that Obama didn't say when you LEGALLY vote. You're reading that into his statement. He just said, "when you vote..."! The Lawless One has no regard for the Rule of Law whenever that law interferes with leftist political agendas.

Like I said, Obama has failed his responsibility one more time. But, it has all caught up with him...he, his intended successor, and his party have paid the price, "big league." Next in line will be those sanctuary cities and their arrogant, defiant and law-breaking leaders...a la Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel...not to worry! :cool:

boxcar
11-15-2016, 04:53 PM
Like I said, Obama has failed his responsibility one more time. But, it has all caught up with him...he, his intended successor, and his party have paid the price, "big league." Next in line will be those sanctuary cities and their arrogant, defiant and law-breaking leaders...a la Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel...not to worry! :cool:

You're absolutely right! I think in many ways this election was more about the Obama's policies for these last 8 years than it was about Hillary. After the primaries and the huge Republican turnout, I stated on some thread that I thought the election was Trump's to lose. And one of the main reasons I felt this way is because I didn't think it very likely that the country would be able to handle setting two precedents in a row -- first a black president then a female president who would drive this country further into the gutter by piling on more leftist policies.

Another reason I strongly believe this election was more about a strong repudiation of Obama's policies than anything else because Obama has the very dubious honor (or legacy if you will!) of leaving the Congress and the Senate in far worse shape than before he took office 8 years ago. The Republicans now own D.C.!

MargieRose
11-15-2016, 06:20 PM
You're absolutely right! I think in many ways this election was more about the Obama's policies for these last 8 years than it was about Hillary. After the primaries and the huge Republican turnout, I stated on some thread that I thought the election was Trump's to lose. And one of the main reasons I felt this way is because I didn't think it very likely that the country would be able to handle setting two precedents in a row -- first a black president then a female president who would drive this country further into the gutter by piling on more leftist policies.

Another reason I strongly believe this election was more about a strong repudiation of Obama's policies than anything else because Obama has the very dubious honor (or legacy if you will!) of leaving the Congress and the Senate in far worse shape than before he took office 8 years ago. The Republicans now own D.C.!

"setting two precedents in a row -- first a black president then a female president" Nah...not an issue.

"drive this country further into the gutter by piling on more leftist policies." Definitely...an issue.

"The Republicans now own D.C." To quote Obama with one of his early condescending, immensely divisive and racists statements: "...they can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in the back." Ouch...that bite in the butt must hurt! :eek:

Tom
11-15-2016, 10:05 PM
The Kenyan Kook is in total denial.
He is traveling across Europe telling it was not his polices that were rejected! :lol: :lol: :lol:

NJ Stinks
11-16-2016, 12:05 AM
"setting two precedents in a row -- first a black president then a female president" Nah...not an issue.

"drive this country further into the gutter by piling on more leftist policies." Definitely...an issue.

"The Republicans now own D.C." To quote Obama with one of his early condescending, immensely divisive and racists statements: "...they can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in the back." Ouch...that bite in the butt must hurt! :eek:

Yea, getting elected and re-elected really showed him what's what! :lol:

incoming
11-16-2016, 12:14 AM
Yea, getting elected and re-elected really showed him what's what! :lol:

President Obama is a great poster child for affirmative action......both times. :p

highnote
11-16-2016, 12:19 AM
The DNC jammed Hillary down the throats of the Democratic voters with party super delegates and now they whine that the Electoral College doesn't reflect the will of the people. :lol:


The RNC might be considering using super delegates, too, after finding that a free market can elect a republican that the establishment doesn't want.

Sanders probably would have beaten HRC if not for the super delegates.

In my opinion, the only fair way to hold an election is for every vote to count equally and then the person with the most votes wins.

The electoral college disrespects the individual voter. Why vote if your vote doesn't really count?

Clocker
11-16-2016, 12:57 AM
The electoral college disrespects the individual voter. Why vote if your vote doesn't really count?

Votes do count. But under the EC, the power of the majority is balanced out by the rights of the minority. Some very wise men many years ago debated the issue and struck a compromise that seems to have gotten the job done for quite a while.

Don't like it? Change it.

Clocker
11-16-2016, 01:20 AM
Yea, getting elected and re-elected really showed him what's what! :lol:

And the great paradox is that his cult of personality dismantled the Democratic Party. Obama's personal appeal is amazing. But unlike other charismatic leaders, he is unable to pull his followers, the down-ballot candidates, along on his coat tails. After Obama's big win in 2008, the Dems were hammered in every election except for the presidency in 2012.

Political trivia quiz time. What do the following states have in common: California, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Hawaii?

Answer: They are the only states that have a Democratic Governor and Democratic control of both houses of the state legislature.

The Democrats have been shrunk to essentially a party of limited municipal power. And most of those 'power centers' are sanctuary cities and/or cities with dysfunctional governments like Chicago or Baltimore. Which means further trouble on the way.

incoming
11-16-2016, 01:56 AM
And the great paradox is that his cult of personality dismantled the Democratic Party. Obama's personal appeal is amazing. But unlike other charismatic leaders, he is unable to pull his followers, the down-ballot candidates, along on his coat tails. After Obama's big win in 2008, the Dems were hammered in every election except for the presidency in 2012.

Political trivia quiz time. What do the following states have in common: California, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Hawaii?

Answer: They are the only states that have a Democratic Governor and Democratic control of both houses of the state legislature.

The Democrats have been shrunk to essentially a party of limited municipal power. And most of those 'power centers' are sanctuary cities and/or cities with dysfunctional governments like Chicago or Baltimore. Which means further trouble on the way.

The erosion when on for 6 years but it never made a dent in the Dems delusions. That kool-aid must be some good stuff. Their whole focus was on the division in the Republican Party, all the republicans were doing was eating their lunch. :lol: :lol:

highnote
11-16-2016, 02:31 AM
He is traveling across Europe telling it was not his polices that were rejected! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm not sure Obama's policies were the issue.

More likely it is that white, hard working, low income voters do not want HRC in the White House because she did not try to meet their needs.

HRC's campaign was about HRC and HRC becoming the first woman president. Her campaign was not about helping poor people.

Also, Trump is a better politician than HRC and he understood how to tap into the needs of the white, hard working, low income voters.

It surprises me, but probably shouldn't, that HRC wrote about Saul Alinsky while in school, but didn't try to go after the white, low income voters that Alinsky knew were important to have in your corner if you want to force change. Apparently, HRC did not want change.

Here are some thoughts from Alinksky -- much of it in his own words:

Alinksky understood that these white, hard working, low income voters who have never been to college, place a high value on success, job security, owning a home, a car, etc. They want to send their kids to college. They have many fears and face threats from every direction -- retirement on the horizon, old age, Social Security that will not maintain their standard of living, little, if any, savings. The savings they do have earns a palty 1% interest or less. They face the prospect of a slumping economy and competition from for jobs from people of color, not to mention the cultural conflicts, the high cost of long term illness, and with mortgages outstanding the possibility of property devaluation from non-whites moving into their neighborhood. The have to suffer taxes on incomes, food, real estate and automobiles at all levels, city, state, and national. They often buy things using credit cards and are often forced into bankruptcy or have to endure criminally high interest rates. Yet they see the government spend a trillion dollars on wars -- and military accounting can't even keep track of how they lost a trillion dollars. Amounts so large they are almost incomprehensible. Many police, fire, sanitation workers, school teachers, civil service workers, mechanics, electricians, janitors and semi-skilled workers are in this class.

They view the unemployed poor and illegal immigrants as parasitical dependents that receive public assistance paid by taxes on their hard earned dollars. The see the poor going to college with tuition paid in full and given financial aid. The anger is strengthened by also paying taxes for these colleges, increased public services and welfare. They hear the poor and the liberal left wing demanding welfare as a right.

So in order to find meaning in life they turn to an extreme chauvinism and become defenders of the American way of life. They are ripe victims for demagogues like good ol' George Wallace -- or Donald Trump.

On the other side they see the middle class and upper middle class assuming a liberal, democratic, holier-than-thou position. They see that through all sorts of tax loopholes the middle and upper classes can avoid their share of tax burdens.

HRC chose to ignore the white, low income, working poor. This is the population that Trump took under his wing.

The irony is that Trump won't do much for them. (HRC certainly would not have!) Trump is busy filling his cabinet positions with cronies and insiders -- these are not the kind of people that are going to help the working poor.

Of course, this is no surprise. Everyone knew this was going to happen, but at least Trump himself is not a Washington insider. Will Trump be the change candidate he says he was going to be? Don't hold your breath. But at least the president won't be HRC. So there is hope, which is better than nothing.

highnote
11-16-2016, 02:35 AM
Votes do count. But under the EC, the power of the majority is balanced out by the rights of the minority. Some very wise men many years ago debated the issue and struck a compromise that seems to have gotten the job done for quite a while.

Don't like it? Change it.


Doesn't really bother me. The best politician won, and usually does.

delayjf
11-16-2016, 10:36 AM
HRC's campaign was about HRC and HRC becoming the first woman president. Her campaign was not about helping poor people.

I agree, she really didn't have a key identifiable campaign theme to run on. She basically said I have the experience to be president and I'm a women.

The best politician won, and usually does.
I think history shows that he who spends the most money wins - just not in this case, which is amazing.

Inner Dirt
11-16-2016, 11:10 AM
No matter a person's political views the members here are a crowd of above average intelligence. I think some in here are really giving the average voter way too much credit for thinking deeply about who they were going to vote for and why. There are people who vote for a party for very simple reasons, and it takes them less than a minute to decide who to vote for. I think those that don't think deeply about a candidate are a very high majority.

Redboard
11-16-2016, 11:16 AM
I still think that the Republicans could of put up a wooden Indian and they would have beat HRC, which I mentioned here several months ago. They won in spite of Trump, who almost blew it with his shenanigans. We could have had someone less controversial who could have done exactly the same thing that Trump’s going to do, without the bitter backlash we are seeing.
Just saying.

woodtoo
11-16-2016, 11:46 AM
I still think that the Republicans could of put up a wooden Indian and they would have beat HRC, which I mentioned here several months ago. They won in spite of Trump, who almost blew it with his shenanigans. We could have had someone less controversial who could have done exactly the same thing that Trump’s going to do, without the bitter backlash we are seeing.
Just saying.
Wrong.
Just saying.

boxcar
11-16-2016, 11:56 AM
The RNC might be considering using super delegates, too, after finding that a free market can elect a republican that the establishment doesn't want.

Sanders probably would have beaten HRC if not for the super delegates.

In my opinion, the only fair way to hold an election is for every vote to count equally and then the person with the most votes wins.

The electoral college disrespects the individual voter. Why vote if your vote doesn't really count?

But it does count! It counts first in your state and that on a national level in the national electoral college. I live in Swampland. I voted this election (as opposed to 2012 when I opted out altogether). My vote certainly counted because Trump won my state's 25 electoral votes. And those 25 votes loomed large in the total electoral tally.

Redboard
11-16-2016, 12:12 PM
Wrong.
Just saying.

Why are you saying that? Do you think HRC would have beaten Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Mike Pence, Rick Perry or Rudolph Giuliani? I would take any one of the original 17 republicans. Please list the ones she would have beaten and why. This isn’t twitter you’re allowed to type more than three words.

Inner Dirt
11-16-2016, 12:32 PM
I still think that the Republicans could of put up a wooden Indian and they would have beat HRC, which I mentioned here several months ago. They won in spite of Trump, who almost blew it with his shenanigans. We could have had someone less controversial who could have done exactly the same thing that Trump’s going to do, without the bitter backlash we are seeing.
Just saying.

The wooden Indian would have annihilated Hillary. Almost all the pro Hillary ads here were just sound bites of Trump's foul mouth. Since the wooden Indian could not speak she could not use his words against him. She would have to stand on her own record and that would have been a huge fail.

Tom
11-16-2016, 12:35 PM
This isn’t twitter you’re allowed to type more than three words.

Thanks.
I'll remember that.



:cool:

highnote
11-16-2016, 01:32 PM
But it does count! It counts first in your state and that on a national level in the national electoral college. I live in Swampland. I voted this election (as opposed to 2012 when I opted out altogether). My vote certainly counted because Trump won my state's 25 electoral votes. And those 25 votes loomed large in the total electoral tally.


By the rules of the electoral college your vote counts, but in a "true" sense, your vote doesn't count fully.

In the electoral college, someone else gets to vote for you by proxy -- especially the super delegates whose vote counts extra!

And even a regular member of the electoral college gets a vote that counts more than each individual vote.

barahona44
11-16-2016, 02:07 PM
The RNC might be considering using super delegates, too, after finding that a free market can elect a republican that the establishment doesn't want.

Sanders probably would have beaten HRC if not for the super delegates.

In my opinion, the only fair way to hold an election is for every vote to count equally and then the person with the most votes wins.

The electoral college disrespects the individual voter. Why vote if your vote doesn't really count?
The only time Sanders had a lead on Clinton was a very slight lead in ELECTED delegates and popular votes after the very first primary in New Hampshire - a state in which he was the semi-favorite son.The next primary was SC, where Hillary wiped the floor with Colonel Sanders and she never looked back .From that point on, Clinton led in every metric (elected delegates, popular vote, states won and yes, super delegates), a lead which she increased as the primary season went on.

No doubt that Sanders was brushed aside by the DNC.But he was never going to be the nominee anyway and if he was,Trump would have beaten him like a drum.

ReplayRandall
11-16-2016, 02:10 PM
Why are you saying that? Do you think HRC would have beaten Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Mike Pence, Rick Perry or Rudolph Giuliani? I would take any one of the original 17 republicans. Please list the ones she would have beaten and why. This isn’t twitter you’re allowed to type more than three words.

Not even remotely possible, and Pence wasn't in the original mix. Trump's the only one who essentially "tapped in" to the anger and stagnation, the majority of Americans felt about the total state of the country. No one else was even close to telling it straight to the American public. So much for Establishment politics and it's constant stream of bullshit rhetoric, which all the other candidates represented, including Jeb!...:bang:

Tom
11-16-2016, 02:10 PM
Oh, like he beat Hillary? :D

highnote
11-16-2016, 08:56 PM
Trump tweeted on Nov 6, 2012 -- "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082

How ironic. :D

Tom
11-17-2016, 07:51 AM
Yes, pretty funny IMHO.
All those post about this path and that path and he can't get there from here.......not only here, but all the "news" place.

:lol::lol::lol:

JustRalph
11-17-2016, 08:16 AM
It's been a rough week

boxcar
11-17-2016, 08:56 AM
It appears that Nurse Ratchet needs immediate medical attention herself.

woodtoo
11-17-2016, 09:52 AM
I still think that the Republicans could of put up a wooden Indian and they would have beat HRC, which I mentioned here several months ago. They won in spite of Trump, who almost blew it with his shenanigans. We could have had someone less controversial who could have done exactly the same thing that Trump’s going to do, without the bitter backlash we are seeing.
Just saying.
What I think is that Trump is the only one of the 17 that could have beat Hillary, if Just Jeb (the chosen one) had been nominated he would have folded like a cheap hand and would be happy to settle with that, being a GOPer unipartier. They all would reline up to the trough and same old same old would ensue. Instead let the draining begin. :ThmbUp: