The "specific" reason why Trump got elected is because he had more electoral votes than Clinton, and it wasn't close.
Stop making excuses.
"Hillary had 3 million more votes"
That's akin to the losing football team celebrating having more 1st downs.
"Nobody showed up to vote"
Then you are saying it is the Clinton supporters fault that Trump is president?
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
"Russia interfered"
"Comey this Comey that"
The list goes on.
I will type this in a large bold font for the benefit of many here ...
Trump is the President of the US because he won the electoral college vote.
Personally I think it sucks that Trump is in the WH, but I'm still happy that HRC is not.
We were given a choice of voting for shlt, or voting for shlt.
Shlt won.
You knuckleheads need to get over it.
Civic participation is BS? Okay, brilliant argument but if you want to specifically focus on the electoral states that got Trump elected, why don't you find the percentage of people who voted in those states? I'm sure that couldn't possibly matter at all. It doesn't really matter because I know Trump is going to fail and he'll lose in 2020. The only excuses I keep hearing is all the lies these days that Republicans keep spitting out to cover up for Trump's ridiculous and embarassing behavior/statements.
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
That's BS.
The "specific" reason why Trump got elected is because he had more electoral votes than Clinton, and it wasn't close.
Stop making excuses.
"Hillary had 3 million more votes"
That's akin to the losing football team celebrating having more 1st downs.
"Nobody showed up to vote"
Then you are saying it is the Clinton supporters fault that Trump is president?
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
"Russia interfered"
"Comey this Comey that"
The list goes on.
I will type this in a large bold font for the benefit of many here ...
Trump is the President of the US because he won the electoral college vote.
Personally I think it sucks that Trump is in the WH, but I'm still happy that HRC is not.
We were given a choice of voting for shlt, or voting for shlt.
Shlt won.
You knuckleheads need to get over it.
Civic participation is BS? Okay, brilliant argument but if you want to specifically focus on the electoral states that got Trump elected, why don't you find the percentage of people who voted in those states? I'm sure that couldn't possibly matter at all. It doesn't really matter because I know Trump is going to fail and he'll lose in 2020. The only excuses I keep hearing is all the lies these days that Republicans keep spitting out to cover up for Trump's ridiculous and embarassing behavior/statements.
Civic participation is BS? Okay, brilliant argument but if you want to specifically focus on the electoral states that got Trump elected, why don't you find the percentage of people who voted in those states? I'm sure that couldn't possibly matter at all. It doesn't really matter because I know Trump is going to fail and he'll lose in 2020. The only excuses I keep hearing is all the lies these days that Republicans keep spitting out to cover up for Trump's ridiculous and embarassing behavior/statements.
Who is going lose to in 2020 ?
Joe Biden ?
Anderson Cooper asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi 2 months ago who the leader of the Democratic Party?
She picked two people who are retired from politics.
Anderson Cooper: ‘Who is the leader of the Democratic Party right now?’
Nancy Pelosi: ‘Well, President Obama was president of the United States
until just a matter of a weeks ago. I don’t think he can be dismissed as
the leader of the Democratic Party.’
‘Hillary Clinton did not win the election, but a respected leader.’
Quote Originally Posted by sicknesscity:
Civic participation is BS? Okay, brilliant argument but if you want to specifically focus on the electoral states that got Trump elected, why don't you find the percentage of people who voted in those states? I'm sure that couldn't possibly matter at all. It doesn't really matter because I know Trump is going to fail and he'll lose in 2020. The only excuses I keep hearing is all the lies these days that Republicans keep spitting out to cover up for Trump's ridiculous and embarassing behavior/statements.
Who is going lose to in 2020 ?
Joe Biden ?
Anderson Cooper asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi 2 months ago who the leader of the Democratic Party?
She picked two people who are retired from politics.
Anderson Cooper: ‘Who is the leader of the Democratic Party right now?’
Nancy Pelosi: ‘Well, President Obama was president of the United States
until just a matter of a weeks ago. I don’t think he can be dismissed as
the leader of the Democratic Party.’
‘Hillary Clinton did not win the election, but a respected leader.’
Anderson Cooper asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi 2 months ago who the leader of the Democratic Party?
She picked two people who are retired from politics.
Anderson Cooper: ‘Who is the leader of the Democratic Party right now?’
Nancy Pelosi: ‘Well, President Obama was president of the United States
until just a matter of a weeks ago. I don’t think he can be dismissed as
the leader of the Democratic Party.’
‘Hillary Clinton did not win the election, but a respected leader.’
It's too far off to know which person he'll lose to but Trump never represented the Republican party at all and wasn't a key figure at all. So what exactly are you trying to argue? The Democrats can't possibly win because they don't have clear leadership and candidates even though technically Trump was a complete outsider who had never worked at all with Republicans?
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Who is going lose to in 2020 ?
Joe Biden ?
Anderson Cooper asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi 2 months ago who the leader of the Democratic Party?
She picked two people who are retired from politics.
Anderson Cooper: ‘Who is the leader of the Democratic Party right now?’
Nancy Pelosi: ‘Well, President Obama was president of the United States
until just a matter of a weeks ago. I don’t think he can be dismissed as
the leader of the Democratic Party.’
‘Hillary Clinton did not win the election, but a respected leader.’
It's too far off to know which person he'll lose to but Trump never represented the Republican party at all and wasn't a key figure at all. So what exactly are you trying to argue? The Democrats can't possibly win because they don't have clear leadership and candidates even though technically Trump was a complete outsider who had never worked at all with Republicans?
It's too far off to know which person he'll lose to but Trump never represented the Republican party at all and wasn't a key figure at all. So what exactly are you trying to argue? The Democrats can't possibly win because they don't have clear leadership and candidates even though technically Trump was a complete outsider who had never worked at all with Republicans?
If President Trump were to run in 2010 ..just who is it,, that he would run against and lose to ?
Quote Originally Posted by sicknesscity:
It's too far off to know which person he'll lose to but Trump never represented the Republican party at all and wasn't a key figure at all. So what exactly are you trying to argue? The Democrats can't possibly win because they don't have clear leadership and candidates even though technically Trump was a complete outsider who had never worked at all with Republicans?
If President Trump were to run in 2010 ..just who is it,, that he would run against and lose to ?
If President Trump were to run in 2010 ..just who is it,, that he would run against and lose to ?
Honestly, without knowing which candidates will be running at that time, I can't definitively say which person would end up beating him. If the people who announce at that time happen to be all duds and truly are bad choices, I suppose I reserve the right to change my mind after I've evaluated them. However, I believe as of now that all they really need is someone sensible who resonates with the public. Tulsi Gabbard would be my dark horse right now but I have no idea if she'd even run.
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
If President Trump were to run in 2010 ..just who is it,, that he would run against and lose to ?
Honestly, without knowing which candidates will be running at that time, I can't definitively say which person would end up beating him. If the people who announce at that time happen to be all duds and truly are bad choices, I suppose I reserve the right to change my mind after I've evaluated them. However, I believe as of now that all they really need is someone sensible who resonates with the public. Tulsi Gabbard would be my dark horse right now but I have no idea if she'd even run.
Keep em coming Scally. I for one love the rants. Who doesn't like faaaaaaaaaaar left crazy people. I say he needs his own category. Never ever box this guy.
I can still remember the Democrats warning the country and Republicans and conservatives in general, not to act all crazy when Hillary wins. Between the clown show in the White House and the clown show from the faaaaaaaaar left we have the makings for a great circus.
Keep em coming Scally. I for one love the rants. Who doesn't like faaaaaaaaaaar left crazy people. I say he needs his own category. Never ever box this guy.
I can still remember the Democrats warning the country and Republicans and conservatives in general, not to act all crazy when Hillary wins. Between the clown show in the White House and the clown show from the faaaaaaaaar left we have the makings for a great circus.
Seriously? You’re questioning his intelligence? He is known as one of the most innovative thinkers to ever live. The man is a former US marine and has a bachelor’s degree from Harvard, a master’s degree from Columbia and a doctorate from the University of Chicago. He’s authored over 40 books.
How exactly is his stance white and bigoted? That’s such a racist thing to say, scalabrine. Is that dog whistle for uncle tom? His stance is that of a highly black educated man that came from nothing to be something. It’s obvious you’re a racist bigot that hates educated black republican men.
Do you know who else has a degree from Harvard? Another black man that came from nothing...
R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
Quote Originally Posted by MoneySRH:
Seriously? You’re questioning his intelligence? He is known as one of the most innovative thinkers to ever live. The man is a former US marine and has a bachelor’s degree from Harvard, a master’s degree from Columbia and a doctorate from the University of Chicago. He’s authored over 40 books.
How exactly is his stance white and bigoted? That’s such a racist thing to say, scalabrine. Is that dog whistle for uncle tom? His stance is that of a highly black educated man that came from nothing to be something. It’s obvious you’re a racist bigot that hates educated black republican men.
Do you know who else has a degree from Harvard? Another black man that came from nothing...
That does not change the fact that Trump won the electoral college vote, which is what was used on 11/8/16 to determine our next President.
Any supporter of HRC who did not get out and vote remains part of the reason that DJT is the president.
For too long now I have heard the cries that Trump is a;
liar
racist
inciter
homophobic
delusional
islamophobic
anti-women
anti-minority
anti-everyone but himself
If all the Clinton supporters felt this way, and all of them did/do, and they all went and voted, than that bltch would be the President.
Thus, instead of calling out the Trump supporters, you should be calling out the HRC supporters who didn't vote ... yanno, like the OP of this thread
I've been saying this for days. I even said it before the election and therefore knew hillary would lose. The fact is I knew multiple liberal, caucasian women who didn't even like Hillary Clinton. Trump support is not what got him into office. It was lack of Clinton support. Too many people stayed home.
R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
I agree.
That does not change the fact that Trump won the electoral college vote, which is what was used on 11/8/16 to determine our next President.
Any supporter of HRC who did not get out and vote remains part of the reason that DJT is the president.
For too long now I have heard the cries that Trump is a;
liar
racist
inciter
homophobic
delusional
islamophobic
anti-women
anti-minority
anti-everyone but himself
If all the Clinton supporters felt this way, and all of them did/do, and they all went and voted, than that bltch would be the President.
Thus, instead of calling out the Trump supporters, you should be calling out the HRC supporters who didn't vote ... yanno, like the OP of this thread
I've been saying this for days. I even said it before the election and therefore knew hillary would lose. The fact is I knew multiple liberal, caucasian women who didn't even like Hillary Clinton. Trump support is not what got him into office. It was lack of Clinton support. Too many people stayed home.
My point is that the electoral college is outdated.It does not reflect the population.
That is the point of the electoral college. It is not supposed to be strictly based on popular vote. Democrats have been winning based on large cities and liberal states voting for them. Then they get enough swing states to put them over the top.
Hillary should have taken some of those for granted because there was no way she would lose them. She should have spent more time in the swing states. This is the way to win electorally.
If it were a pure popular election, Trump would've simply spent much more time in California and New York, etc.
It is so very easy to see why the founding fathers set it up this way that it always baffles me when people don't understand the reasoning behind it. This applies to liberals as well as conservatives. No matter who loses there seems to be a push to change the process. But is is one of the reasons we tend to not have one party forever in the office.
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
My point is that the electoral college is outdated.It does not reflect the population.
That is the point of the electoral college. It is not supposed to be strictly based on popular vote. Democrats have been winning based on large cities and liberal states voting for them. Then they get enough swing states to put them over the top.
Hillary should have taken some of those for granted because there was no way she would lose them. She should have spent more time in the swing states. This is the way to win electorally.
If it were a pure popular election, Trump would've simply spent much more time in California and New York, etc.
It is so very easy to see why the founding fathers set it up this way that it always baffles me when people don't understand the reasoning behind it. This applies to liberals as well as conservatives. No matter who loses there seems to be a push to change the process. But is is one of the reasons we tend to not have one party forever in the office.
That is the point of the electoral college. It is not supposed to be strictly based on popular vote. Democrats have been winning based on large cities and liberal states voting for them. Then they get enough swing states to put them over the top.
Hillary should have taken some of those for granted because there was no way she would lose them. She should have spent more time in the swing states. This is the way to win electorally.
If it were a pure popular election, Trump would've simply spent much more time in California and New York, etc.
It is so very easy to see why the founding fathers set it up this way that it always baffles me when people don't understand the reasoning behind it. This applies to liberals as well as conservatives. No matter who loses there seems to be a push to change the process. But is is one of the reasons we tend to not have one party forever in the office.
Here is a good read as to how the electoral college came about.
That is the point of the electoral college. It is not supposed to be strictly based on popular vote. Democrats have been winning based on large cities and liberal states voting for them. Then they get enough swing states to put them over the top.
Hillary should have taken some of those for granted because there was no way she would lose them. She should have spent more time in the swing states. This is the way to win electorally.
If it were a pure popular election, Trump would've simply spent much more time in California and New York, etc.
It is so very easy to see why the founding fathers set it up this way that it always baffles me when people don't understand the reasoning behind it. This applies to liberals as well as conservatives. No matter who loses there seems to be a push to change the process. But is is one of the reasons we tend to not have one party forever in the office.
Here is a good read as to how the electoral college came about.
This one is a little better and shows the reasoning behind it as far as the smaller states compromise, worry of manipulation, and concern for separation.
You always have to keep in mind the history of England and the concern the founding fathers had at that time. They also had a concern for the average folk and didn't want the situation they had come from.
There are a great many articles that go into this in depth. Nowadays some folks have tried to turn it into an agenda thing, whether slavery or other such. But obviously at that time it was not the reasoning. Very unique idea and very thoughtful of studied in context. Always good arguments for changing it. But they are never as strong as they should be. Still a good thing to study if you have the time and like history.
This one is a little better and shows the reasoning behind it as far as the smaller states compromise, worry of manipulation, and concern for separation.
You always have to keep in mind the history of England and the concern the founding fathers had at that time. They also had a concern for the average folk and didn't want the situation they had come from.
There are a great many articles that go into this in depth. Nowadays some folks have tried to turn it into an agenda thing, whether slavery or other such. But obviously at that time it was not the reasoning. Very unique idea and very thoughtful of studied in context. Always good arguments for changing it. But they are never as strong as they should be. Still a good thing to study if you have the time and like history.
Nothing’s changed. The democrats are still the party of racism and slavery. The two biggest plantations today are California and New York. The democrats in the 1800s wanted to cheat the system and use slaves to determine the election. Today things remain the same. The democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College so the current master slave states will have absolute power.
The democrat master plan would be complete if the Electoral College were to be eliminated. The democrat masters know they outnumber the patriots. Democrats own slaves of every race, they own illegals, and own felons. If the Electoral College is eliminated, the election would be decided by the slaves and slave masters in California and New York City plantations.
This is the only reason why you see democrats scream against the Electoral College. It’s about absolute power. When you hear democrats scream about voter suppression, the truth is they are fighting republicans in order to keep their slave votes counted as valid, just as the democrats in the 1800s. Like, I said, nothing’s changed. Nothing has changed at all...
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
Here is a good read as to how the electoral college came about.
Nothing’s changed. The democrats are still the party of racism and slavery. The two biggest plantations today are California and New York. The democrats in the 1800s wanted to cheat the system and use slaves to determine the election. Today things remain the same. The democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College so the current master slave states will have absolute power.
The democrat master plan would be complete if the Electoral College were to be eliminated. The democrat masters know they outnumber the patriots. Democrats own slaves of every race, they own illegals, and own felons. If the Electoral College is eliminated, the election would be decided by the slaves and slave masters in California and New York City plantations.
This is the only reason why you see democrats scream against the Electoral College. It’s about absolute power. When you hear democrats scream about voter suppression, the truth is they are fighting republicans in order to keep their slave votes counted as valid, just as the democrats in the 1800s. Like, I said, nothing’s changed. Nothing has changed at all...
Hot Forum Topics
