Post by: InTheSoup on December 02, 2016, 12:50:14 PM
President Elect Trump got 62,200,000 votes
3rd party got 8,828,196 votes
Hillary votes = 64,200,000
Votes against Hillary = 71,028,196
Doesn't look like she got the popular vote to me.
Copied from a comment I saw online. I agree... She lost by millions of votes.
Post by: Lucifer on December 02, 2016, 12:52:16 PM
Hillary got 64,200,000 votes
President Elect Trump got 62,200,000 votes
3rd party got 8,828,196 votes
Hillary votes = 64,200,000
Votes against Hillary = 71,028,196
Doesn't look like she got the popular vote to me.
Copied from a comment I saw online. I agree... She lost by millions of votes.
But..but..but....the people on the news told us she would win! How could they be wrong???
Post by: asechrest on December 02, 2016, 01:46:32 PM
Of course, winning the popular vote is useless in our system, so it doesn't matter anyway.
Post by: Gary on December 02, 2016, 01:57:24 PM
By the same logic, 73,028,196 voted against the President-elect, while 62,200,000 voted for. Yes, just a mathematical excercise.
Post by: Little Joe on December 02, 2016, 02:23:28 PM
LOL!!But nobody claimed that Trump won the so-called "popular vote". He won the electoral vote.
By the same logic, 73,028,196 voted against the President-elect, while 62,200,000 voted for. Yes, just a mathematical excercise.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on December 02, 2016, 02:25:03 PM
This seems silly. You've just changed the common definition of what it means to win the popular vote.
Of course, winning the popular vote is useless in our system, so it doesn't matter anyway.
One definition of popular vote.
Getting more votes than others isn't the only definition of winning the popular vote.
Not getting a majority of voters is another reasonable definition of not winning the popular vote.
But we definitely agree that discussion of how many votes hillary, donald, etc got is unproductive.
Post by: Gary on December 02, 2016, 02:27:50 PM
But nobody claimed that Trump won the so-called "popular vote". He won the electoral vote.
OK, so of all the candidates, who got the most votes?
Post by: Little Joe on December 02, 2016, 02:30:58 PM
OK, so of all the candidates, who got the most votes?Clinton.
But that wasn't what I was responding to.
Post by: Gary on December 02, 2016, 02:35:52 PM
Post by: asechrest on December 02, 2016, 02:47:56 PM
Post by: PaulS on December 02, 2016, 02:48:22 PM
This is beginning to resemble the Monty Python "Argument " skit.
Lol, what is required to win the presidency of the US?
Post by: Little Joe on December 02, 2016, 03:13:45 PM
By this definition, no one won the popular vote.Which makes absolutely zero difference. And I know that you understand that.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on December 02, 2016, 03:48:03 PM
This is beginning to resemble the Monty Python "Argument " skit.No it isn't.
Post by: asechrest on December 02, 2016, 04:00:53 PM
Which makes absolutely zero difference. And I know that you understand that.
Depends on what you mean. It doesn't make a difference to the presidential election, which I've already stated in this thread. But it does make a difference to how silly the argument in the OP is.
Post by: Gary on December 02, 2016, 04:31:27 PM
Lol, what is required to win the presidency of the US?
Money! ;) Not that the most spent automatically wins.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 02, 2016, 07:12:14 PM
This seems silly. You've just changed the common definition of what it means to win the popular vote.
Of course, winning the popular vote is useless in our system, so it doesn't matter anyway.
Didn't Jeff tell us that is why Trump shouldn't have been the nominee because more people voted against him that for him ;)
BTW, Jeff is now a U.S. Citizen!!
Post by: Lucifer on December 02, 2016, 07:51:08 PM
Didn't Jeff tell us that is why Trump shouldn't have been the nominee because more people voted against him that for him
Jeff made a bunch of wild and inane claims.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on December 02, 2016, 07:52:11 PM
Jeff made a bunch of wild and inane claims.
And ran away when the chickens came home to roost.
Post by: Little Joe on December 03, 2016, 06:58:37 AM
Do you have confirmation of that, or is that based on Jeff's predictions?
BTW, Jeff is now a U.S. Citizen!!
Also, who was it that posted a picture of a car entering Canada, and said it was from Jeff's FB page? I never knew if that was a joke or not.
Post by: Number7 on December 03, 2016, 08:58:11 AM
LOL!!
By the same logic, 73,028,196 voted against the President-elect, while 62,200,000 voted for. Yes, just a mathematical exercise.
When did anyone in the media stop to consider that Donald Trump WON the election by the rules in place in all fifty states. at the time of the election, making the rest of their commentary useless, progressive, prattle?
Post by: Anthony on December 03, 2016, 09:09:22 AM
When did anyone in the media stop to consider that Donald Trump WON the election by the rules in place in all fifty states. at the time of the election, making the rest of their commentary useless, progressive, prattle?
Hillary won the popular vote because of small metro parts of New York, and California. When those small areas in two states are allowed to dictate to the entire country, it will be time for another revolution.
THE POPULAR VOTE IS MEANINGLESS. Get over it!
Post by: Lucifer on December 03, 2016, 09:13:30 AM
THE POPULAR VOTE IS MEANINGLESS. Get over it!
True.
Just imagine if Hillary won the electoral and Trump got the popular vote. Just imagine how the liberals and media would be ridiculing the republicans for even mentioning that Trump got more votes. The liberals would be praising the constitution.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on December 03, 2016, 10:01:25 AM
Do you have confirmation of that, or is that based on Jeff's predictions?
Also, who was it that posted a picture of a car entering Canada, and said it was from Jeff's FB page? I never knew if that was a joke or not.
It was a joke (guilty as charged.)
Funny how we never heard from him again, though.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on December 03, 2016, 10:03:36 AM
It was a joke (guilty as charged.)
Funny how we never heard from him again, though.
He's been lurking as recently as 28 November.
Post by: Lucifer on December 03, 2016, 11:22:11 AM
It was a joke (guilty as charged.)
Funny how we never heard from him again, though.
Just go back and read his loopy "predictions" among the adolescent name calling and it's not hard to figure out. He's nothing more than a bully looking for marks to entertain himself with.
Post by: Number7 on December 03, 2016, 03:22:44 PM
Just go back and read his loopy "predictions" among the adolescent name calling and it's not hard to figure out. He's nothing more than a bully looking for marks to entertain himself with.
It does make one wonder if he is afraid to face derision because of his never ending diatribes about Trump. That would / could be especailly painful now that Trump won so handily. Maybe Jeff doesn't like to think of himself as a target, just as a marksman.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on December 03, 2016, 03:46:07 PM
It does make one wonder if he is afraid to face derision because of his never ending diatribes about Trump. That would / could be especailly painful now that Trump won so handily. Maybe Jeff doesn't like to think of himself as a target, just as a marksman.
I'm confident that JeffDG would handle it with more class than the liberals frothing at the mouth.
Post by: Lucifer on December 03, 2016, 05:05:11 PM
I'm confident that JeffDG would handle it with more class than the liberals frothing at the mouth.
I doubt it.
Post by: Little Joe on December 03, 2016, 05:44:58 PM
I doubt it.I'd like to hope so.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 03, 2016, 06:02:11 PM
Do you have confirmation of that, or is that based on Jeff's predictions?
Also, who was it that posted a picture of a car entering Canada, and said it was from Jeff's FB page? I never knew if that was a joke or not.
Post by: MarkZ on December 03, 2016, 07:01:15 PM
If you hear from him, please extend my sincere congratulations. I did enjoy sparring with him on here. Even if we could never agree.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: bflynn on December 03, 2016, 09:56:36 PM
Hillary won the popular vote because of small metro parts of New York, and California. When those small areas in two states are allowed to dictate to the entire country, it will be time for another revolution.
THE POPULAR VOTE IS MEANINGLESS. Get over it!
Correction, civil war. It was one area trying to dictate to another that caused the first Civil War. That's why some people in the South still call it the War of Northern Aggression.
But all the Lefties think it was about slavery so they don't know the lesson.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 04, 2016, 12:08:15 AM
Post by: asechrest on December 04, 2016, 01:07:35 AM
I keep seeing serious articles about the electors receiving "hundreds" of death threats from HRC supporters if they turn in their votes for Trump. What if enough electors cave in fear?
They won't. It's all noise.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on December 04, 2016, 05:34:03 AM
They won't. It's all noise.
are you saying that with the same confidence of the people that predicted Trump would lose big?
Post by: Little Joe on December 04, 2016, 06:14:24 AM
I keep seeing serious articles about the electors receiving "hundreds" of death threats from HRC supporters if they turn in their votes for Trump. What if enough electors cave in fear?Can you imagine the uproar if Trump supporters issued death threats to electors that vote for HRC?
Post by: asechrest on December 04, 2016, 08:04:31 AM
are you saying that with the same confidence of the people that predicted Trump would lose big?
Yes. ;D
Post by: Ron22 on December 04, 2016, 09:06:21 AM
Correction, civil war. It was one area trying to dictate to another that caused the first Civil War. That's why some people in the South still call it the War of Northern Aggression.
But all the Lefties think it was about slavery so they don't know the lesson.
The Civil War is the first thing I think of when I here about states leaving the union.
Been tried before we had a war over it, not as easy to leave as they want to think.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 04, 2016, 09:59:40 AM
Yes. ;DWell, then, crap. :(
I've been trying to imagine getting such threats and how I would respond. >:(
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 04, 2016, 10:00:44 AM
The Civil War is the first thing I think of when I here about states leaving the union.I think California could pull it off. But could be wishful thinking. ::)
Been tried before we had a war over it, not as easy to leave as they want to think.
Post by: Lucifer on December 04, 2016, 10:15:58 AM
The Civil War is the first thing I think of when I here about states leaving the union.
Been tried before we had a war over it, not as easy to leave as they want to think.
Why not? Where in the constitution is it prohibited that a state can succeed from the union?
Post by: Little Joe on December 04, 2016, 11:25:47 AM
The Civil War is the first thing I think of when I here about states leaving the union.That would depend on how willing people in the other states would be to fight to preserve the union. I don't think I would fight to keep N.Y. or CA. And if a State like Texas decided to secede, I might move there.
Been tried before we had a war over it, not as easy to leave as they want to think.
Post by: Ron22 on December 04, 2016, 05:58:21 PM
Why not? Where in the constitution is it prohibited that a state can succeed from the union?Well the last time a bunch of states got together and tried to leave it started a war. You think it would be different next time around?
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Post by: Lucifer on December 04, 2016, 06:20:28 PM
Well the last time a bunch of states got together and tried to leave it started a war. You think it would be different next time around?
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
The constitution does not contain anything about state succession. What would this war be fought over?
Example: California votes to succeed from the union. Why would the United States try to start a war with them? Over what?
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 04, 2016, 07:16:30 PM
Example: California votes to succeed from the union. Why would the United States try to start a war with them? Over what?
Avocados?
Wait ... California could not survive without the water it gets from other states.
Post by: Lucifer on December 04, 2016, 07:35:10 PM
Avocados?
Wait ... California could not survive without the water it gets from other states.
They could just buy it.
Post by: asechrest on December 04, 2016, 08:52:26 PM
The constitution does not contain anything about state succession. What would this war be fought over?
Example: California votes to succeed from the union. Why would the United States try to start a war with them? Over what?
It's secession.
And Justice Salmon Chase may beg to differ with your stance on this issue, given that he delivered the majority opinion in Texas v. White, ruling that unilateral secession by a state was unconstitutional. They did remark, however, that revolution or consent of the non-seceding states might be a successful alternate strategy to unilateral secession.
Post by: Lucifer on December 04, 2016, 09:09:08 PM
It's secession.
My auto correct on the iPad kept inserting that.
And Justice Salmon Chase may beg to differ with your stance on this issue, given that he delivered the majority opinion in Texas v. White, ruling that unilateral secession by a state was unconstitutional. They did remark, however, that revolution or consent of the non-seceding states might be a successful alternate strategy to unilateral secession.
So California votes to succeed from the union. They severe all ties to the federal government, put up a wall on the border and establish a new government.
The US Constitution no longer exist in California. So how does the US "force" them back in the union?
Post by: bflynn on December 05, 2016, 03:29:06 AM
Post by: Anthony on December 05, 2016, 03:39:17 AM
Same way Lincoln did. Except it would be easier because the lefties don't believe in guns.
You mean by staging Fort Sumter to make it look like the Confederates attacked first?
Post by: asechrest on December 05, 2016, 05:55:05 AM
My auto correct on the iPad kept inserting that.
So California votes to succeed from the union. They severe all ties to the federal government, put up a wall on the border and establish a new government.
The US Constitution no longer exist in California. So how does the US "force" them back in the union?
The federal government of the United States declares their attempt at secession null and void, a la Texas v. White. They subsequently "invade", in no small part in order to regain control of the more than two dozen military bases that California has now walled off access to.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 05, 2016, 06:34:23 AM
their U.S. citizenship or do they become dual citizens? Would it affect those receiving SS? How about retirees on Medicare? Many other questions to be answered.
As far as the thread title. I am amazed at the number of people expressing their outrage at the fact that Hillary didn't win based on the popular vote and that feel she should. Why are we not teaching the Constitution on school? Why is the importance of the EC not taught? Why are kids not taught that, in reality, no right exists for them to vote in a Presidential unless extended in their state Constitution? That really should piss off all of us no matter what side you're on.
Post by: Lucifer on December 05, 2016, 06:35:00 AM
The federal government of the United States declares their attempt at secession null and void, a la Texas v. White. They subsequently "invade", in no small part in order to regain control of the more than two dozen military bases that California has now walled off access to.
Yea, right.
Post by: Lucifer on December 05, 2016, 06:37:46 AM
You mean by staging Fort Sumter to make it look like the Confederates attacked first?
Shhhhhhhhh. Not suppose to say that! Lincoln was a great President and he only wanted to end slavery!
Post by: Anthony on December 05, 2016, 06:39:34 AM
I am amazed at the number of people expressing their outrage at the fact that Hillary didn't win based on the popular vote and that feel she should. Why are we not teaching the Constitution on school? Why is the importance of the EC not taught? Why are kids not taught that, in reality, no right exists for them to vote in a Presidential unless extended in their state Constitution? That really should piss off all of us no matter what side you're on.
Very easily explained. Kids are not being taught the importance of the EC, nor taught the Constitution because both are counter to the agenda of the NEA, state teacher's unions, and teachers, and administrators in general. The Constitution is just a road block to them, as well as to the Obama Administration who only enforces the laws they like. Kids are being taught that the rule of law does not matter, nor do the founding principles of the United States.
Post by: Anthony on December 05, 2016, 06:41:50 AM
Shhhhhhhhh. Not suppose to say that! Lincoln was a great President and he only wanted to end slavery!
Lincoln was a criminal who wanted to subdue the South economically so the North would prosper. He couldn't have cared less about the slaves, and their plight. Look how long it took him to do the Emancipation Proclamation. Why wasn't that done day one of the war?
Post by: Lucifer on December 05, 2016, 06:45:58 AM
There are a lot more questions about seceding than what we're seeing here. Would current CA residents be required to give up
their U.S. citizenship or do they become dual citizens? Would it affect those receiving SS? How about retirees on Medicare? Many other questions to be answered.
No, the US just launches a full scale military attack on them because they dared to leave the union. ;D
As far as the thread title. I am amazed at the number of people expressing their outrage at the fact that Hillary didn't win based on the popular vote and that feel she should. Why are we not teaching the Constitution on school? Why is the importance of the EC not taught? Why are kids not taught that, in reality, no right exists for them to vote in a Presidential unless extended in their state Constitution? That really should piss off all of us no matter what side you're on.
Because it's just barely skimmed over in schools anymore. Remember who actually controls the government schools and the curriculums.
People today are more concerned with the Kardashians or what their favorite celebrity has to say about politics. Many of these nitwits will watch the Daily Show for "news", and even more will watch SNL and totally believe the skit they saw was from an actual event (remember Tina Fey lampooning Sarah Palin?)
And of course, they will believe every word from the MSM, who will Mach out pundits who will tell them that the electoral college is so outdated and really doesn't reflect "the will of the people".
Post by: Lucifer on December 05, 2016, 06:49:31 AM
Lincoln was a criminal who wanted to subdue the South economically so the North would prosper. He couldn't have cared less about the slaves, and their plight. Look how long it took him to do the Emancipation Proclamation. Why wasn't that done day one of the war?
Shhhhhhhhh! Shhhhhhhhhhhh! C'mon now! Lincoln was "great"! It was all about "slavery" and those terrible white supremacist southerners!
Post by: Little Joe on December 05, 2016, 06:50:08 AM
Lincoln was a criminal who wanted to subdue the South economically so the North would prosper. He couldn't have cared less about the slaves, and their plight. Look how long it took him to do the Emancipation Proclamation. Why wasn't that done day one of the war?http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
Quote
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
Post by: asechrest on December 05, 2016, 07:09:16 AM
Yea, right.
Hah, got nothin'? I'm not sure why you think CA can announced secession and everyone would just say "cool, have fun". CA has huge military assets owned by the United States. Nearly half of CA's land is owned by the Federal Government. The state represents nearly the entirety of our country's western coast. Unilateral secession is unconstitutional per the Supreme Court. The logistics of secession are untested and incredibly complex.
So tell me again how this would work?
Post by: Lucifer on December 05, 2016, 07:16:52 AM
Hah, got nothin'?
Obviously you have all of the answers. ::)
Post by: asechrest on December 05, 2016, 07:24:45 AM
Obviously you have all of the answers. ::)
So tell me again how this would work?
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on December 05, 2016, 08:20:20 AM
Driving back from the airport yesterday I caught an NPR show (paid for with tax dollars) about, among other things, how charter schools are an abject failure.
Because it's just barely skimmed over in schools anymore. Remember who actually controls the government schools and the curriculums.
Of course that's 100% false, but it sounds good in the echo chamber. Naturally the progs on the radio don't want to lose control of the (unionized) NEA Indoctrination Centers.
Post by: Number7 on December 05, 2016, 08:23:43 AM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on December 05, 2016, 08:27:15 AM
So tell me again how this would work?
When california pays the Feds for all the land ... or if california redraws the borders leaving Federal land out of its borders.
Maybe each county in california can seperately (no pun) vote. Those counties that want to leave the Union are free to do so (but don't get to take property belonging to the USA).
Post by: Anthony on December 05, 2016, 09:00:41 AM
Driving back from the airport yesterday I caught an NPR show (paid for with tax dollars) about, among other things, how charter schools are an abject failure.
Of course that's 100% false, but it sounds good in the echo chamber. Naturally the progs on the radio don't want to lose control of the (unionized) NEA Indoctrination Centers.
Charter schools consistently perform better than union run, government schools. The education is better, pure, and simple. You are exactly right, the lib/progs don't like them because it undermines the UNIONS.
Post by: Lucifer on December 05, 2016, 09:10:45 AM
Charter schools consistently perform better than union run, government schools. The education is better, pure, and simple. You are exactly right, the lib/progs don't like them because it undermines the UNIONS.
It also undermines their indoctrination.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 05, 2016, 09:11:21 AM
Charter schools consistently perform better than union run, government schools. The education is better, pure, and simple. You are exactly right, the lib/progs don't like them because it undermines the UNIONS.It has truly dawned on me this year that the educational system has a massive, massive power. It is that power the left wants to retain.
Look at how many times someone posts an absurdity coming out of schools and colleges. And truly, think about it ... 20-year-olds today were just 12 when O took office. He is the only president they know, and they see nothing amiss when a newscaster cries on election night when their candidate doesn't win. "Their" candidate?
These kids have come of age in a polarized, journalistically controlled America. Parents, awake!
Post by: Lucifer on December 05, 2016, 09:18:33 AM
It has truly dawned on me this year that the educational system has a massive, massive power. It is that power the left wants to retain.
Look at how many times someone posts an absurdity coming out of schools and colleges. And truly, think about it ... 20-year-olds today were just 12 when O took office. He is the only president they know, and they see nothing amiss when a newscaster cries on election night when their candidate doesn't win. "Their" candidate?
These kids have come of age in a polarized, journalistically controlled America. Parents, awake!
Saw the same thing in the election of 2000. The liberals are already squealing over Trump's pick for SoE.
Post by: Anthony on December 05, 2016, 09:20:59 AM
It has truly dawned on me this year that the educational system has a massive, massive power. It is that power the left wants to retain.
Look at how many times someone posts an absurdity coming out of schools and colleges. And truly, think about it ... 20-year-olds today were just 12 when O took office. He is the only president they know, and they see nothing amiss when a newscaster cries on election night when their candidate doesn't win. "Their" candidate?
These kids have come of age in a polarized, journalistically controlled America. Parents, awake!
Yes, as Lucifer said, it is all about indoctrination, and control. Education, the media, and government have tremendous abilities to mold minds, social engineer, and create dependency. Look at the attitudes of many younger people, and college kids. They are essentially Communists, and have been taught to hate Capitalism, and the Founding Principles of the United States because it isn't "FAIR".
Post by: asechrest on December 05, 2016, 09:46:54 AM
When california pays the Feds for all the land ... or if california redraws the borders leaving Federal land out of its borders.
Maybe each county in california can seperately (no pun) vote. Those counties that want to leave the Union are free to do so (but don't get to take property belonging to the USA).
I don't think an acceptable border could be drawn if the maps of federal land that I have seen are accurate. They might could pay for the land, but the US Gov would have to accept that, which I think is unlikely due to the items already mentioned. And I'm not sure what you'd do about the military installations, of which there are many in California.
I think the logistics are so complicated, and the result so unfavorable for the federal government, that unilateral, peaceful secession is unworkable. I think the only workable paths are by revolution or by agreement among the other states and the FedGov.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on December 05, 2016, 09:49:47 AM
I don't think an acceptable border could be drawn if the maps of federal land that I have seen are accurate. They might could pay for the land, but the US Gov would have to accept that, which I think is unlikely due to the items already mentioned. And I'm not sure what you'd do about the military installations, of which there are many in California.
I think the logistics are so complicated, and the result so unfavorable for the federal government, that unilateral, peaceful secession is unworkable. I think the only workable paths are by revolution or by agreement among the other states and the FedGov.
Are nukes off the table?
Post by: asechrest on December 05, 2016, 09:55:03 AM
Are nukes off the table?
Nope! Blast 'em.
Post by: Mase on December 05, 2016, 09:57:45 AM
Are nukes off the table?
No, nukes are off the coast, on submarines.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 05, 2016, 10:10:58 AM
See how badly CA really wants to leave!
Post by: Little Joe on December 05, 2016, 10:14:58 AM
I don't think an acceptable border could be drawn if the maps of federal land that I have seen are accurate. They might could pay for the land, but the US Gov would have to accept that, which I think is unlikely due to the items already mentioned. And I'm not sure what you'd do about the military installations, of which there are many in California.It would either be a hostile withdrawal, in which case details would be ironed out on the battle fields, or during the course of negotiation of cessation of hostilities.
I think the logistics are so complicated, and the result so unfavorable for the federal government, that unilateral, peaceful secession is unworkable. I think the only workable paths are by revolution or by agreement among the other states and the FedGov.
That would not be good for anyone.
OR, it could be a peaceful, friendly negotiation. As for military bases, we already have bases in many foreign countries. The framework for such arrangements are already in place. They would remain US Military installations. We could negotiate mutual defense treaties like we have with NATO.
Many SS recipients already live in foreign countries. This would be no different. Federal assistance for things like Medicare/Medicaid, unemployment assistance, food stamps. Federal highway maintenance and construction etc would cease. National park ownership would revert to the new nation, possibly as part of a negotiation where they either pay or give other consideration.
I think it could be done without too much hardship. We could even let their teams participate in the "World Series", like Canada's teams.
But non-California Democrats would fight tooth and nail because without California voters, Democrats would NEVER win the popular vote.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on December 05, 2016, 10:15:56 AM
Limited thinking. Horrible! Cut deals, terrific deals. Get California to pay for relocating federal installations. Put tariffs on fruits and veg coming back into US.
See how badly CA really wants to leave!
or see how badly the rest of the USA wants CA to leave (even more attactive if just the loopy counties could be jettisoned!)
Post by: Anthony on December 05, 2016, 11:11:21 AM
or see how badly the rest of the USA wants CA to leave (even more attactive if just the loopy counties could be jettisoned!)
If we could jettison the L.A. and San Fran metro areas as well as the NYC metro area, no Democrat would ever win again.
Post by: Username on December 05, 2016, 06:00:12 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 05, 2016, 08:39:57 PM
Post by: asechrest on December 05, 2016, 08:47:46 PM
Have you seen the reports verifying that the machines in WI were tampered with!! Yep, someone broke the Warranty Void if Seal Broken Seal ;)
http://www.snopes.com/wisconsin-recount-observers-find-voting-machines-broken-seals/
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on December 06, 2016, 05:04:48 AM
Post by: asechrest on December 06, 2016, 05:42:02 AM
I think someone didn't notice the winky smiley.
True, woops.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 06, 2016, 06:28:28 AM
Quote
St. Croix County municipalities use DS200 scanners from ES&S. After the equipment was purchased, ES&S sent out a technician to install modems in the scanners, which are used on Election Night to transmit unofficial results to the county. In order install a modem, the technician was required to break a “warranty seal” on a door on the scanner. Unfortunately, the technician apparently did not replace those seals on the doors after completing his work.
[/color][/size]
[/color]What I understood from seeing the pictures was that some idiot took them and somehow figured the machine had been tampered with.
Post by: bflynn on December 06, 2016, 08:31:27 AM
http://www.snopes.com/wisconsin-recount-observers-find-voting-machines-broken-seals/
The fact that the hand recount was only 3 off from the machine count should be enough to stop any claims of tampering.
Sadly, it will not.
Day 5, the Wisconsin recount is +26 to Trump. It isn't moving the needle.
Post by: Anthony on December 06, 2016, 08:33:18 AM
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on December 06, 2016, 08:50:28 AM
From what I have read the Stein/Clinton recount is to garner additional donations for Stein.
She's a proxy for Shrillary, who berated Trump endlessly (along with her leftist media handlers) about his reticence to blindly accept election results. The Dems are hypocrites of the highest order.
Post by: InTheSoup on December 06, 2016, 10:31:20 AM
When the stats are viewed from this angle Trump's win was even more astounding and overwhelmingly convincing!!
Thus the genius of the Electoral College system!
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, & Richmond) Clinton received over 2 million votes more than Trump. (Clinton won 4 of these counties, Trump won Richmond).
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country!
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those that encompass a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Post by: Witmo on December 13, 2016, 05:33:41 PM
The constitution does not contain anything about state succession. What would this war be fought over?
Example: California votes to succeed from the union. Why would the United States try to start a war with them? Over what?
I would hope all states succeed. You might want to turn off your spell checker--it's not working. The words are secede and secession.
Post by: Lucifer on December 13, 2016, 05:51:49 PM
I would hope all states succeed. You might want to turn off your spell checker--it's not working. The words are secede and secession.
Read up the thread, I already answered that. Guess you have nothing else better to do than play spell checker.
Post by: Witmo on December 13, 2016, 06:35:02 PM
Read up the thread, I already answered that. Guess you have nothing else better to do than play spell checker.
You're right, total waste of time.