The people did NOT vote for Trump

[zinfamous]

I've been saying this for 30+ years. In states like Michigan, the 3 counties (Oakland, Macomb, and Wayne) in the metro Detroit area basically decide who wins the Governor's race every time. The UP is terribly unrepresented. If the EC is such a brilliant idea to promote fairness, why not extend it to state elections.

And that's a 3-fold improvement over Illinois, which has only 1 county that "matters."

 

[NostaSeronx]

Yeah, that isn't happening either. No way they are going to find enough votes for Hillary in Florida. Pennsylvania AND Michigan can flip and he'd still have enough. Both aren't going to flip.

Not all Democratic electors plan to vote for Hillary; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/05/washington-state-elector-says-wont-vote-for-clinton.html
Thus, the same can be said towards Republican electors, not all will vote for Trump.

The best part, the elector vote is anonymous. So, finding faithless/moral electors will be a witch hunt, unless they declared like above. Thinking about it... what happens if Gary Johnson wins?

 

[buckshot24]

Not all Democratic electors plan to vote for Hillary; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/05/washington-state-elector-says-wont-vote-for-clinton.html
Thus, the same can be said towards Republican electors, not all will vote for Trump.

The best part, the elector vote is anonymous. So, finding faithless/moral electors will be a witch hunt, unless they declared like above. Thinking about it... what happens if Gary Johnson wins?

This is fantasy, give it up and face reality.

 

[brycejones]

Not all Democratic electors plan to vote for Hillary; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/05/washington-state-elector-says-wont-vote-for-clinton.html
Thus, the same can be said towards Republican electors, not all will vote for Trump.

The best part, the elector vote is anonymous. So, finding faithless/moral electors will be a witch hunt, unless they declared like above. Thinking about it... what happens if Gary Johnson wins?

LOL

 

[Svnla]

CNN - to stop Trump by EC is mission impossible = http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/opini...llege-mission-impossible-alexander/index.html

 

[soundforbjt]

CNN - to stop Trump by EC is mission impossible = http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/opini...llege-mission-impossible-alexander/index.html

Wait, I thought CNN is not to be trusted by conservatives...

 

[NostaSeronx]

Wait, I thought CNN is not to be trusted by conservatives...

The cubs would never win. Much like Trump would never win the majority popular statewide vote to win electoral college.

If then actual electors, then elect Clinton(Gary Johnson) to be president-elect January 7th. It is just a long line of never going to happens, happening.

What was suppose to happen;
- Arctic Ice-free
- Gas prices increased to $6+
- Unemployement to go beyond 8%, sort of..
- Stock market crash
- U.S. Economy falls under
- 2016 Elections to halt as Obama causes IS to stop elections as a false flag chaos trigger.
- etc

---
https://www.change.org/p/electoral-...y-clinton-president-on-december-19/u/18464396

- Answer frequently answered questions about our petition and the Electoral College
- Share more about who we are, and why we started this petition
- Tell you how you can get involved with the movement to STOP TRUMP
- Push for reforming the Electoral College
=====
@ Who we are, we know you are obvy George Soros. -alt-right

 

[interchange]

instead of a gazillin "I thinks", why dont you educate yourself so you know. The EC is well documented on how it works, there is no reason to start with any sentence about the EC with "I think"
here ill help you on your journey.

https://youtu.be/W9H3gvnN468

1. There were 3 "I think"s in my post. Two were to mark opinion, and the other is to comment on a method of approximation.
2. Politics are about feelings not facts. Nothing wrong with being transparent about it.

 

[NostaSeronx]

Clinton lead as of 9:23 pm ET, Nov. 15;
61,732,036(47.9%) to 60,791,860(47.2%) = 940,176 Lead

Comparatively to 2000;
50,999,897(48.38%) to 50,456,002(47.87%) = 543,895 Lead

Also, 2016 compared to 2000: LBT/GRN/CSN;
2016 LBT/Libertarian Vote: 4,151,138 to 2000 LBT; 384,431
2016 GRN/Green Vote: 1,249,970 to 2000 GRN: 2,882,955
2016 CSN/Constitution Vote: 180,632 to 2000 CSN: 98,020
(Sucks that I posted it on the wrong thread.)

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-...make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19
Petition is going through a purge of signatures. Hopefully getting rid of all the duplicates(there can only be one deez nuts and joe exotic) and foreigners.

 

[buckshot24]

Clinton lead as of 9:23 pm ET, Nov. 15;
61,732,036(47.9%) to 60,791,860(47.2%) = 940,176 Lead

Look up the 1960 world series and tell me who won.

 

[MrSquished]

Look up the 1960 world series and tell me who won.

This is a little more important than a bunch of guys trying to hit a ball around. Really doesn't matter what your point was, the analogy is stupid.

 

[agent00f]

Wait, I thought CNN is not to be trusted by conservatives...

Naw dude, svnla isn't a conservative.

 

[buckshot24]

This is a little more important than a bunch of guys trying to hit a ball around. Really doesn't matter what your point was, the analogy is stupid.

Relative importance doesn't make analogies "stupid". Pittsburgh won 4 games and New York won 3. Pittsburgh won the series. They won 4 relatively close games while NY won 3 blow outs. NY had more runs, more hits and better ERA in the series. The rules of the series were that the team to 4 wins first wins the series. New York didn't win anything, they lost. Hillary lost even if she has more "runs" (popular votes).

Where else have you judged analogies based on relative importance of the analogues? Nowhere.

 

[NostaSeronx]

Look up the 1960 world series and tell me who won.

Well that game didn't have an electoral college 2-tier system.

So, the first deciding factor would be standard just winning the games, first 4 out of 7. This decided Pirates won, but only if the second factor said so. Get as much states population to give you a marginal lead. Hopefully, the electorate would choose the same.
Then, the second deciding factor would be who played the best game. Out-scored, out-played, etc. This one would have decided that the Yankees would have won. Prove your a-game as being the better candidate than DJT.

 

[buckshot24]

Well that game didn't have an electoral college 2-tier system.

So, the first deciding factor would be standard just winning the games, first 4 out of 7. This decided Pirates won, but only if the second factor said so.
Then, the second deciding factor would be who played the best game. Out-scored, out-played, etc. This one would have decided that the Yankees would have won.

Guess what the rules were before the first pitch was thrown. You can't change the rules after.

 

[NostaSeronx]

Guess what the rules were before the first pitch was thrown. You can't change the rules after.

The electoral college has been around a bit longer than that game. So you can't use that analogy. It's not like the rules changed. The electoral college has been around since like the 1780-1800s. With federal protection at being moral/faithless which negates those silly state laws. Constitution is the law of the land, Federal is the number two. Electors are part of the federal government and not the state.

 

[buckshot24]

The electoral college has been around a bit longer than that game. So you can't use that analogy.

Since when does an analogy need to be perfectly balanced in scope or date of origin?

The POINT is the agreed upon rules at the beginning of the world series and the election were known to both parties. If the rules were different then the game and election would have been played differently. There is zero significance to any tertiary measurements in both cases.

 

[Maxima1]

Since when does an analogy need to be perfectly balanced in scope or date of origin?

The POINT is the agreed upon rules at the beginning of the world series and the election were known to both parties. If the rules were different then the game and election would have been played differently. There is zero significance to any tertiary measurements in both cases.

A popular vote game would help the Democrats.

 

[MrSquished]

Relative importance doesn't make analogies "stupid". Pittsburgh won 4 games and New York won 3. Pittsburgh won the series. They won 4 relatively close games while NY won 3 blow outs. NY had more runs, more hits and better ERA in the series. The rules of the series were that the team to 4 wins first wins the series. New York didn't win anything, they lost. Hillary lost even if she has more "runs" (popular votes).

Where else have you judged analogies based on relative importance of the analogues? Nowhere.

blah blah blah. Discussing the fate of the nation is stupid using relatively inconsequential data from sporting events. What's next you are going to analyze the Vietnam war based upon a football game. What's yer encore?

 

[ivwshane]

blah blah blah. Discussing the fate of the nation is stupid using relatively inconsequential data from sporting events. What's next you are going to analyze the Vietnam war based upon a football game. What's yer encore?

It doesn't have one. Its already achieved its primary goal, which was to shit in a topic and get as many people to step in it as possible.

 

[NostaSeronx]

Hillary Rodham-Clinton's lead is now: 1,161,562 votes (Dave Leip). A million vote lead has been passed.

 

[PokerGuy]

Hillary Rodham-Clinton's lead is now: 1,161,562 votes (Dave Leip). A million vote lead has been passed.

It's almost like that's a number that matters

 

[Kazukian]

It's almost like that's a number that matters

Denial
Anger
Bargaining <-------
Acceptance

 

[JockoJohnson]

Hillary Rodham-Clinton's lead is now: 1,161,562 votes (Dave Leip). A million vote lead has been passed.

It's almost like that's a number that matters

Denial
Anger
Bargaining <-------
Acceptance

Just curious if these people are stupid or just desperate. The popular vote does not matter. If it did, Trump and Hillary wouldn't have spent so much f'n time in the smaller swing states. Trump might have actually visited larger population centers to get more people to come out and vote for him. What is it going to take for people like NostaSeronx to realize that all of the bitching, moaning, and hoping isn't going to change anything? I am sure after Jan. 20th, 2017, they will still be in the bargaining stages.

 

[NostaSeronx]

1,221,480 (cookport) is the lead right now, up 59,918 from previous post.

Also;

Also;
http://www.ktvb.com/news/politics/e...ceiving-pressure-to-sway-from-trump/352778541
http://www.9news.com/entertainment/...nts-electoral-college-to-dump-trump/352671785
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...-after-obtaining-private-information-n2246590
http://www.fox10phoenix.com/politics/217790928-story
http://www.mymeridianpress.com/meri...cle_73e2cbf3-4bba-5b2e-beca-afeaa96917a7.html
http://www.myajc.com/news/news/stat...electors-say-they-wont-be-swayed-from-/ns84W/
http://natmonitor.com/2016/11/15/dear-electors-please-vote-for-hillary/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/16/democrats-recurring-electoral-amnesia.html

The electors are people as well and might follow the "did NOT" vote for Trump. This might give the win to H. Clinton or push it to the House. In which, the House would be a sure win for H. Clinton. Where we all will look back and say "Damn, that was a pretty contested win for the first woman president."