PDA

View Full Version : Donald Trump Surpassed 270 Votes In The Electoral College, Formally Wins Presidency


Kahn
December 19th, 2016, 05:41 PM
There were many protesters but few faithless electors as Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote Monday — ensuring that the billionaire will become America’s 45th president.

An effort by anti-Trump forces to persuade Republican electors to abandon the president-elect came to practically nothing and the process unfolded largely according to its traditions. Trump’s polarizing victory Nov. 8 and the fact Democrat Hillary Clinton had won the national popular vote had stirred an intense lobbying effort, but to no avail.

Even one of Trump’s fiercest Republican rivals, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, said it was time to get behind the president-elect.

“We want unity, we want love,” Kasich said as Ohio’s electors voted to back Trump at a statehouse ceremony. Kasich refused to endorse or even vote for Trump in the election.

With several states still voting, Trump had 304 votes and Clinton had 169. It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency. Texas put Trump over the top, despite two Republican electors casting protest votes.

Befitting an election filled with acrimony, thousands of protesters converged on state capitols across the country Monday, urging Republican electors to abandon their party’s winning candidate.

More than 200 demonstrators braved freezing temperatures at Pennsylvania’s capitol, chanting, “No Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA!” and “No treason, no Trump!”

In Madison, Wisconsin, protesters shouted, cried and sang “Silent Night.” In Augusta, Maine, they banged on drums and held signs that said, “Don’t let Putin Pick Our President,” referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Despite the noise outside state Capitols, inside, the voting went pretty much as planned.

In Nashville, Tennessee, one audience member tried to read out some Scripture before the ballots were cast, but was told he could not speak.

“We certainly appreciate the Scripture,” State Election Coordinator Mark Goins said from the podium. “The answer is no.”

With all Republican states reporting, Trump only lost the two electors in Texas. Clinton lost four electors in Washington state — three voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell and one voted for Native American tribal leader Faith Spotted Eagle.

Several Democratic electors in other states tried to vote for protest candidates but they either changed their votes to Clinton or were replaced.

The Electoral College has 538 members, with the number allocated to each state based on how many representatives it has in the House plus one for each senator. The District of Columbia gets three, despite the fact that the home to Congress has no vote in Congress.

Republican electors were deluged with emails, phone calls and letters urging them not to support Trump. Many of the emails are part of coordinated campaigns.

In Atlanta, Gov. Nathan Deal empathized with GOP electors.

“I, too, regret that you have been the subject of harassment by those who perhaps are not as dedicated to the proposition of what this body is supposed to do as they are agitated by the fact that the people didn’t do what they wanted them to do,” Deal told the state’s 16 electors, who all voted for Trump.

In Baton Rouge, Louisiana, elector Charlie Buckels reached out to Trump’s opponents after the New York businessman got all of the state’s eight votes.

“For those of you who wished it had gone another way, I thank you for being here,” said Buckels, the state GOP finance chairman. “I thank you for your passion for our country.”

There is no constitutional provision or federal law that requires electors to vote for the candidate who won their state — though some states require their electors to vote for the winning candidate.

Those laws, however, are rarely tested. More than 99 percent of electors through U.S. history have voted for the candidate who won their state. Of those who refused, none has ever been prosecuted, according to the National Archives.

Some Democrats have argued that the Electoral College is undemocratic because it gives more weight to less populated states. That is how Clinton, who got more than 2.8 million more votes nationwide, lost the election to Trump.

Some have also tried to dissuade Trump voters by arguing that he is unsuited to the job. Others cite the CIA’s assessment that Russia engaged in computer hacking to sway the election in favor of the Republican.

“When the founders of our country created (the Electoral College) 200-plus years ago, they didn’t have confidence in the average white man who had property, because that’s who got to vote,” said Shawn Terris, a Democratic elector from Ventura, California. “It just seems so undemocratic to me that people other than the voters get to choose who leads the country.”

A joint session of Congress is scheduled for Jan. 6 to certify the results of the Electoral College vote, with Vice President Joe Biden presiding as president of the Senate. Once the result is certified, the winner — almost certainly Trump — will be sworn in on Jan. 20.


(Source (http://www.breitbart.com/news/donald-trump-surpasses-270-votes-in-electoral-college-to-formally-win-presidency/))

---

Thoughts?

Porpoise101
December 19th, 2016, 06:11 PM
Heads up: don't click the source unless you want conservative Google Ads from now on.

Aside from that, it is pretty interesting to see what the results were supposed to be.
Clinton: 234 --> 228

3 Electors went to Colin Powell (R)
1 Elector went to Faith Spotted Eagle (???)

Additionally, one elector tried to vote from Clinton to Bernie, but that was found to be an invalid vote.

Trump: 306 --> 304

1 Elector went to Ron Paul (Libertarian)
1 Elector went to John Kasich (R)


Six is the largest amount of faithless electors since the 1912 election, where eight electors voted for a dead Vice Presidential candidate for Taft.

Edit: Apparently Faith Spotted Eagle is an actual person. And not just any person, she is one of the members of the Sioux nation who protested against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Kahn
December 19th, 2016, 06:35 PM
Heads up: don't click the source unless you want conservative Google Ads from now on.

Lol, here is a left-friendly source (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-passes-270-electoral-votes-1482172091-htmlstory.html) for those who don't have adblock and can't accept that Breitbart is a legitimate news source.

Aside from that, it is pretty interesting to see what the results were supposed to be.
Clinton: 234 --> 228

3 Electors went to Colin Powell (R)
1 Elector went to Faith Spotted Eagle (???)

Additionally, one elector tried to vote from Clinton to Bernie, but that was found to be an invalid vote.

Trump: 306 --> 304

1 Elector went to Ron Paul (Libertarian)
1 Elector went to John Kasich (R)


Six is the largest amount of faithless electors since the 1912 election, where eight electors voted for a dead Vice Presidential candidate for Taft.

That is indeed interesting. Surprised someone voted for Ron Paul lol.

Porpoise101
December 19th, 2016, 06:42 PM
Lol, here is a left-friendly source (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-passes-270-electoral-votes-1482172091-htmlstory.html) for those who don't have adblock and can't accept that Breitbart is a legitimate news source.

That is what I found earlier, thank you. I don't like adblock personally because it is slowly ruining people's ability to make money on the internet for 'free' stuff.

As for Breitbart, I don't doubt that it is a legitimate institution which produces content and information. Whether it is an institution worthy of credibilty, dignity, or respect is another matter. Especially seeing as it's CEO is clearly involved with Trump on a personal level, I avoid Trump news on the site.

That is indeed interesting. Surprised someone voted for Ron Paul lol.

Yeah, there was some interesting cross-party defections this year.

Kahn
December 19th, 2016, 06:51 PM
As for Breitbart, I don't doubt that it is a legitimate institution which produces content and information. Whether it is an institution worthy of credibilty, dignity, or respect is another matter. Especially seeing as it's CEO is clearly involved with Trump on a personal level, I avoid Trump news on the site.

Then I hope you question CNN's credibility, dignity, and respect for colluding with the Clinton campaign throughout the entirety of the election (revealed through the WikiLeaks revelations). And MSNBC, the New York Times, and other mass media corporations/independent sources (such as comedian Stephen Colbert!) confirmed to have colluded with the Clinton campaign throughout the election.

brandon9
December 19th, 2016, 06:57 PM
So, how many times does this make that Trump has beat Clinton? lol.

All shit aside, it's good to see it formalized, and that is an interesting article. I really hope this protesting stops now, it's gotten ridiculous. I'm not trying to take shots, but did you see the Republicans protesting like this when Obama was elected? If Clinton had won this election and Republicans did all the shit people are doing right now, there'd be an inquisition. People need to grow up and accept that he won.

Fleek
December 19th, 2016, 06:59 PM
Im done! >.<

Vlerchan
December 19th, 2016, 07:18 PM
... but did you see the Republicans protesting like this when Obama was elected[.]
Updated: 11/15/2008

Cross burnings. Schoolchildren chanting "Assassinate Obama." Black figures hung from nooses. Racial epithets scrawled on homes and cars.

Incidents around the country referring to President-elect Barack Obama are dampening the postelection glow of racial progress and harmony, highlighting the stubborn racism that remains in America.

From California to Maine, police have documented a range of alleged crimes, from vandalism and vague threats to at least one physical attack. Insults and taunts have been delivered by adults, college students and second-graders.

There have been "hundreds" of incidents since the election, many more than usual, said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27738018/ns/us_news-life/t/obama-election-spurs-race-threats-crimes/
Please also recall that Conservatives then preceded to spend the next half-decade doubling-down on the Birther lie as a means of delegitimising Obama. The demonstrations themselves were somewhat less major than what's occurring since Trump's election but persisted to some extent. Nevertheless: there was mass protest and it continued for years.

The United States being hyperpolarised isn't - by definition - restricted to one group. Partisans are all as bad as each other on this issue - Well Dem protests might be a bit more tasteful but I'm hoping to strike a conciliatory chord here for the sake of having this thread not devolve into the sort of Partisan nonsense debate we're currently denouncing.

---

Breitbart is one of three news agencies I won't open because I feel it's immoral to boost their advertising revenues. Thanks for the warning, Porpoise.

- Reuters & Bloomberg reader.

Kahn
December 19th, 2016, 07:45 PM
Breitbart is one of three news agencies I won't open because I feel it's immoral to boost their advertising revenues. Thanks for the warning, Porpoise.

- Reuters & Bloomberg reader.

Just (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1480FQ) for (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-19/ap-newsalert-donald-trump-surpasses-270-votes-in-electoral-college-to-formally-win-presidency) you (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/19/politics/electoral-college-donald-trump-vote/index.html).

Wouldn't want you feeling guilty clicking my source, so here are three new sources that are more to your taste.

Vlerchan
December 19th, 2016, 07:56 PM
Just (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1480FQ) for (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-19/ap-newsalert-donald-trump-surpasses-270-votes-in-electoral-college-to-formally-win-presidency) you (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/19/politics/electoral-college-donald-trump-vote/index.html).

Wouldn't want you feeling guilty clicking my source, so here are three new sources that are more to your taste.
Oh don't worry about posting specifically to appease my tastes. I can, of course, if I have an issue with a certain source, research alternatives for myself. If I'm committed to rejecting a certain source then surely that burden must rest on me.

Thank you regardless, though.

Kahn
December 19th, 2016, 08:03 PM
Oh don't worry about posting specifically to appease my tastes.

Noted!

Thank you regardless, though.

You're welcome. :)

PlasmaHam
December 19th, 2016, 10:38 PM
No surprise to me that Trump won got the votes. The faithless elector movement against Trump was doomed from the start and was just one of the numerous attempts Democrats have made to undermine the Trump win.

Though I do know now that whenever I cite anything on this forum I need to refer to the most blatantly (http://louderwithcrowder.com/) conservative (https://www.prageru.com/) news (http://www.theblaze.com/) and (http://www.breitbart.com/) commentary (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) sources (http://www.davidhorowitzfreedomcenter.org/school-for-political-warfare/). I've also decided to never ever check any Liberal news sources that someone may reference me to.:P

Kahn
December 20th, 2016, 12:01 AM
No surprise to me that Trump won got the votes. The faithless elector movement against Trump was doomed from the start and was just one of the numerous attempts Democrats have made to undermine the Trump win.

Though I do know now that whenever I cite anything on this forum I need to refer to the most blatantly (http://louderwithcrowder.com/) conservative (https://www.prageru.com/) news (http://www.theblaze.com/) and (http://www.breitbart.com/) commentary (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) sources (http://www.davidhorowitzfreedomcenter.org/school-for-political-warfare/). I've also decided to never ever check any Liberal news sources that someone may reference me to.

I myself read any and all news that catches my eye. Yes, that means from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. And from independent sources as well.

Although I think that the conversation about media credibility and transparency is relevant, I feel that we're getting a bit off topic. I may take it upon myself to write a thread about it in ROTW; it''s obvious people here, myself included, have some opinions on the matter, but let's keep the discussion here pertinent to the article;

President-elect Trump won! Again! And Hillary Clinton lost more electors than he did. Lol

PlasmaHam
December 20th, 2016, 12:12 AM
Although I think that the conversation about media credibility and transparency is relevant, I feel that we're getting a bit off topic. I may take it upon myself to write a thread about it in ROTW; it''s obvious people here, myself included, have some opinions on the matter, but let's keep the discussion here pertinent to the article;
A thread about news credibility would be appropriate given the left's recent campaign against "fake news" and the strong opinions many have here on the subject. Despite my earlier sarcastic remarks I really don't care about the source of whatever news I read.

President-elect Trump won! Again! And Hillary Clinton lost more electors than he did. Lol
Clinton is getting very good at losing! I hope the Democrats keep trying these crazy schemes to get Clinton elected just so I get the pleasure of constantly seeing her lose.

Vlerchan
December 20th, 2016, 05:48 AM
You guys understand the basis behind the Clinton defections - right? It was intended as a demonstration against Trump.

Exocet
December 20th, 2016, 09:39 AM
LMAO people criticizing America's electoral system. It is 'good and correct' only when it suits them.

Kahn
December 20th, 2016, 10:18 AM
You guys understand the basis behind the Clinton defections - right? It was intended as a demonstration against Trump.

They did a phenomenal job!

LMAO people criticizing America's electoral system. It is 'good and correct' only when it suits them.

http://i66.tinypic.com/e13ns9.jpg

Vlerchan
December 20th, 2016, 10:26 AM
They did a phenomenal job!
We're talking about them, so I would agree.

Just to add, it wasn't about wanting to Clinton to win.

mattsmith48
December 20th, 2016, 10:30 AM
Well humanity has about another month to live on this planet, anyone doing something special?

So, how many times does this make that Trump has beat Clinton? lol.

Well this is the 1st time Trump defeated her since you know she got the most votes.

All shit aside, it's good to see it formalized, and that is an interesting article. I really hope this protesting stops now, it's gotten ridiculous. I'm not trying to take shots, but did you see the Republicans protesting like this when Obama was elected? If Clinton had won this election and Republicans did all the shit people are doing right now, there'd be an inquisition. People need to grow up and accept that he won.
No surprise to me that Trump won got the votes. The faithless elector movement against Trump was doomed from the start and was just one of the numerous attempts Democrats have made to undermine the Trump win.

Besides what Vlerchan said plus Republicans trying to block everything he tried to do for the last 8 years and Obama actually won both times, Trump didn't win, he's just President because there is more stupid people in states that are worth more.

Though I do know now that whenever I cite anything on this forum I need to refer to the most blatantly (http://louderwithcrowder.com/) conservative (https://www.prageru.com/) news (http://www.theblaze.com/) and (http://www.breitbart.com/) commentary (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) sources (http://www.davidhorowitzfreedomcenter.org/school-for-political-warfare/). I've also decided to never ever check any Liberal news sources that someone may reference me to.:P

News sources shouldn't be Liberal or conservative, news sources are suppose to be objective, when they're not objective its not news its propaganda.

Kahn
December 20th, 2016, 10:31 AM
We're talking about them, so I would agree.

Just to add, it wasn't about wanting to Clinton to win.

Oh I know, I know. It was symbolic! Gesture, noted. :yes:

Well this is the 1st time Trump defeated her since you know she got the most votes.

Lol, she'd have won if we were a direct democracy. We're not. We're a representative, constitutional republic.

Thank God for that. Otherwise California and New York would decide every election.

Besides what Vlerchan said plus Republicans trying to block everything he tried to do for the last 8 years and Obama actually won both times, Trump didn't win, he's just President because there is more stupid people in states that are worth more.

News sources shouldn't be Liberal or conservative, news sources are suppose to be objective, when they're not objective its not news its propaganda.

Although I think that the conversation about media credibility and transparency is relevant, I feel that we're getting a bit off topic. I may take it upon myself to write a thread about it in ROTW; its obvious people here, myself included, have some opinions on the matter, but let's keep the discussion here pertinent to the article;

mattsmith48
December 20th, 2016, 10:44 AM
Kahn I think US media credibility and transparency is relevant to this discusion since its part of the reason Trump is President

Vlerchan
December 20th, 2016, 10:46 AM
Lol, she'd have won if we were a direct democracy. We're not. We're a representative, constitutional republic.
This is incorrect. She would have won in a representative, constitutional republic with a FPTP system, or a PR system, as opposed to an Electoral College system. Direct Democracy refers to each decision being made through plebiscite, not majority rule. Ireland is also a representative, constitutional republic, and operates through a FPTP system in electing its president.

You are correct though, that certain geographies would be be, perhaps, unduly represented. So. I'm not passing normative judgement here; just positive.

Kahn
December 20th, 2016, 10:49 AM
This is incorrect. She would have one in a representative, constitutional republic with a FPTP system, or a PR system, as opposed to an Electoral College system. Direct Democracy refers to each decision being made through plebiscite, not majority rule. Ireland is also a representative, constitutional republic, and operates through a FPTP system in electing its president.

Should've specified our system relies on the Electoral College but I figured, considering the conversation taking place, it was a given. Poor assumption on my part.

You are correct though, that certain geographies would be be, perhaps, unduly represented. So. I'm not passing normative judgement here; just positive.

:metal:

Kahn I think US media credibility and transparency is relevant to this discusion since its part of the reason Trump is President

Okay. But this article and thread is about Donald Trump formally winning the presidency via the Electoral College. Not smearing media you disagree with, and that goes for both sides of this argument, not just you. I'd like to keep the thread pertinent to the article to avoid posts getting deleted, or the thread getting locked.

Thank you. :)

PlasmaHam
December 20th, 2016, 11:10 AM
Well this is the 1st time Trump defeated her since you know she got the most votes. Nope, the only thing that matters is the electoral college votes. And so far Clinton has lost those twice at the two chances she had at them. Stop your whining and accept that Clinton lost.
Besides what Vlerchan said
Would you mind elaborating on what Vlerchan said, I really would like to see your logic in support of that instead of ignorantly referring to some post you like.
Republicans trying to block everything he tried to do for the last 8 years and Obama actually won both times.
I have no idea what you are saying. Sure Republicans have been blocking Obama's proposals in Congress but that has nothing to do with the presidential elections. Are you sure that you understand what you are saying?
Trump didn't win, he's just President because there is more stupid people in states that are worth more.]
I'm sure Vlerchan will agree with me that this is the exact reason the left keeps losing elections. You keep calling people you don't like racist, sexist, dumb, deplorable, stupid, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, etc. Hopefully you realize that calling Americans these names are not going to make them vote for you. But I hope you keep doing it, because it just makes the left look stupid and closed-minded.
News sources shouldn't be Liberal or conservative, news sources are suppose to be objective, when they're not objective its not news its propaganda. That's idealistic but ultimately just wishful thinking.
I think US media credibility and transparency is relevant to this discusion since its part of the reason Trump is President
This isn't the place for you to start calling news sources and people stupid, so lets not go there.

Porpoise101
December 20th, 2016, 11:18 AM
Then I hope you question CNN's credibility, dignity, and respect for colluding with the Clinton campaign throughout the entirety of the election (revealed through the WikiLeaks revelations). And MSNBC, the New York Times, and other mass media corporations/independent sources (such as comedian Stephen Colbert!) confirmed to have colluded with the Clinton campaign throughout the election.
Some of this I agree with, some of it I dispute. I made a thread on the topic, so I will discuss this there.

mattsmith48
December 20th, 2016, 11:41 AM
Nope, the only thing that matters is the electoral college votes. And so far Clinton has lost those twice at the two chances she had at them. Stop your whining and accept that Clinton lost.
Would you mind elaborating on what Vlerchan said, I really would like to see your logic in support of that instead of ignorantly referring to some post you like.

So what's the point of having an election if its up 538 people to decide who's they want president not the population.

I have no idea what you are saying. Sure Republicans have been blocking Obama's proposals in Congress but that has nothing to do with the presidential elections. Are you sure that you understand what you are saying?

Because the OP complained about people protesting Trump when no one protest when Obama which is complete bullshit btw and thats why saying it is relevent to the discusion.

I'm sure Vlerchan will agree with me that this is the exact reason the left keeps losing elections. You keep calling people you don't like racist, sexist, dumb, deplorable, stupid, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, etc. Hopefully you realize that calling Americans these names are not going to make them vote for you. But I hope you keep doing it, because it just makes the left look stupid and closed-minded.

If calling people name is the reason the left lose elections, how come Trump is president?

Kahn
December 20th, 2016, 12:03 PM
So what's the point of having an election if its up 538 people to decide who's they want president not the population.

The vote isn't decided on a national popular vote because we are a federal union of SOVEREIGN States. Meaning, each State has equal representation on the national level, regardless of geographic size and population density. Were we to rely on the popular vote to determine national elections, candidates/issues would only have to campaign/be popular in a few highly populated areas.

Tl;Dr mob rule will never succeed in America.

EDIT: While I understand there is no constitutional provision stating electors have to follow the will of the people, the party who wins a State in the general election elects the electors, and some States require electors by law to follow the will of the people. So you're hardly every going to see faithless electors. They're by far an exception, not the rule.

mattsmith48
December 20th, 2016, 12:13 PM
The vote isn't decided on a national popular vote because we are a federal union of SOVEREIGN States. Meaning, each State has equal representation on the national level, regardless of geographic size and population density. Were we to rely on the popular vote to determine national elections, candidates/issues would only have to campaign/be popular in a few highly populated areas.

Tl;Dr mob rule will never succeed in America.

So instead candidates only having to campaign/be popular in states that are worth the most. How exactly is that different?

Kahn
December 20th, 2016, 12:18 PM
So instead candidates only having to campaign/be popular in states that are worth the most. How exactly is that different?

No, instead, the candidate has to do his or her due diligence and campaign in every state. Which is exactly what Trump did, and Clinton didn't do. While Clinton was "resting" and "preparing" for debates, and campaigning in large population centers intermittently, Trump was doing multiple rallies a day in multiple states. In the weeks leading up the election, Trump visited the states where polling was the closest (swing states, mid-western states Obama won in his elections). And I think he won all those states he focused on but two.

PlasmaHam
December 20th, 2016, 01:17 PM
So what's the point of having an election if its up 538 people to decide who's they want president not the population. Please stop whining about the electoral college, Trump won, accept it. Remember, Hillary Clinton said that the election process is entirely democratic and fair, so take the words of your grand leader and accept it. Now as I've stated before Democrats need to serious reevaluate their presidential voting process.

Kahn explained it pretty well
So instead candidates only having to campaign/be popular in states that are worth the most. How exactly is that different?
This is a safe guard to protect the minority groups in a sense, which is something I would think the Democrats would love. The electoral college does require you to appeal to a wider variety of people than simply sitting around in major population areas and indoctrinating them.

If calling people name is the reason the left lose elections, how come Trump is president? Maybe because Trump didn't call a quarter of the country deplorable, and maybe because we aren't calling people who voted for Hillary stupid, and maybe because Republicans don't call people sexist or racist when they don't agree with them, or maybe its because Republicans actually care about the regular person while the Democrats only care about their minorities and gays?

Fleek
December 20th, 2016, 01:34 PM
The protests have nothing to do with dems, they wanted the EC to change there vote to anybody besides Trump. Not to Clinton. One voted for a protestor of Dakota Pipeline.

Given his rhetoric--can we really blame them?

DriveAlive
December 20th, 2016, 03:00 PM
Please stop whining about the electoral college, Trump won, accept it. Remember, Hillary Clinton said that the election process is entirely democratic and fair, so take the words of your grand leader and accept it. Now as I've stated before Democrats need to serious reevaluate their presidential voting process.

Kahn explained it pretty well

This is a safe guard to protect the minority groups in a sense, which is something I would think the Democrats would love. The electoral college does require you to appeal to a wider variety of people than simply sitting around in major population areas and indoctrinating them.

Maybe because Trump didn't call a quarter of the country deplorable, and maybe because we aren't calling people who voted for Hillary stupid, and maybe because Republicans don't call people sexist or racist when they don't agree with them, or maybe its because Republicans actually care about the regular person while the Democrats only care about their minorities and gays?


Calls Hillary Clinton a bitch. Trump that bitch.

Vlerchan
December 20th, 2016, 03:10 PM
DriveAlive

I have been meaning to ask,
Did you just flip a coin on election day?

mattsmith48
December 20th, 2016, 03:47 PM
No, instead, the candidate has to do his or her due diligence and campaign in every state. Which is exactly what Trump did, and Clinton didn't do. While Clinton was "resting" and "preparing" for debates, and campaigning in large population centers intermittently, Trump was doing multiple rallies a day in multiple states. In the weeks leading up the election, Trump visited the states where polling was the closest (swing states, mid-western states Obama won in his elections). And I think he won all those states he focused on but two.
Kahn explained it pretty well

This is a safe guard to protect the minority groups in a sense, which is something I would think the Democrats would love. The electoral college does require you to appeal to a wider variety of people than simply sitting around in major population areas and indoctrinating them.

No they don't have to work in every state because they are some states where democrats know they have no chance to win like Texas and they are some states Republicans know they don't have any chance to win like California.They spend time and money in swing states that are worth more like Florida, Michigan, Ohio... So if California or Texas those states your votes basically doesn't count and won't change anything and candidates have little interess of spending time and money there.

Please stop whining about the electoral college, Trump won, accept it. Remember, Hillary Clinton said that the election process is entirely democratic and fair, so take the words of your grand leader and accept it. Now as I've stated before Democrats need to serious reevaluate their presidential voting process.

Your election system is one of the most undemocratic and unfair in the world. Trump is president because of your shitty system, I accepted it, but it doesn't change the fact that he didn't win, he just got more votes in states that are worth the most.

Maybe because Trump didn't call a quarter of the country deplorable, and maybe because we aren't calling people who voted for Hillary stupid, and maybe because Republicans don't call people sexist or racist when they don't agree with them, or maybe its because Republicans actually care about the regular person while the Democrats only care about their minorities and gays?

Trump insulted almost every minority during his campaign. He called women in every possible name, last year when he was losing in Iowa he said ''How stupid are the people of Iowa?'' 1 year later 800 thousand of them voted for him. But calling a few people deplorable was too much?

DriveAlive
December 21st, 2016, 01:58 AM
DriveAlive

I have been meaning to ask,
Did you just flip a coin on election day?
Basically yes. I am happy with both outcomes. While I am sad that Clinton will not have the chance to be president as she should, Trump can really shake things up with appointments like James Mattis and Rex Tillerson, both of which greatly excite me.

fairmaiden
December 21st, 2016, 09:08 AM
LMAO people criticizing America's electoral system. It is 'good and correct' only when it suits them.

I presume by your use of the word "people", you are including Donald Trump,
right?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/266038556504494082?lang=en