I guess you missed the part where I said "in most of America."
As slurp noted, most counties didn't support Hillary's sense of entitlement.
Are people losing there minds - Trump Presidency
- Thread starter kono
- Start date
As slurp noted, most counties didn't support Hillary's sense of entitlement.
Indeed.
It became more than obvious that the Russian-hacking fixation was nothing more than a bogus effort to try to delegitimize the election result when Obama commuted Chelsea Manning's sentence. All that talk about the Democrats' concern for "national security" was clearly a load of B.S.
So exactly what was Trump's square mile margin over Clinton? And here I thought democratic elections were about government of the people by the people. Silly me.
As for the total counties won, it's as irrelevant as still going on about pre-election polls after the Main Event. Unless you've bought into some mad Geography Version of democracy where it isn't votes but acreage that counts. Counties don't vote and even if someone added up their inhabitants' votes county by county, show me where that number figures into electing Presidents. Interesting as it may be as sociology or political analysis after the fact.
In fact on the anti-Clinton side slurp did bring up the only 'real' fact so far: Trump won the Electoral College (where only about a half-dozen people are free to vote their choice, the others being dictated by law). Although absolutely and inarguably true, it's an even farther stretch to imagine that justifies a specious and untruthful claim that most of America didn't choose Clinton.
But if you want to count the blowing sands of Pecos County, the empty parking lots of Wayne County and so on as your 'most of America', I'll leave you to it. Thanks for letting me in on your concept, two pages in.
But here's a question for your quiet moments: If it's just geography — counties, states and such — that counts, not people's votes, why does the Constitution give more Electors to the more populous states. In proportion to their populations, and quite irrespective of their geographic size. While you guys are at it, which two states have no counties at all? Which states have counties with fewer than 100 residents? Which has a county with more than ten million? Tell us again why it's more meaningful the number of counties you carry than the votes you get.
Or fail to.
Utterly irrelevant - this is merely something that get hauled out when someone objects to the result of the election. The polling has been by state since the very first Presidential Election in 1788.
Sorry, but you came in late and missed the set-up. The analysis referred to was based on the specious claim that most of America rejected Clinton. In fact as we all know, most American voters preferred Clinton. Nothing to do with who got to sit in the Oval Office or how.
I think it's a serious distortion to call the Electoral College 'polling by state'. If that were the intent, the Fathers would surely have given each state the same number of Electors. Instead, to give some semblance of equal representation to all, and keep cities like New York, Boston and Charleston happy in the union they assigned College votes by population just as they had assigned Representatives. It seems clear that as inb the House they expected the College to be a distillation of the peoples raw wishes into a small group of their worthiest representatives. If they'd wanted mere polling by states, all they had to provide for was the selection of an spokesperson for each who would announce his state's choice on the appropriate day.
Like gerrymandered districts, the later corrupt winner-take-all system that rubbishes all votes cast for anyone but the winner in any state was and is part of that same self-serving elitist political machinery Trump claims he's against and says he'll do away with. It has nothing to do with democracy, fairness, or anything but gaining party advantage at the expense of voting citizens.
Hey genius, it was a Republican Bill that built the existing border wall and decided what sections needed a wall versus what sections only needed surveillance. Trump wasn't even aware of the existing wall when he first started his wall rhetoric.
Yet Trump claimed to know more about defeating ISIS than the Generals, he knows more about hacking than Cyber Command, he knows more about what is in the heart of Putin than his own VP, Secretary of State and the Joint Chiefs, he knows more about building one of the most complex aircraft ever built than Boeing and of-course he's totally aware of what is going on in the world so he doesn't need his daily briefings,
Half-wit is right.
So we are not to take Trump literally? That's your excuse?
But you read crazy things into other people's statements by taking them overly literally.
Meanwhile you say we are not supposed to believe Trump does or has done exactly what he says he will/did?
Seems your views are a catastrophe of contradictions.
Thing is that without that pro life vote he couldn't have won. He squeeked in by a narrow margin in PA, MI, and WI. It's highly likely the pro life vote put him over the top, given that changing just 1 vote in 150 swings it.
While that's the past, there's no reason to think things will be any different in 4 years. If he betrays the pro lifers who elected him they won't vote for him again: most of them disliked almost everything else about him but voted for him on the single issue of Supreme Court appointments.
So if he reneges on that promise he's likely a one termer.
Your only hope is that another Supreme doesn't die while he's in office. The current appointment isn't enough, he needs one more to overturn Roe v Wade.
It's possible Roe v Wade will survive the next four years but if Trump goes 8 years and he continuous courting the prolife voters then abortion will likely be illegal in many states by 2025.
First it's the damn ruskies that swung the vote. Well that didn't go over. So now it's the damn anti abortioners! Ya that's it! Them damn evangelicals. Who exercised their right to vote.
If only they had stayed home Hillary woulda won!
1:150 voters in 4 states made the election. So any of the groups Fuji mentioned could have swung the vote. I have to explain stuff to you like a 10 year old.
Absolutely true and available on video. Feel free to Google. It was after this that he stated his wall would be twice as high and solid. It was then pointed out to him that most drugs came in under, over or around the fence and many illegals cross at border crossings. Damn eh, I can see why Trump hates intellectuals and MSM .... all those pesky facts.
Seems to be a recurring theme with Trump. Don't take ANYTHING he says literally. Wait for one of his handlers to interrupt his real meaning, to correct his spelling, to soften his attacks, to explain his "alternative facts". The rhetoric should have stopped the minute he won the election and MUST stop now that he's in office.
He really does need to get on the same page as his staff on key issues (i.e. Russia) though. Kind-of embarrassing for him.
Smallcock you are Terb's equivalent of Kellyanne Conway, desperately trying to spin Trump stupidities into ........ something.
It's all of the above. If you could do simple math you would realize that when an election comes down to 1 vote in 150 then Trump needed every vote he got to win.
The FBI intervention, the Russian interference, the pro life vote: he needed ALL those things to win.
