Donald Trump

[01cravend]

 

[Len Rum]

Again its totally irrelevant because he won.

You need to read what I have said continually on Trump in this thread and the previous incarnation, you are so badly informed if you think I am his chief apologist, I was the poster who first called him a cheeto faced ferret wearing shitgibbon on here, an insult that has been widely used. If you think I'm his chief apologist, you havent kept up with the threads, so dont act like you know what I think and how I feel about him.

I wont defend Clinton for acting like a spoilt child and not thanking her supporters for all their hard work, doesnt mean I like Trump. It was a shithouse move from her, that I havent seen from an losing presidential candidate in over 25 years of following US elections. I notice you completely ignored the part of what the media would have said if he had done that. If you want to defend an ungrateful horror of a woman, carry on.

Strange that you feel so strongly about the losing candidate in the election. The timing of her speech is now just a footnote in history. Nobody is arsed any more. Why are you still bothered?
Trump's statement that he would refuse to concede is actually the reverse of what you state - it's totally relevant because he won. The President elect would not have conceded had he lost! That's a hell of a lot worse than Clinton getting the timing of her concession speech wrong ( in your view).

 

[argyle]

Hillary Clinton likely to end up winning the popular vote by OVER 2 MILLION people - more than Gore, JFK, Nixon etc. Over 2. MILLION. PEOPLE.

Is our system similar to there's?

 

[Dubai Blue]

I can't help but laugh at all these "popular vote" warriors. It's nothing new and, yes, it's happened in the UK before. It's a damning indictment on the populations of both countries that so many people haven't got a clue how the electoral system works.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Hillary Clinton likely to end up winning the popular vote by OVER 2 MILLION people - more than Gore, JFK, Nixon etc. Over 2. MILLION. PEOPLE.

Is our system similar to there's?

I don't think that number is correct. 2 million sounds very high.

One of the things that doesn't make the election "equal" is the number of voters in a state and the number of electoral college votes. Ergo, you can win many, small, rural states and gain many states with few people, but 3, 4, or 5 electoral votes. Then, you can win California, with 39 million people, by 5 million votes, but all those millions of people are undermined by significantly less people in multiple states, whose electoral votes overcome a state like CA.

That said, it is the system we have and is not going to change anytime soon. The REAL POLITICAL FIX needed in America is to get rid of gerrymandering. That has created an almost impossible to overcome Republican House of Representatives, by splitting democratic ares up between other larger Republican areas...or corralling multiple different democratic areas Andy creating one large one...and this ONE SEAT for a large population. We see this particularly in racially segregated areas, like Detroit!

So, when you see so many RED areas and pockets of BLUE, it is because Republicans in the House have created a self sustaining political majority by redlining districts. THAT is not what the Founding Fathers intended, but a Republican majority on the SCOTUS said that as long as it was legislators who voted for it, it is legal. Shame!

Should be based on latitude and longitude and, as equal as possible, districts.

 

[talkativesprout]

It's a damning indictment on the populations of both countries that so many people haven't got a clue how the electoral system works.

Accident or design?

1 man 1 vote most vote wins

 

[Citizen in Pakistan]

I can't help but laugh at all these "popular vote" warriors. It's nothing new and, yes, it's happened in the UK before. It's a damning indictment on the populations of both countries that so many people haven't got a clue how the electoral system works.

The only thing popular vote shows is that hilary didnt loose because she was a woman like some popular media outlets and some of clinton appologist are trying to suggest. She lost because of her poor campaign along with several other reasons but being a woman wasnt one

 

[Vic]

Exactly, get out there and thank them for everything, not cower away until she could fake smile her way through it all the next day. A shithouse move.

In the context of a shithouse campaign by the shithousiest man ever to be elected president in what suddenly looks like a shithouse country why still attack her?

I'm just hoping (signs are there) that some of his shithousiest policies will come to nothing. Plus when the good people of Pennsylvania find the mines and steelworks haven't reopened, they'll ask why not, and they'll say he lied. But what do you expect when you elect a liar?

 

[Two Gun Bob]

In the context of a shithouse campaign by the shithousiest man ever to be elected president in what suddenly looks like a shithouse country why still attack her?

I'm just hoping (signs are there) that some of his shithousiest policies will come to nothing. Plus when the good people of Pennsylvania find the mines and steelworks haven't reopened, they'll ask why not, and they'll say he lied. But what do you expect when you elect a liar?

I feel your pain Victor.
I am up all night if you need to talk pal.
Bless you !

 

[SWP's back]

Doesn't matter what he said he WOULD do - edited for accuracy.
Still if you want to be chief apologist for Trump on here mate, carry on.

I thought you were better than strawmen arguments with someone like PLLK. You banged your head or something?