I cannot believe Obama

 

JT.  the electoral college was founded by the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution.  It is how we elect presidents.

Here's how and why:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

All candidates plus informed voters know this every 4 years as well as every high schooler studying social science.

Why are you just now asking the question?  By my estimate, the EC has been around at least 12 POTUS election cycles in your time and it's just now catching on to you.  Or is it because your yellow dog has left the pound and after being abandoned by your blue collar workers, you might now have to think for yourself? You're not considering moving to a gerrymandered district carved out by the US DOJ where only the candidate of a particular race could win.  If so, your lucky Trump is going to protect not only the 12th Amendment, but the 2nd as well cause history has recorded folks in those gerrymandered districts are sure gonna need some help.

The  EC musta been around for 17 cycles in my life time. I recall 2 times the popular vote and the electoral vote were different. The first was Bush Jr. Look what that got us. I only hope that Trump will not be the same train wreck that Bush was.

jtdavis posted:

The  EC musta been around for 17 cycles in my life time. I recall 2 times the popular vote and the electoral vote were different. The first was Bush Jr. Look what that got us. I only hope that Trump will not be the same train wreck that Bush was.

JT, still attempting to resurrect that old, disproven myth.  Once more, a recount sponsored by the NY Times showed Bush received the most votes in Florida.  SCOTUS only demanded that the Florida Supreme Court obey their own state constitution.

direstraits posted:
jtdavis posted:

The  EC musta been around for 17 cycles in my life time. I recall 2 times the popular vote and the electoral vote were different. The first was Bush Jr. Look what that got us. I only hope that Trump will not be the same train wreck that Bush was.

JT, still attempting to resurrect that old, disproven myth.  Once more, a recount sponsored by the NY Times showed Bush received the most votes in Florida.  SCOTUS only demanded that the Florida Supreme Court obey their own state constitution.

And if CBS hadn't erroneously called Florida for gore, Bush supporters would not have left the polls without voting, or stayed home without going out to vote for Bush. What happened to CBS for that? NOTHING.

giftedamateur posted:
jtdavis posted:

Are Y'all saying that Bush got more popular votes nationwide than Gore did?

What's wrong with you that makes you unable to understand posts?

The real world doesn't jive with his brainwashing. These people
are very easily manipulated because they want so badly for that
land of free lunch, and everything else free. How's that change
working for you, for the millionth time..??

 

jtdavis posted:

Yep!

Dire, since you are unfamiliar with numbers, from wikipedia, in the 2000 election, Bush got 50,456,002 popular votes. Gore got 50,999,897.  Gifted and Jack, do y'all want to correct wikipedia

I want to correct YOU. We were talking about FLORIDA. Go back and read the posts you insane thing! I could go in and "correct" wiki, anyone can. If there had been an adjustment for errors, such as the illegal votes tossed, the votes for Bush that were lost when the lefty media called Florida for Gore and the Bush voters went home etc., it's possible Bush would have won the popular vote nationally. However, we were discussing the state of Florida.

You have no idea how the electoral college works, and why and how it is fair, yet you vote! All you know is that your corrupt party lost, and now Hillary, other corrupt leaders and foreigners that have an interest in insinuating themselves into our politics, are trying to interfere and change the results of that fair election. It already stinks because there is no way she won the popular vote by such a margin, and there are other red flags being raised about the going ons of the ones wanting a recount.

Go read what Hillary said about Trump when he refused to say he would accept the election results, and as posted and pointed out, look at her, and you, now. The corrupt and criminal Democrats and their foreign pals were told the country is sick of them, and you just can't stand it.

jtdavis posted:

I was quoting the total numbers from the 2000 presidential election. Again, Bush got less votes (about a half a million less) that Gore. But Bush got 5 more electoral votes (271 to 266).  Jack, how is that "beating the snot out of someone"

Who was in the oval office for eight years..?? Bush or algore..??

Do you have any idea how much money algore made duping
bottom feeding, low infoe, too stupid to know the difference
between global warming and natural phenomena that occur
through no fault of humans.?  He got rich on that scam as did
many Dems/liberals. And all the scientist involved admitted
they lied so don't even go there........ 

Now look at her and the rest of the demoslops.

=================================

 

Hillary Clinton, now a private citizen after conceding the election to Donald Trump, wants in on the recount effort Green Party nominee Jill Stein launched Friday, even though she previously called such a notion “horrifying.”

During the final debate between Clinton and Donald Trump last month in Las Vegas, Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace asked Trump if he would honor the results of the election even if he lost.

“I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at it now. What I’ve seen is so bad,” Trump responded.

Wallace pressed the question further, and Trump replied, “What I’m saying is I will tell you at the time.”

“I’ll keep you in suspense,” Trump said.

Clinton, apparently taken aback by Trump’s response to the matter, hit back “That’s horrifying.”

"Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election.

That’s a direct threat to our democracy".



She went on to say, “That’s not the way our democracy works. We’ve been around 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. President Obama said the other day that when you’re whining before the game is even finished it just shows you’re not even up to doing the job. “

She added, “And let’s be clear about what he’s saying and what he means. He’s denigrating—he’s talking down our democracy. I for one am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our major two parties would take that kind of position.”

Clinton was later asked by reporters about Trump’s statement at the debate and she said, “I truly doubt he has ever ready (sic) the Constitution.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/11...video/#ixzz4RJzoiH00




Bestworking posted:
jtdavis posted:

Are Y'all saying that Bush got more popular votes nationwide than Gore did?

What part of the word FLORIDA did you not understand "mr highbrow"?

He thought FLORIDA was a public Cuban restandsexroom.

But then I'm beginning to think so myself..........

Highbrow

adjective -- derogatory

A person of perpetual amazement of the every day world.. 

Jack Flash posted:
Bestworking posted:
jtdavis posted:

Are Y'all saying that Bush got more popular votes nationwide than Gore did?

What part of the word FLORIDA did you not understand "mr highbrow"?

He thought FLORIDA was a public Cuban restandsexroom.

But then I'm beginning to think so myself..........

Highbrow

adjective -- derogatory

A person of perpetual amazement of the every day world.. 

I'm still laughing at the DA jt calling Gifted "low brow"! I seriously doubt he even knows what it means.

Bestworking posted:
Jack Flash posted:
Bestworking posted:
jtdavis posted:

Are Y'all saying that Bush got more popular votes nationwide than Gore did?

What part of the word FLORIDA did you not understand "mr highbrow"?

He thought FLORIDA was a public Cuban restandsexroom.

But then I'm beginning to think so myself..........

Highbrow

adjective -- derogatory

A person of perpetual amazement of the every day world.. 

I'm still laughing at the DA jt calling Gifted "low brow"! I seriously doubt he even knows what it means.

He's pathetic.

jtdavis posted:

Jack, did you understand the concept of numbers?  Best, you notice I didnt ask you

I'm waiting for you to libplain that concept so I'll know for myself.

Jack, this is the way I was taught. The bigger number means that person got more votes. Can you grasp that concept?

Best and Gifted, I won't ask if y'all get it. I know you don't

jtdavis posted:
jtdavis posted:

Jack, did you understand the concept of numbers?  Best, you notice I didnt ask you

I'm waiting for you to libplain that concept so I'll know for myself.

Jack, this is the way I was taught. The bigger number means that person got more votes. Can you grasp that concept?

Best and Gifted, I won't ask if y'all get it. I know you don't

I "get"that you have no idea how our electoral college works.  Supposedly she got more votes, and although I think there's something fishy there, it doesn't matter. It was the electoral votes she needed, and she didn't get those. That is the way it has always been, and you would have expected Trump to accept the results. But now, in typical lefty fashion, you want to change the system to have it your way. Remember how the majority opposed Obamadon'tcare? 

jtdavis posted:

I know how the electoral college works, my question is the allocation of electoral votes to the states.  Both times, in my memory, when the popular vote majority and the electoral vote majority are different, the republican party benefits.

That was in my 9th grade civics class.  Each state receives the number of electors according to the number of their members in the House and Senate. Thus, at least three. 

jtdavis posted:

I know how the electoral college works, my question is the allocation of electoral votes to the states.  Both times, in my memory, when the popular vote majority and the electoral vote majority are different, the republican party benefits.

If you knew how it worked you wouldn't still be whining about the "popular" vote.

Bestworking posted:

Now look at her and the rest of the demoslops.

=================================

 

Hillary Clinton, now a private citizen after conceding the election to Donald Trump, wants in on the recount effort Green Party nominee Jill Stein launched Friday, even though she previously called such a notion “horrifying.”

During the final debate between Clinton and Donald Trump last month in Las Vegas, Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace asked Trump if he would honor the results of the election even if he lost.

“I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at it now. What I’ve seen is so bad,” Trump responded.

Wallace pressed the question further, and Trump replied, “What I’m saying is I will tell you at the time.”

“I’ll keep you in suspense,” Trump said.

Clinton, apparently taken aback by Trump’s response to the matter, hit back “That’s horrifying.”

"Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election.

That’s a direct threat to our democracy".



She went on to say, “That’s not the way our democracy works. We’ve been around 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. President Obama said the other day that when you’re whining before the game is even finished it just shows you’re not even up to doing the job. “

She added, “And let’s be clear about what he’s saying and what he means. He’s denigrating—he’s talking down our democracy. I for one am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our major two parties would take that kind of position.”

Clinton was later asked by reporters about Trump’s statement at the debate and she said, “I truly doubt he has ever ready (sic) the Constitution.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/11...video/#ixzz4RJzoiH00




Yes, now look at them.

That was in my 9th grade civics class.  Each state receives the number of electors according to the number of their members in the House and Senate. Thus, at least three. 

Why aren't the bigger populated states  given more votes to more fairly represent the number of voters? 

jtdavis posted:

That was in my 9th grade civics class.  Each state receives the number of electors according to the number of their members in the House and Senate. Thus, at least three. 

Why aren't the bigger populated states  given more votes to more fairly represent the number of voters? 

Go back to school and tell them you didn't learn anything and to run you through again, and pay attention this time.

jtdavis posted:

That was in my 9th grade civics class.  Each state receives the number of electors according to the number of their members in the House and Senate. Thus, at least three. 

Why aren't the bigger populated states  given more votes to more fairly represent the number of voters? 

Asked and answered.

 

jtdavis posted:

That was in my 9th grade civics class.  Each state receives the number of electors according to the number of their members in the House and Senate. Thus, at least three. 

Why aren't the bigger populated states  given more votes to more fairly represent the number of voters? 

Did you flunk math reading problems?  The state with the largest population -- California, has 55 electoral votes -- 53 for the 53 representatives in the House and two for their two senators.  The states with the smallest populations, like Rhode Island have three electoral votes -- one for their single representative and two for their two senators.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×