• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump now ahead in the Popular Vote

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Go turn on your TV... they don't want to report it, but it is a fact and hitting the news now. This number may not hold because they are still counting absentee in California, but with Michigan count now in as of right now Trump is back on top as far as the popular vote count.

Trump 62,972,226
Clinton 62,277,750

THEY WERE STILL COUNTING MICHIGAN BUT THE TALLY JUST CAME IN

"They" don't want to report it? how many of "them" have you spoken with? Did "they" not report it? Or are you getting your information from tea leaves instead of the media?

You do realize that the election has already been won, and that it is won by electoral college and not popular vote, right?
 

ShivaFan

Satyameva Jayate
Premium Member
TRUMP IS BACK ON TOP WITH THE POPULAR VOTE AGAIN!

Votes are still being counted so nothing is official yet, but he just squeaked ahead again.

Then if you subtract the 2.6 million votes of illegal aliens who voted for Hillary but shouldn't have voted since they are foreigners, TRUMP WINS THE POPULAR VOTE BY 3 PLUS MILLION!!!!

PROBABLY EVEN HIGHER if you remove the voter fraud and even higher numbers of illegal and criminal alien vote from 2012 statistics!

So Trump not only blew out Hillary on the official, constitutional, Electoral College, he also blew her out on the popular vote as well!!!!

CONGRATULATIONS TRUMP!
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
TRUMP IS BACK ON TOP WITH THE POPULAR VOTE AGAIN!

Votes are still being counted so nothing is official yet, but he just squeaked ahead again.

Then if you subtract the 2.6 million votes of illegal aliens who voted for Hillary but shouldn't have voted since they are foreigners, TRUMP WINS THE POPULAR VOTE BY 3 PLUS MILLION!!!!

PROBABLY EVEN HIGHER if you remove the voter fraud and even higher numbers of illegal and criminal alien vote from 2012 statistics!

So Trump not only blew out Hillary on the official, constitutional, Electoral College, he also blew her out on the popular vote as well!!!!

CONGRATULATIONS TRUMP!

http://www.ibtimes.com/2016-final-p...e-falsely-shows-trump-leading-clinton-2446326
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Go turn on your TV... they don't want to report it, but it is a fact and hitting the news now. This number may not hold because they are still counting absentee in California, but with Michigan count now in as of right now Trump is back on top as far as the popular vote count.

Trump 62,972,226
Clinton 62,277,750

THEY WERE STILL COUNTING MICHIGAN BUT THE TALLY JUST CAME IN

You're just plain wrong. Learn how to use Google, it will save you a great deal of embarrassment.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
TRUMP IS BACK ON TOP WITH THE POPULAR VOTE AGAIN!

Votes are still being counted so nothing is official yet, but he just squeaked ahead again.

Then if you subtract the 2.6 million votes of illegal aliens who voted for Hillary but shouldn't have voted since they are foreigners, TRUMP WINS THE POPULAR VOTE BY 3 PLUS MILLION!!!!

PROBABLY EVEN HIGHER if you remove the voter fraud and even higher numbers of illegal and criminal alien vote from 2012 statistics!

So Trump not only blew out Hillary on the official, constitutional, Electoral College, he also blew her out on the popular vote as well!!!!

CONGRATULATIONS TRUMP!

You need to cut down on the LSD.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
See, he is their president.
When he was on media and asked about he isn't changing his mind on the subject just a cause he won, seemed just not getting popular vote doesn't sit well for him.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member

I don't claim it would have changed the election. It may have but who knows?

But the electoral college created this whole red state/blue state thing. If we had popular vote elections that would largely go away. Campaigns would have to go to places like California, Texas and NY which for the last 30 years have been a no mans land in national elections. It creates this separation that doesn't really exist. NYS has a large number of Republicans. More than in most of the midwest states. But because the cities are democrat, they know their votes don't matter. Texas has a large number of democrats who feel the exact same way.

So millions of people are left out of the process. It wouldn't make small states votes count less than big states. It would make sure every vote counted in exactly the same way.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
He wouldn't need to under Popular vote.
Moot point, either candidate would do the same thing, at the end of the day trump was less popular even amidst fabrications of scandals and hacks and leaks about Hillary.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
I don't claim it would have changed the election. It may have but who knows?

But the electoral college created this whole red state/blue state thing. If we had popular vote elections that would largely go away. Campaigns would have to go to places like California, Texas and NY which for the last 30 years have been a no mans land in national elections. It creates this separation that doesn't really exist. NYS has a large number of Republicans. More than in most of the midwest states. But because the cities are democrat, they know their votes don't matter. Texas has a large number of democrats who feel the exact same way.

So millions of people are left out of the process. It wouldn't make small states votes count less than big states. It would make sure every vote counted in exactly the same way.

Instead of red and blue states, we'd have red and blue population centers. Land in America would be meaningless during election season (or 1.5 out of every 4 years). Eventually (read as 12 years after this changeover), many would congregate to the cities that offer a "conservative" or "progressive" way of life. Politicians would then need to go to both areas, and just promise a whole lot of things. Likely different things to each group, but the core demographic for those candidates would need to be promised how living where they do will get better should that person be elected.

With electoral college, where you live exactly doesn't matter, as being in rural place is equal to being in heavily populated place.

Anyway, I'm in the current conservative movement that wishes to retain the constitutional electoral college, and am resisting of those who wish to go to popular vote as means of determine POTUS. If I were a betting person, the soonest I see that having a good chance is around 2028. Though I'd hedge that bet with "never will happen" and hope I'd be able to collect on that every 4 years for rest of my life. I'd let my great great great grandchildren know this is a way you don't have to work and you can collect money on it, forever.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I don't claim it would have changed the election. It may have but who knows?

But the electoral college created this whole red state/blue state thing. If we had popular vote elections that would largely go away. Campaigns would have to go to places like California, Texas and NY which for the last 30 years have been a no mans land in national elections. It creates this separation that doesn't really exist. NYS has a large number of Republicans. More than in most of the midwest states. But because the cities are democrat, they know their votes don't matter. Texas has a large number of democrats who feel the exact same way.

So millions of people are left out of the process. It wouldn't make small states votes count less than big states. It would make sure every vote counted in exactly the same way.
In a republic, why should every person's vote count equally?
Note that UN votes don't reflect population either, & this is widely accepted.
If Hillary had won the EC, I wager the Dems would be trumpeting its utility.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
In a republic, why should every person's vote count equally?
Note that UN votes don't reflect population either, & this is widely accepted.
If Hillary had won the EC, I wager the Dems would be trumpeting its utility.

Probably so. But that is irrelevant to the point.

Why shouldn't every persons vote count equally?

I get that it is history. But the reasons it was set up this way were garbage to begin with, and don't even exist anymore. So why continue with an inequitable system?
 
Top