I don't understand the comment about Hillary won the popular vote because of three states or three or four big cities. Are you saying those votes should count less because they live closer together? Why do people make that comment?

 

Those are the facts. She won the popular vote by so much because of these 3 states. Their votes counted to the tune of 104 electoral votes and HRC still couldn't win the election. Trump did not campaign in California because the popular vote does not matter. The fact that a popular vote election would be campaigned differently than an electoral college election is lost on the, "but HRC won the popular vote" crowd. It is a ridiculous argument considering the system of how we elect the President.

Pretty sweet thought to think " Cali dont matter " . Love it .

Which would mean we have the same winner. Just a pointless, useless effort and money expenditure for the Citizenry of these states. I understood the reasons behind Florida in 2000 but not this one at all.

 

Interesting theory that makes sense. The Dems have been making mountains of hay out of the popular vote, somehow trying to delegitimize the Trump victory.

 

IF this recount results in Trump not having enough electoral votes and forcing a vote in the House t decide it it gives the Dems further ammunition to delegitimize a Trump administration.

Maybe Trump will take back his get out of jail free card and have an investigation into her and her crooked Clinton Foundation and even go after her son in law who is as guilty of scams as the rest of them.

Maybe he can get Bill for All the underage young girls he had sex with.

Interesting theory that makes sense. The Dems have been making mountains of hay out of the popular vote, somehow trying to delegitimize the Trump victory.

 

IF this recount results in Trump not having enough electoral votes and forcing a vote in the House t decide it it gives the Dems further ammunition to delegitimize a Trump administration.

 

Won't happen.

I'm eagerly awaiting your post bashing Hillary and those involved in the recount process for not accepting the results of the election. I mean, you went well out of your way to let everyone know how despicable it was of Trump to not commit to accepting the results...

 

Participating in a recount is not a denial of the results. A recount is part of our process. If after a recount and results are certified then someone refuses to accept the results, that is despicable.

Those are the facts. She won the popular vote by so much because of these 3 states. Their votes counted to the tune of 104 electoral votes and HRC still couldn't win the election. Trump did not campaign in California because the popular vote does not matter. The fact that a popular vote election would be campaigned differently than an electoral college election is lost on the, "but HRC won the popular vote" crowd. It is a ridiculous argument considering the system of how we elect the President.

 

If there were no electoral college, Hillary would have campaigned even more in the populous areas and Trump probably would have campaigned more in his strongholds. It becomes even more about getting your base voters fired up and voting if there is no electoral college. Nobody is traveling to Iowa or New Hampshire without the electoral college.

 

My point is a vote in Montana equals a vote in New York City when looking just at the popular vote. Should Hillary supporters be railing on about all those votes Trump got out in the countryside and rural areas?

Participating in a recount is not a denial of the results. A recount is part of our process. If after a recount and results are certified then someone refuses to accept the results, that is despicable.

 

A recount brought by someone that has zero chance of winning? Please.

A recount brought by someone that has zero chance of winning? Please.

 

Regardless of Jill Stein's motives for doing the recount, she is doing all of us a service. For all of you who were screaming that voting machines are rigged, the recount will verify that claim was nothing more than another false conspiracy theory.

Regardless of Jill Stein's motives for doing the recount, she is doing all of us a service. For all of you who were screaming that voting machines are rigged, the recount will verify that claim was nothing more than another false conspiracy theory.

 

Do you still think she is doing all of us a service if the recounts aren't complete by the deadline and they actually have to remove electoral votes, causing Trump to be below 270 and then Congress has to decide?

 

Hypothetical of course, but if that's how it plays out, I'm not sure she is doing us a service.

If there were no electoral college, Hillary would have campaigned even more in the populous areas and Trump probably would have campaigned more in his strongholds. It becomes even more about getting your base voters fired up and voting if there is no electoral college. Nobody is traveling to Iowa or New Hampshire without the electoral college.

 

My point is a vote in Montana equals a vote in New York City when looking just at the popular vote. Should Hillary supporters be railing on about all those votes Trump got out in the countryside and rural areas?

 

No. Hillary supporters need to suck it up and quit acting like they should have won the election because she won the meaningless popular vote. HRC lost and people need to get over it.

 

A popular vote election would have been campaigned differently by both parties.

It is impossible to know or project who would have won a popular vote election. That is my point.

Participating in a recount is not a denial of the results. A recount is part of our process. If after a recount and results are certified then someone refuses to accept the results, that is despicable.

 

:lol2: A simple, "I'm being hypocritical" would've sufficed....

No. Hillary supporters need to suck it up and quit acting like they should have won the election because she won the meaningless popular vote. HRC lost and people need to get over it.

 

A popular vote election would have been campaigned differently by both parties.

It is impossible to know or project who would have won a popular vote election. That is my point.

 

You guys are good. You can twist any statement into an outrageous complaint. I have to do a better job choosing my words because you all are experts at turning any statement into an attack or support for Hillary. I am trying to present an unbiased viewpoint and ask a general unbiased question. So let me try this again.

 

 

Here we go ...

 

My point is a vote in Montana equals a vote in New York City when looking at the popular vote. Why does it matter that one candidate got a lot more votes in the cities and the other candidate got a lot more votes in rural areas? If we are only looking at the total popular vote, what point is made by saying ... look, she won huge in a few cities/states - OR - look, he won by a huge amount in the rural areas?

Do you still think she is doing all of us a service if the recounts aren't complete by the deadline and they actually have to remove electoral votes, causing Trump to be below 270 and then Congress has to decide?

 

Hypothetical of course, but if that's how it plays out, I'm not sure she is doing us a service.

 

I am not worried about that. Are you really worried about that? Or is this more of Chicken Little?

Regardless of Jill Stein's motives for doing the recount, she is doing all of us a service. For all of you who were screaming that voting machines are rigged, the recount will verify that claim was nothing more than another false conspiracy theory.

 

I never said anything like that.

 

If you will refer to the claims being made by more whiny liberals that there were machine errors, with absolutely ZERO proof to base this assertion on, are what the recounts are predicated on.

 

I will say again, I have never in my life seen a side so butt hurt over an election. It is very telling as to the fabric of the Democratic Party.