@Kruiz_Bathory said:
@perfect_blue: this is why I should get Twitter. This guy is a real life troll
Loading Video...
:)
Wickerman777's forum posts
Immigration is the primary reason he won. Hell, immigration is also what is threatening to tear apart the EU right now. For decades polls have shown that Americans are against mass immigration from the 3rd world. And time and time again what the people want is ignored by politicians who continually ratchet up immigration instead.
@Serraph105 said:
@Wickerman777 said:
@Serraph105 said:
@Wickerman777 said:
Total waste of time and money. I don't remember how many votes were changed by the 2000 Florida recount but I do know it was barely anything. Results need to be hugely tighter than this for a recount to have any chance of changing things. But who knows, maybe this whole thing is a scam by Stein. Clinton seems to realize it's a waste of time.
I get the sense that Clinton understands the political difference of being the one to ask for a recount and a recount happening that she didn't ask for. If she asks for a recount and ends up winning people will likely see it as her working her inside contacts to make something happen that perhaps shouldn't. If someone else demands a recount and Hillary wins, Hillary can say that this isn't something she saw coming or had anything to do with, but the people should get what they want.
But it's a recount that's totally impossible to change anything. Wasn't the difference in Florida in 2000 only around 500 votes? Despite how close that was the recount still failed to accomplish anything. Hoping you can overturn a lead of 10,000 votes in a recount is like hoping for pigs to start flying.
There's no need to get worked up about it if you really think it won't make a difference. For the record I think it won't make a difference either, so let them recount a hundred times because the numbers are what they are.
I actually don't care. I'm just amazed at the stupidity of it and that donors are willing to flush money down the toilet for something that has no chance whatsoever. I also find it amusing that so much was made of Trump's refusal to say he'd automatically accept election results and here we are with leftists grasping for an impossible miracle to alter election results, lol.
@Serraph105 said:
@Wickerman777 said:
Total waste of time and money. I don't remember how many votes were changed by the 2000 Florida recount but I do know it was barely anything. Results need to be hugely tighter than this for a recount to have any chance of changing things. But who knows, maybe this whole thing is a scam by Stein. Clinton seems to realize it's a waste of time.
I get the sense that Clinton understands the political difference of being the one to ask for a recount and a recount happening that she didn't ask for. If she asks for a recount and ends up winning people will likely see it as her working her inside contacts to make something happen that perhaps shouldn't. If someone else demands a recount and Hillary wins, Hillary can say that this isn't something she saw coming or had anything to do with, but the people should get what they want.
But it's a recount that's totally impossible to change anything. Wasn't the difference in Florida in 2000 only around 500 votes? Despite how close that was the recount still failed to accomplish anything. Hoping you can overturn a lead of 10,000 votes in a recount is like hoping for pigs to start flying.
Total waste of time and money. I don't remember how many votes were changed by the 2000 Florida recount but I do know it was barely anything. Results need to be hugely tighter than this for a recount to have any chance of changing things. But who knows, maybe this whole thing is a scam by Stein. Clinton seems to realize it's a waste of time.
@bforrester420 said:
@Wickerman777 said:
@Seiki_sands said:
@Wickerman777 said:
Dude, there isn't 1 election, there's 50 of them. We're a republic after all, remember? And those 50 different elections do take account of the popular vote in each of their territories. He won the popular vote in more of those 50 states than she did, a lot more. The states she did win she carried by higher margins than he did the states he won. Big deal. Doesn't work the way you're talking about, has never worked that way. If it did work that way he would have campaigned differently, would have been stumping in different places than he did.
And your claim that someone in Wyoming gets 6 times as much credit for their vote as someone in California is complete and utter nonsense. That would only be true if they were each worth the same amount of electoral votes. But one is worth 55 and the other a mere 3, lol. Populations are taken account of when electoral values are assigned. The key here is that she simply didn't win enough states but won by large margins some of the ones she did win.
My claim about Wyoming is an approximation, based in fact.
Wyoming has about 186,000 people per electoral vote.
California has more than 650,000 people per electoral vote.
The electoral distribution is based loosely on population. The least populous states automatically get at least three, regardless of whether their population justifies three. There are five states that fall into this category.
Every state has a different amount of voters per elector. Just like every state has different number of legislators per voter, and the same complicated math applies. Yes, the number of congressman these states get is also bogus, not just because of the Senate. Smaller rural states are most benefited, or states that vote Republican and larger more urbanized states are punished, or states that vote Democratic.
If Wyoming gets 3, California should get a little over 200 and there should be more than 538 total. A total that hasn't changed since the 60s.
Yes, it does work the way I said. Yes, it has for a long time now. It's never been a fair distribution, but the current math was put in place in the Roosevelt presidency.
Whah, cry me a river. Neither of those matter much anyway as the swing states are where it's at. You've got a problem with Wyoming votes ... Well, now ya know how I feel about the California vote and the New Mexico vote, etc ... IE: states that have been invaded by Mexico voting democratic because the democrats encourage and give permission to the invasion so long as Mexicans agree to vote for democrats. California has been threatening to break off from the USA and become independent since the election results. Damn, I sure hope so! Take away that huge Mexican voting block and the country will be electing conservatives for the next 30-40 years. Won't happen though. Mexico is getting close to overrunning Texas. If and when that happens it's over for conservatism in America. California was a red state for 30 years before Mexico annexed it. Can't survive losing Texas to them too.
You're an idiot. California is the 6th largest economy on the planet and is responsible for 14% of the U.S. GDP. It's our 3rd largest producer of petroleum (tied with Alaska), the globe's leader in tech innovation, and the nation's largest agricultural producer.
They're also one of the most indebted states in the country. I'm willing to lose it if it means no more idiots in the Whitehouse obsessing over putting dudes in wigs in the ladies room while our jobs get shipped overseas.
And btw, when you say tech I think of physical products like phones, TVs, etc., not code. No way California is up there with Japan when it comes to actual tech.
@Treflis said:
@Seiki_sands said:
@Treflis said:
@Jacanuk said:
@Treflis said:
Just goes to show that every vote does not count.
Every vote does count, except in a state like California where liberals have such a huge foothold.
Other states is not like that, just look at Michigan where trump´s lead is less than 10k, and it has still not been called. Also not forgetting that 108 mill americans did not even vote.
So stop the whining about every vote not counting.
Not a whine, merely a observation.
Several candidates have had more popular votes then the other candidate in US history and lost, which means they are fundementally meaningless since Electoral votes is what matters. So why have Popular votes in the first place?
We don't have "popular votes," the states can't assign electors without counting the vote. They have to release those numbers so the people in their states know the results for the states. Sorry, but there is no hiding one's head in the sand.
Second, we have NEVER had anything close to this kind of gap between the popular and electoral vote. Trump already has a lower share of the vote than Romney. He won the electoral collage by a decent margin, yet she received a greater margin of actual voters than numerous winning campaigns.
Third, the gap between voting power is growing with each election as fewer people live in rural areas. Meaning this problem is getting worse and worse. Instead of 1 man 1 vote, the truth is if 1 Californian = 1 vote, 1 Wyomingite = 6 votes. In what universe is that morally acceptable?
Why do I get the feeling that I'm asking straight forward questions that seems to be overly analyzed as something else?
I've asked @Jacanuk twice now the same question on the sole basis that I am curious, now you weigh in and still it's as far from answered as possible. Instead I get that Popular votes does not exist in one paragraph and then it's mentioned that the gap between them and electoral votes has never been closer then before in the recent election. Meaning it then does exist.
So I'll try to bold the question and see if that helps.
What is the point of the popular vote when the electoral vote can overwrite it?, Does that not make the popular vote pointless? If not then what is it's purpose?
Keep in mind, I ain't American and I don't really care who runs the US. I am simply curious, I have an assumption but I want to know for sure wether it is correct or not. That is all.
Popular vote does matter. But it's the popular vote of each state that matters, not the combined popular vote of all the states.
@Seiki_sands said:
@Wickerman777 said:
@Seiki_sands said:
@dave123321 said:
I agree with the underlying principles of the current system. It needs some alterations to engage more people. Regardless people need to accept that trump won fair and square. Change the rules if you want but don't try and pretend we should look at the results through the lens of new rules.
Trump lost the popular vote. I say so what, we ain't a democracy and never have been.
Very few are saying throw out the results, but the results are an outrage.
The founders clearly intended to create a system that reflected the will of the people, this election did not.
We are signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:
"The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
There clearly is not equal suffrage. We are clearly in violation of human rights. No, someone in Wyoming should not get to vote 6 times relative to someone in California. At some point the Constitution will become contradictory, since without equal suffrage one cannot have equal protection of laws.
Dude, there isn't 1 election, there's 50 of them. We're a republic after all, remember? And those 50 different elections do take account of the popular vote in each of their territories. He won the popular vote in more of those 50 states than she did, a lot more. The states she did win she carried by higher margins than he did the states he won. Big deal. Doesn't work the way you're talking about, has never worked that way. If it did work that way he would have campaigned differently, would have been stumping in different places than he did.
And your claim that someone in Wyoming gets 6 times as much credit for their vote as someone in California is complete and utter nonsense. That would only be true if they were each worth the same amount of electoral votes. But one is worth 55 and the other a mere 3, lol. Populations are taken account of when electoral values are assigned. The key here is that she simply didn't win enough states but won by large margins some of the ones she did win.
My claim about Wyoming is an approximation, based in fact.
Wyoming has about 186,000 people per electoral vote.
California has more than 650,000 people per electoral vote.
The electoral distribution is based loosely on population. The least populous states automatically get at least three, regardless of whether their population justifies three. There are five states that fall into this category.
Every state has a different amount of voters per elector. Just like every state has different number of legislators per voter, and the same complicated math applies. Yes, the number of congressman these states get is also bogus, not just because of the Senate. Smaller rural states are most benefited, or states that vote Republican and larger more urbanized states are punished, or states that vote Democratic.
If Wyoming gets 3, California should get a little over 200 and there should be more than 538 total. A total that hasn't changed since the 60s.
Yes, it does work the way I said. Yes, it has for a long time now. It's never been a fair distribution, but the current math was put in place in the Roosevelt presidency.
Whah, cry me a river. Neither of those matter much anyway as the swing states are where it's at. You've got a problem with Wyoming votes ... Well, now ya know how I feel about the California vote and the New Mexico vote, etc ... IE: states that have been invaded by Mexico voting democratic because the democrats encourage and give permission to the invasion so long as Mexicans agree to vote for democrats. California has been threatening to break off from the USA and become independent since the election results. Damn, I sure hope so! Take away that huge Mexican voting block and the country will be electing conservatives for the next 30-40 years. Won't happen though. Mexico is getting close to overrunning Texas. If and when that happens it's over for conservatism in America. California was a red state for 30 years before Mexico annexed it. Can't survive losing Texas to them too.
@N30F3N1X said:
@dropthepj said:
Tyranny? Ha. It is the hateful behavior enabled by the message of the Trump campaign that is truly tyrannical. The racist xenophobes that were in hiding are now less afraid to oppress. It has made our country more divided. Neither candidate would "fix" this issue, but this isn't democracy. If the vote of the people actually chose our next President, people wouldn't be as outraged as they are now.
This^, is a load of bullshit.
Both sides are full of hateful behavior, except the hateful left actually wants to censor everyone who doesn't agree with its every view, even the most outlandish ones. That is half the reason why Trump got so many votes. Racist xenophobes are an extremely minute amount of people and the very fact that the left is focusing on them instead of cleaning up its own bullshit which it even refuses to acknowledge speaks volumes about how detached they are from the world they live in.
It wasn't Trump's campaign that made your country more divided. It was the left with its focus on petty inconsequential problems and its desire to label anyone who disagrees with it as social unacceptable. Trump was just the people's answer to it. If this isn't a huge wake up call for the left I don't know what is - people voted for a person who showed himself to be a moron loudmouth and who had one of the worst campaign runs in the history of the US just to give the left the middle finger for its current state of politics.
It's amazing to me how much time, energy, and vitriol libs have put into this transgender bathroom thing. You want to lose elections? Continue to obsess over shit like that.
@Seiki_sands said:
@dave123321 said:
I agree with the underlying principles of the current system. It needs some alterations to engage more people. Regardless people need to accept that trump won fair and square. Change the rules if you want but don't try and pretend we should look at the results through the lens of new rules.
Trump lost the popular vote. I say so what, we ain't a democracy and never have been.
Very few are saying throw out the results, but the results are an outrage.
The founders clearly intended to create a system that reflected the will of the people, this election did not.
We are signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:
"The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
There clearly is not equal suffrage. We are clearly in violation of human rights. No, someone in Wyoming should not get to vote 6 times relative to someone in California. At some point the Constitution will become contradictory, since without equal suffrage one cannot have equal protection of laws.
Dude, there isn't 1 election, there's 50 of them. We're a republic after all, remember? And those 50 different elections do take account of the popular vote in each of their territories. He won the popular vote in more of those 50 states than she did, a lot more. The states she did win she carried by higher margins than he did the states he won. Big deal. Doesn't work the way you're talking about, has never worked that way. If it did work that way he would have campaigned differently, would have been stumping in different places than he did.
And your claim that someone in Wyoming gets 6 times as much credit for their vote as someone in California is complete and utter nonsense. That would only be true if they were each worth the same amount of electoral votes. But one is worth 55 and the other a mere 3, lol. Populations are taken account of when electoral values are assigned. The key here is that she simply didn't win enough states but won by large margins some of the ones she did win.
Log in to comment