If you wanted to rig your enemies election...

you are arguing that legally, it shouldnt have anything to do with electing the president.

I'm not arguing what anything should be legally, I'm simply explaining to you how the United States elects presidents.

im pointing out, that due to contemporary custom, delegates vote according to the popular vote of their constituents.

Custom is not law. And how the people vote in Maine has no bearing on where California's electoral votes go.

The popular vote counts the total number of votes each candidate received nationwide. If the popular vote decided the election, Hillary Clinton would be the president.

the electoral vote is quite intertwined with the pop vote at the moment.

No, it isn't. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. She did not win the election. No amount of semantics will ever change that.

say that it legally shouldnt be that way all you want, but it is that way.

No, it isn't. Who won the popular vote, and who won the election?

and you never really answered another one of my questions. you call the popular vote a joke. how is what most americans want, a joke?

Because most Americans don't have an adequate understanding of the electoral system, this nation's history, the values it was founded on, or the reasons why our Founding Fathers created a Constitutional Republic over a democracy.

and im not saying that we should choose the pres by pop vote, as ive already mentioned that i dont believe this to be the case. but ill not be saying stupid shit like, the popular vote is a joke.

It is a joke. Who won the popular vote, and who won the election? The popular vote does not determine who the president is. If it did, Hillary Clinton would be the president and not Donald Trump.
 
Shit, you might be right for once:

Donald Trump - 304

Hillary Clinton - 227


Or do those numbers not count?


That’s not total votes tho. I’m not disagreeing on how an election is won you know. That is a different conversation.

If we’re talking about most votes combined she had the most. I don’t know what the big deal is to agree with that statement
 
That’s not total votes tho. I’m not disagreeing on how an election is won you know. That is a different conversation.

If we’re talking about most votes combined she had the most. I don’t know what the big deal is to agree with that statement

Because winning the most votes is not the same as winning a majority of votes. And neither decides who the president will be, nor should they. So what is YOUR point?
 
You are creating an imaginary situation and ascribing motive to it. A "rigger" could want whatever you imagine they want.

The fact is that the U.S. is not and was never designed to be a democracy, and the "popular vote" was never how we were going to decide an election. What your imaginary "riggers" want is irrelevant.

And I quote
"If you were a world leader and wanted to rig your enemies election which of the following would be desirable outcomes?"

Which bit is confusing you?

I used small words and everything.
 
Why is it so hard to understand what a majority means? Christ. Hillary did not get the majority of votes. That would require more than 50%. She got a plurality.




I don't even know what you're arguing here. Yes she lost the electorate but she had more total votes against the other people she was up against.
 
Because winning the most votes is not the same as winning a majority of votes. And neither decides who the president will be, nor should they. So what is YOUR point?


Only a handful of people are having a hard time grasping who received more votes. You happen to be one of them.

But for the hundredth time, no one is arguing that she lost the electorate. So for heavens sake please stop saying that.
 
Rig is the wrong word, attempted to influence it and have continued to try to sow and add jet fuel to discord among Americans with differing political ideologies, of course they do that, mainstream republicans including GW Bush have said this unequivocally. Look at the news that came out over the weekend in the NYT of how their intelligence community tried to frame the US intelligence community as trying to get dirt on Trump, and how Trump took the bait and totally mischaracterized the story (per the author of the story) to add to his victim narrative. I truly hope that Trump is just being naive in his attempts to keep his head about water, that the Russians are just fucking with the US intelligence community, and this isn't part of some quid pro quo.




Jet fuel dont melt steel
 
This has been a fun thread.
@Starman slapping fools down. Then slapping down the reinforcements.

Seems only @KONG-D'SNT-TAP has failed to realise that his side made a stupid point.
 
JFK also had high moral fiber count. Is there a pattern here?
 
And I quote
"If you were a world leader and wanted to rig your enemies election which of the following would be desirable outcomes?"

Which bit is confusing you?

I used small words and everything.

Nothing is confusing to me, though you seem to be having a bit of trouble separating reality from fantasy.

You asked "If you were a world leader and wanted to rig your enemies election which of the following would be desirable outcomes?"

That is literally a second conditional sentence [if + past tense, would + base verb]. We use second conditional sentences to talk about unreal situations, imaginary situations, impossible situations, or unlikely situations.

As I said earlier, your entire premise is imaginary. You are imagining "riggers", and asking us to imagine "riggers" as well. It's not real. It didn't happen. You are asking us what we think imaginary riggers would want in your imaginary situation.

As I told you, imaginary riggers could want whatever you imagine they wanted. It has no bearing or connection with reality whatsoever.

Maybe you should stick to reality rather than unfounded, unsubstantiated, imaginary hypotheticals.
 
Only a handful of people are having a hard time grasping who received more votes. You happen to be one of them.

And you are having a hard time grasping mathematics. Hillary had more votes than Trump, but not a majority of the votes. Right or wrong?

But for the hundredth time, no one is arguing that she lost the electorate. So for heavens sake please stop saying that.

Then what are you arguing? We all know she won the popular vote, genius. The problem is that you got all stupid and snarky when I said she didn't win the majority of the votes, to which you replied:

Lol oh is that how math works

Yes. It is how math works. Do you now admit my statement was correct all along?
 
Nothing is confusing to me, though you seem to be having a bit of trouble separating reality from fantasy.

You asked "If you were a world leader and wanted to rig your enemies election which of the following would be desirable outcomes?"

That is literally a second conditional sentence [if + past tense, would + base verb]. We use second conditional sentences to talk about unreal situations, imaginary situations, impossible situations, or unlikely situations.

As I said earlier, your entire premise is imaginary. You are imagining "riggers", and asking us to imagine "riggers" as well. It's not real. It didn't happen. You are asking us what we think imaginary riggers would want in your imaginary situation.

As I told you, imaginary riggers could want whatever you imagine they wanted. It has no bearing or connection with reality whatsoever.

Maybe you should stick to reality rather than unfounded, unsubstantiated, imaginary hypotheticals.

Yes I was VERY CLEARLY asking about an imaginary hypothetical. Why can't I do that?
 
Yes I was VERY CLEARLY asking about an imaginary hypothetical. Why can't I do that?

You can. I just questioned your logic of a "rigger" wanting a candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election when the popular vote doesn't decide the presidency.

What impact do your imaginary riggers in your imaginary world think this would have?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,816
Messages
55,309,384
Members
174,732
Latest member
herrsackbauer
Back
Top