Elections Former Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton: The Electoral College "Needs To Be Eliminated"

[lilelvis]

Let's be civil shall we?

Republicans were just naturally easier to rope into cooperate corruption because they were already tied to big bussinss. Democrats used to be less suseptible to this because once upon a time time were the party of the blue collar worker.

Dems saw how easy it was to raise money serving corporate money and began to migrate that direction. Then as the Dems shifted further towards bribery the right also shifted towards bribery and now we are not really a democracy anymore.

Democrats also used to be the party of slavery, Jim Crow and voted against civil rights and voting rights. FDR abolished the gold standard. Woodrow Wilson (d) presided over the creation of the Federal Reserve giving the banks the ability to set interest rates.

My point is, money has run ALL politics for centuries and it's naive to throw blame anywhere other than the individuals that made the policy.

Also, mob rule is not the answer. I like @sub_thug 's idea above... Maybe some term limits... and death to anyone violating their oath to uphold the constitution..

 

[Steve-French]

When Trunp got an R next to his name, he won Texas.

Actually if you take away both Texas and California Trump would have won the popular vote. @Jack V Savage tried to argue that I was wrong about this in another thread and I broke down the numbers. Then he ghosted me. It's funny when adults can't admit when they're wrong.

 

[sambobeer]

Actually if you take away both Texas and California Trump would have won the popular vote. @Jack V Savage tried to argue that I was wrong about this in another thread and I broke down the numbers. Then he ghosted me. It's funny when adults can't admit when they're wrong.

And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.

 

[7437]

Actually if you take away both Texas and California Trump would have won the popular vote. @Jack V Savage tried to argue that I was wrong about this in another thread and I broke down the numbers. Then he ghosted me. It's funny when adults can't admit when they're wrong.

........ if less people had voted for Clinton, Trump would have more votes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Actually if you take away both Texas and California Trump would have won the popular vote. @Jack V Savage tried to argue that I was wrong about this in another thread and I broke down the numbers. Then he ghosted me. It's funny when adults can't admit when they're wrong.

That's not what happened. It's sad when adults feel the need to lie about past interactions.

 

[Steve-French]

........ if less people had voted for Clinton, Trump would have more votes.

 

[Steve-French]

That's not what happened. It's sad when adults feel the need to lie about past interactions.

You got proven wrong and stopped replying to me in this thread. What's hilarious is that you accused me of not being able to proccess things because of tribal allegiances <Lmaoo>

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/being-liberal-whats-it-really-mean-now-a-days.3688677/page-2

 

[Steve-French]

Lol...

 

[Jack V Savage]

You got proven wrong and stopped replying to me in this thread. What's hilarious is that you accused me of not being able to proccess things because of tribal allegiances <Lmaoo>

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/being-liberal-whats-it-really-mean-now-a-days.3688677/page-2

You didn't read through the thread, did you? I linked a source, you said your source was more up to date (and were weirdly aggro about it), and I said, "Er, OK. Weird defensiveness there. I'm pointing to the data I saw when I looked it up myself; not arguing against your source," you got mad, and I said:

I looked up the numbers and came up with that. If additional votes came in that flipped it, fine. And what I'm talking about is how in this particular election, you think it's good that some Americans have less say in governance. Had it gone the other way, you would be saying it's bad. You're not arguing out of any principle; you're just hacking it up.

...

Incorrect. Do the math with the source I found (the one that shows up on a Google search without sending to a link). I grant that there could be a better source. Not arguing with that. Broader point is that it's a stupid way to evaluate the election that applies both ways. "If you take out areas that Candidate A won by a lot, Candidate B would have won."

Whereas your claim was that you corrected it and I "ghosted you" and didn't admit any error. Whoops. Now that you've been caught lying, what will your next move be?

And, my point about tribal allegiances was good. You don't have any principled defense for the EC. You just think that since it helped your "side," it was good.

 

[Steve-French]

You didn't read through the thread, did you? I linked a source, you said your source was more up to date (and were weirdly aggro about it), and I said, "Er, OK. Weird defensiveness there. I'm pointing to the data I saw when I looked it up myself; not arguing against your source," you got mad, and I said:



Whereas your claim was that you corrected it and I "ghosted you" and didn't admit any error. Whoops. Now that you've been caught lying, what will your next move be?

And, my point about tribal allegiances was good. You don't have any principled defense for the EC. You just think that since it helped your "side," it was good.

You never conceded to being wrong in that thread and stopped responding. There is no need to be dishonest here Jack. I even posted the link and screen shots.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You never conceded to being wrong in that thread and stopped responding. There is no need to be dishonest here Jack. I even posted the link and screen shots.

What do you call the bit I quoted? And then I responded to all your posts except the one that was just a repeat.

Incorrect. Do the math with the source I found (the one that shows up on a Google search without sending to a link). I grant that there could be a better source. Not arguing with that. Broader point is that it's a stupid way to evaluate the election that applies both ways. "If you take out areas that Candidate A won by a lot, Candidate B would have won."

 

[Steve-French]

What do you call the bit I quoted? And then I responded to all your posts except the one that was just a repeat.

Holy fuck dude... Do you really buy into your own bullshit or are you trying to troll me? You literally told me incorrect then I corrected you with YOUR source. After that you didn't respond. See post number 127 in that thread.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Holy fuck dude... Do you really buy into your own bullshit or are you trying to troll me? You literally told me incorrect then I corrected you with YOUR source. After that you didn't respond. See post number 127 in that thread.

I posted the info from my source earlier in the thread. Not sure what your panties are in a bunch about if that's all this is. I granted that later sources would be more accurate. What else do you want there?

Anyway, the approach is stupid. "If you don't count a lot of people who voted for Clinton, Trump got more votes." True. And if you don't count a lot of people who voted for Trump, Clinton won the popular vote by an even bigger margin. And if you count everyone, as any reasonable person would, Clinton won the PV.

 

[Steve-French]

I posted the info from my source earlier in the thread. Not sure what your panties are in a bunch about if that's all this is. I granted that later sources would be more accurate. What else do you want there?

Anyway, the approach is stupid. "If you don't count a lot of people who voted for Clinton, Trump got more votes." True. And if you don't count a lot of people who voted for Trump, Clinton won the popular vote by an even bigger margin. And if you count everyone, as any reasonable person would, Clinton won the PV.

1. You said that if you took away Texas and California Hillary Clinton would have still won the popular vote.

2. I crunched the numbers and proved you wrong.

3. You cited another source and told me to do the math still claiming that Hillary would have won the popular vote if you took away California and Texas.

4. I crunched the numbers from your source and you were proven wrong again.

5. You left the thread after that without conceding.

I agree that this is a very pointless and dumb thing to argue about, but it's more about the fact that you are being dishonest and can't admit when you're wrong.

 

[Jack V Savage]

1. You said that if you took away Texas and California Hillary Clinton would have still won the popular vote.

2. I crunched the numbers and proved you wrong.

3. You cited another source and told me to do the math still claiming that Hillary would have won the popular vote if you took away California and Texas.

4. I crunched the numbers from your source and you were proven wrong again.

5. You left the thread after that without conceding.

I agree that this is a very pointless and dumb thing to argue about, but it's more about the fact that you are being dishonest and can't admit when you're wrong.

Yikes. So note that I immediately said that I wasn't arguing with your source, only showing where I got the numbers I quoted. Then I said after you got mad at me not arguing with your source, " I grant that there could be a better source. Not arguing with that." and continued to discuss more-pertinent issues. To you, that was "ghosting you" and not acknowledging an error. Step back a minute and think about this. Don't you think that maybe you sound like an unhinged loon? What do you think about the EC and the retarded argument that if you don't count a lot of voters, the outcome would be different? If you don't count the rounds that GSP won, Shields beat him.

Why the handle change, BTW?

 

[Steve-French]

Yikes. So note that I immediately said that I wasn't arguing with your source, only showing where I got the numbers I quoted. Then I said after you got mad at me not arguing with your source, " I grant that there could be a better source. Not arguing with that." and continued to discuss more-pertinent issues. To you, that was "ghosting you" and not acknowledging an error. Step back a minute and think about this. Don't you think that maybe you sound like an unhinged loon? What do you think about the EC and the retarded argument that if you don't count a lot of voters, the outcome would be different? If you don't count the rounds that GSP won, Shields beat him.

Why the handle change, BTW?

This isn't the point you were literally arguing that Hillary would have won the popular vote if you took away Texas and California. You tried to use a different source and told me to do the math. I did the math and even with your source you were wrong, because you were claiming that Hillary would have still one the popular vote without Texas and California.

The point is not the stupid argument about voting numbers minus California and Texas, the point as that you are trying to lie about what you did and said. Now that I see that you are resorting to strawmanning and name calling, I will take this as your concession.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This isn't the point you were literally arguing that Hillary would have won the popular vote if you took away Texas and California.

As opposed to figuratively? I did a search and looked at the results and that was what I came up with. Was beside the point anyway. Then you did some more research and found a later source that showed Trump wins with that stupid method, and I didn't argue with you.

The point is not the stupid argument about voting numbers minus California and Texas, the point as that you are trying to lie about what you did and said. Now that I see that you are resorting to strawmanning and name calling, I will take this as your concession.

Actually, the point is, indeed, the stupid argument. Or rather whether the stupid argument is significant in any way. I say no. And where do you think you see a strawman? I don't recall calling you a name, but I can think of a few that apply, given your strange behavior.