Jump to content

Trump's Election Was A Whitelash!


drvoke
 Share

Recommended Posts

and Hillary received the most votes....as Gore did

 

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHA.... So she is also a loser. Will she be putting together boring documentaries now?

 

In any case, a large portion of democrat ballots were fakes so I reject the "she won the popular vote argument." Liberals routinely used to brag that they could steal any election within 10%. I guess that means Trump won by 11%. Well whatever, Trump won. California can vote to secede and join Mexico or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and Hillary received the most votes....as Gore did

But not in a majority of states. Learn how it works and why so you can stop making a dumb excuse. If California and NY was not considered at all trumps margin of victory would be even more staggering. The total vote count doesn't matter when 1 state CA has so many people clearly leaning left. POTUS is meant to represent the whole nation not just CA and NY. If you people can't accept that fact then please leave and represent your own communist country and leave the great free USA alone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Not legal ones. Over 2% of her vote was very likely illegal aliens.

Should that possiblity have happened, it wouldn't be 2% but more likely .2% or less. And since the total tally from the last time I checked wasn't over 100k and 100k of several double digit millions will be less than 1%.

 

why is the quote from the reformed by Vallerie Jarrett thug being amplified through the media?

 

Looks like politics as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Whitelash."

 

What an idiotic term.

 

As if white people don't have a right to have a say in things.

 

What about blacks who didn't give a damn about Obama's legacy?

What about the latinos who now face the specter of seeing either themselves or their families deported?

What about all the people who are going to lose their healthcare?

 

This is more appropriately called "Complacency Lash."

 

Six weeks ago the GOP was supposed to be on life support but now it controls Congress, POTUS, and in a few months, SCOTUS. So by all means, keeping shatting out stupid non-words. That and 5 dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

 

Or, for the first time in its history, the modern left can grow a pair and tell those that didn't vote that it's their fault this happened; to take some responsibility for their non-actions.

 

America just elected the most dangerous person to the Presidency that's ever been elected to that office, but it didn't have to happen. But it did. It's time to start getting honest so that the damage can be as limited as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should that possiblity have happened, it wouldn't be 2% but more likely .2% or less.

Here's a 2014 study (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973 ) that found more than 14 percent of non-citizens in 2008 and 2010 SELF REPORTED as being registered to vote. Now, of course, not all of them voted, but the study concluded that “based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote" "6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.” And we know that since 2010, there have been huge efforts by Democrats to increase not only illegal voter registration but encourage them to vote in our elections ... while making it easier, through motor voter and absentee ballots, to do so. No, sole result, I'll stand by my 2% and even say it's probably closer to 4% in the states with motor voter laws and masses of absentee ballots ... like California.

Van Jones, the next generation's replacement for Louis Farrakhan.

 

Van Jones is far more dangerous than Farrakhan because he tries harder to look reasonable.

 

He is a stealth communist who has already changed his spots once to try and hide that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a 2014 study (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973 ) that found more than 14 percent of non-citizens in 2008 and 2010 SELF REPORTED as being registered to vote. Now, of course, not all of them voted, but the study concluded that “based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote" "6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.” And we know that since 2010, there have been huge efforts by Democrats to increase not only illegal voter registration but encourage them to vote in our elections ... while making it easier, through motor voter and absentee ballots, to do so. No, sole result, I'll stand by my 2% and even say it's probably closer to 4% in the states with motor voter laws and masses of absentee ballots ... like California.

 

Van Jones is far more dangerous than Farrakhan because he tries harder to look reasonable.

 

He is a stealth communist who has already changed his spots once to try and hide that fact.

Self reported? Was it verified they actually did or just quoted as spoken? In reality someone can say anything and once in print becomes an eternal fact available to debate using the concept of anything is possible as limits to interpretation.

 

Oh, could some of those non-citizens be spouses of citizens not certified yet? Your facts are subject to many forms of being inaccurate while funda-mentally true and false simultaneously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self reported? Was it verified they actually did or just quoted as spoken?

 

Maybe it would help if you'd actually take the time to read the linked study before replying. It's all explained there. Here's just an excerpt:

 

The data used for this paper is from the 2008 and 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies, based on the files released by Stephen Ansolabehere, 2010 and Ansolabehere, 2011. The 2008 and 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES) were conducted by YouGov/Polimetrix of Palo Alto, CA as an internet-based survey using a sample selected to mirror the demographic characteristics of the U.S. population. In both years survey data was collected in two waves: pre-election in October, and then post-election in November. The questionnaire asked more than 100 questions regarding electoral participation, issue preferences, and candidate choices.

 

Four design characteristics make this survey uniquely valuable for our purposes. 1. It has an enormous sample size, which makes feasible sub-population analyses (n = 32,800 in 2008 and n = 55,400 in 2010). 2. It included a question about citizenship status. 3. Many non-citizens were asked if they voted, unlike other large surveys which filter out non-citizens before asking about voting. 4. Participation and registration were verified for at least some residents in nearly every state for the 2008 survey (Virginia state law barred voting verification).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a 2014 study (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973 ) that found more than 14 percent of non-citizens in 2008 and 2010 SELF REPORTED as being registered to vote.

That's a stunning number.

And don't forget Obama actually encouraging them to vote, telling them if they vote they are citizens, and that there would be no repercussions.

14% of 11 million is 1.5 million... More than enough to sway an election.

No wonder liberals oppose voter ID and cleaning up the voter registration lists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...