Jump to content

Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million , so why not have a coup?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 minutes ago, guilluamezenz said:

In what way is a leader legitimate if the plurality voted against him? explain that

Trump won the majority in 31 states.  That is the popular vote that counts in our elections.  

 

So what if he lost the popular vote, it consisted of dead people, fraudulent early ballots, many people voting more than once, and illegal alien voters that have no right to vote in America.

 

Trump estimated that those illegal votes were somewhere between 3 million and 4 million, which means that he did win the real national vote majority.

 

Besides, like I say,  you know it doesn't matter if you win the national majority,  right?  The thing that makes the President legitimate is they win the electoral college vote.  Trump own that at about 320 to 220.  So according to the constitution and the fed. election laws since the beginning of our Republic, this is how presidents are legitimized.

 

Pull you head out, do I need to give you a real lesson of our election process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zaro said:

Why not?

 

I'm glad you asked me. Because it boils everything down to referenda and mob rule. Referenda, for example, like Quebec independence or Brexit, are difficult to enact without some form of representative, and the losing side always nitpicks the specificity of the language to ensure people know what they were voting for, and it's never considered binding unless it's a total mandate. Mob rule because a handful of major metropolitan areas would be capable of making decisions for the entire country, which is self-evidently a poor way to run a country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, harryramar said:

I don't begrudge trump for not getting the popular votes but let's end this nonsense about how impeaching trump somehow disrespects the will of the voters.

and the voters did vote out the gop bums in the house .

 

It totally disrespects the will of the voters to impeach him for vague "crimes" and misdemeanors. The US has an electoral college so that the entire country has something resembling balanced representation. Trump won the election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kking said:

 

It totally disrespects the will of the voters to impeach him for vague "crimes" and misdemeanors. The US has an electoral college so that the entire country has something resembling balanced representation. Trump won the election. 

vague?

i'll have some of what you are smoking.

it is legal for me so not to worry....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Zaro said:
56 minutes ago, kking said:

Direct democracy is neither practical nor consistent with the constitution. 

Why not?

19 minutes ago, kking said:

I'm glad you asked me. Because it boils everything down to referenda and mob rule. Referenda, for example, like Quebec independence or Brexit, are difficult to enact without some form of representative, and the losing side always nitpicks the specificity of the language to ensure people know what they were voting for, and it's never considered binding unless it's a total mandate. Mob rule because a handful of major metropolitan areas would be capable of making decisions for the entire country, which is self-evidently a poor way to run a country.

 

All assertions for the convenience of a Republican partisan agenda.  The Electoral College is obsolete.  It was enacted when the Nation was a fraction of its present size and demographic makeup. 

 

The Electoral College today, has become nothing but another way to cheat in presidential elections.  It tilts the playing field in favor or the right.  No other nation with representative government has anything remotely like it.  At this point in history the Electoral College is nothing but partisan fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, kking said:

 

I'm glad you asked me. Because it boils everything down to referenda and mob rule. Referenda, for example, like Quebec independence or Brexit, are difficult to enact without some form of representative, and the losing side always nitpicks the specificity of the language to ensure people know what they were voting for, and it's never considered binding unless it's a total mandate. Mob rule because a handful of major metropolitan areas would be capable of making decisions for the entire country, which is self-evidently a poor way to run a country.

Bullsh*t. Majority rule is not mob rule. It's democracy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zaro said:

Bullsh*t. Majority rule is not mob rule. It's democracy

When the top 15 metro areas holds almost of third of the population of a country as geographically large and diverse as the US, that's mob rule. A third of the population with little or no recognition of the problems of rural America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kking said:

When the top 15 metro areas holds almost of third of the population of a country as geographically large and diverse as the US, that's mob rule. A third of the population with little or no recognition of the problems of rural America.

So mob rule by the hicks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, guilluamezenz said:

In what way is a leader legitimate if the plurality voted against him? explain that

this is a republic and not a democracy. the founders warned against pure democracy. i believe one of them was 

on record as saying something like......"democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kking said:

 

No...simply a more balanced representation from all states and regions, instead of just the cities.

No. You are saying a vote from Hicksville should count more than a vote from Boston

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

All assertions for the convenience of a Republican partisan agenda.  The Electoral College is obsolete.  It was enacted when the Nation was a fraction of its present size and demographic makeup. 

 

The Electoral College today, has become nothing but another way to cheat in presidential elections.  It tilts the playing field in favor or the right.  No other nation with representative government has anything remotely like it.  At this point in history the Electoral College is nothing but partisan fraud.

 The electoral college was an extremely prescient system to include in the constitution. The urban areas of the country have more than enough population to overrun any federal election. The fact is, realities in the cities are very different from realities in rural areas or small towns. Why do you want the nation imbalanced towards the needs and values of the city?

 

To characterize the E.C. as cheating is a little cheap, too. Yes, rural areas are more Christian and more conservative and therefore more Republican. That's incidental, though. It has nothing to do with the E.C. manipulating people values or beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zaro said:

No. You are saying a vote from Hicksville should count more than a vote from Boston

 

Yes. It balances out the system that favours clusters of people rather than the country as a whole. You ever heard the phrase "taxation without representation?" 

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...