It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

When you hear wailing about a half million popular vote margin - remember this.

page: 3
25
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014

That is the part that the news media do not want to address, my husband and I have been keeping an eye on the final count, and you are right, after the final numbers are done, Trump will win the popular vote also.

But by then the denial disease will have eaten the brains of those that are screaming foul play and eradicate the electoral vote.




posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
I'm going to say what I said in the other thread that hasn't been responded to yet.

Your numbers are very disingenuous. You're saying Hillary won the popular vote, but that's only if you ignore the vote that occurred in Michigan by ascribing Obama 0 votes. So in this case they used the delegates to actually address the unfairness and properly assign delegates based on people who voted. NEUTRAL OBSERVERS declared that Obama received the most votes.

It would appear you didn't read the entire link you submitted.

The fact of the matter is, twice in the last two decades, democrats have won the popular vote and lost the election. Methinks you're the one that has no room to complain.


Oh, no. I wrote that Obama voluntarily removed his name from the ballot in Michigan.

Not disingenuous. As I said, Hillary won the popular vote (plurality) of votes cast by people for a candidate. 'Uncommitted' was a recognized status and no one has a right to attach another preference to them. That's the worst disenfranchisement there is.

Go back and listen to Harold Icke. That body of 30 party leaders had no right to substitute their judgement for those voters in awarding 'Uncommitted" and Hillary votes to Obama.

If he lost some of the popular vote due to his decision...tough crap. It doesn't change the fact that nearly 300,000 more people actually cast a vote for Hillary than Obama.

But maybe you are the kind of person that is ok with disenfranchisement except when you aren't.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

"Obama voluntarily removed his name"

The DNC invalidated the entire primary because Michigan wasn't allowed to move it forward. So some candidates removed their name from an invalid primary. They eventually had voting rights restored but that was after the fact.

It's so hardly comparable at all. And yes you're being extremely disingenuous. Obama would have lost Michigan according to exit polls, but still would have handily won the popular vote.

You can't take the fact that something was invalid, ascribe him zero, then he wins the nomination and THEN the votes are added to say he lost the popular vote. It doesn't work that way and it's extremely deceptive.

You're just going to have to learn to deal with the fact that dems have twice won the popular vote and lost the election and there's not a bit of hypocrisy with them being upset with that.


edit on 13-11-2016 by WhateverYouSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheSemiSkeptic
a reply to: Nikola014

No President-elect Trump did NOT win the popular vote.
Michigan has not finalized the vote total, so with out Michigan the vote totals (as of 11/11/2016) are;

President-elect Trump- 60,072,551
Secretary Clinton - 60,467,601

So as you can see Secretary Clinton has a lead. I can't say for certain she will win the popular vote but to say President-elect Trump won the popular vote, at this moment, is wrong.

I got this information from putting "election results 2016 USA" into Google.



He might been referring to the figures that had been adjusted to take into account voter fraud:

President-elect Trump- 60,072,551
Secretary Clinton - 11



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: WhateverYouSay

No...you're being disingenuous with hypotheticals. Had the candidates campaigned in Michigan many 'Uncommitted' voters might have committed and voted for Hillary, perhaps. You don't know...you are simply theorizing about votes. A lot of people stayed home and didn't vote, at all. Maybe a lot of Hillary voters stayed home because of bad decisions.

You cannot substitute your judgment for the judgment of 600,000 voters. You cannot assume to know how any of it would have played out if people made different decisions.

Using polling to determine how people might have voted for Obama if he wasn't a jackass and removed his name voluntarily....please.

And, BTW, Obama sent his lawyers into the DNC Rules & Bylaws committee and actually ARGUED the position that NO ONE'S votes should count. Now that is what I call tyranny.

Only after he got his way and took his unearned votes, did he decide it was ok for those defiled votes to count.
edit on 13-11-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm not theorizing about votes, unless you think he would have received 0 votes. You've already had to write paragraphs trying to explain away what happened, does it really sound like what happened in this general election? They moved the date and Obama and everyone else was told the vote would be invalidated, and it was until the convention. So no, nothing of what you have written is applicable. You're going to just have to suck it up.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm not theorizing about votes, unless you think he would have received 0 votes. You've already had to write paragraphs trying to explain away what happened, does it really sound like what happened in this general election? They moved the date and Obama and everyone else was told the vote would be invalidated, and it was until the convention. So no, nothing of what you have written is applicable. You're going to just have to suck it up.



Actually you can just suck it up. SHLURRRRP.

I think the vast majority of the MSM news on Trump was intended to make him look like a marginalized, bizarre, backward-thinking loser. TO COST HIM VOTES,

Yep. I sure do.

However, I also happen to think that Trump's longtime friendship with the Clintons is MEANINGFUL, not meaningless.

But, whatever. Mulling over how different decisions might have resulted in different vote counts is the very definition of *bullsh*t disenfranchisement and sore-losing.*

I'll take Trump. Leave this fvcking vote alone. I have been disenfranchised since 2000. I haven't voted for a winner since Bill Clinton, in 1996. BACK OFF. I am done with letting corrupt sh*theads manipulate our elections.

I absolutely hate Trump, but I'll take him before I relent to the overturning of this election. Test me. Keep pushing.
edit on 13-11-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Back off? From what? I don't care about a damn thing except pointing out that your comparison was incorrect. Bad comparisons and arguments are offensive to me.

You can love Trump all you want, or hate him, or whatever, I don't care.
edit on 13-11-2016 by WhateverYouSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: WhateverYouSay

Yep.

MY comparison of the ACTUAL vote, then, and the ACTUAL vote, now, is fair. Completely fair. How dare you call it disingenuous.


We can hypothesize about how many votes Trump would have earned without a complicit media in the tank for Hillary standing in his way, too. Or how much rigging we think could have gone on given our completely lax election laws-- we can argue and hypothesize all day about what the popular vote really is in this election if bad decisions weren't made.

But, I bet you still stick by the 'official count,' EXCEPT when it comes to Obama and the 2008 Democratic Primary. Then, AND ONLY THEN, do your hypotheses matter.

It's meaningless though...your hypotheses.

What matters is how people actually voted. And, in 2008, Hillary won the plurality. In your dreams did Obama win the plurality. Trump didn't either and I am not claiming he did under a hypothetical 'if only the media babied him' scenario.

So move along. You are the disingenuous one.


edit on 13-11-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, the comparison is extremely weak, and you are in denial.

They were told that the vote was going to be discarded (and it was effectively, they had to add it in for tallying so that Michigan could confirm Obama as the nominee, that's the only reason it was added back). Tell me how the fact they were told it was meaningless in 2008 has any relation on how this election happened? Please address this.


edit on 13-11-2016 by WhateverYouSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: WhateverYouSay

Oh, well, geez.. let's DO talk about how many votes that slanted, crap SPIN and the media propping of Hillary cost Trump. One vote? Millions?

Hypotheticals are a nothing. Maybe Obama would have won a vote in Michigan, maybe he would have won a million if he wasn't a complete jackass b*stard and pulled his name off the Michigan ballot.

Coulda woulda shoulda.

Bleh, who cares. All I know are the votes that were actually cast in this election and that one, in 2008, which Obama lost by nearly 300,000 votes.

He is not a messiah and hypotheticals and benefit of the doubt do not count for sh*t just because...Obama.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: WhateverYouSay

Bleh, who cares. All I know are the votes that were actually cast in this election and that one, in 2008, which Obama lost by nearly 300,000 votes.




You're having a hard time understanding this. This is not a hypothetical. She was on the ticket instead of Obama and others because the DNC said the votes would not count, and they didn't. They were added later so Michigan could confirm. There is nothing hypothetical about this.

Now, what in that paragraph would you like to argue with? Because if you don't address any of those sentences specifically, I'm going to assume that you know you're wrong.
edit on 13-11-2016 by WhateverYouSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: WhateverYouSay

Bleh, who cares. All I know are the votes that were actually cast in this election and that one, in 2008, which Obama lost by nearly 300,000 votes.




You're having a hard time understanding this. This is not a hypothetical. She was on the ticket instead of Obama and others because the DNC said the votes would not count, and they didn't.


WAIT A MINUTE!!!

They told Hillary one thing that convinced her it was worth keeping her name on the Michigan ballot and told Obama another thing to convince him to take his off?????

What?

*gasp* SO cruel and unfair!!!!

LOL. No they didn't. Obama knew the party leaders would meet later on and decide how to count the votes in Michigan. But he voluntarily took his name off the ballot and counted on the party leaders handing him more votes than he would have actually earned.

That's how the sh*tty DNC rolls, mofo!!!! Woot! They are cheating b*stards! They hate their own voters!

Nice try though.


edit on 14-11-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You're welcome to think that, and yeah the DNC sucks. Hillary and Chris Dodd left their names on the ballot and it would make sense to me because she thought she was going to win in the state, so it would be a 'moral victory' for momentum if nothing else, especially considering it was the first state to hold a primary so it could theoretically set the tone.
edit on 14-11-2016 by WhateverYouSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: WhateverYouSay

Yep. I am free to think my thoughts and cite actual facts to back them up.

You can cling to hypotheticals and call me disingenuous, too.

And they lived happily ever after. The end.


edit on 14-11-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Something else to remember, take away about 2-3 million illegal voters allowed to vote due to relaxed voting laws in some states (some don't even require ID...what???), and Hillary's lead vanishes completely in the popular vote.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join