Hillary Clinton: First Woman to win the people's vote for President of the United States

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
She's won more votes than anyone else on the ticket-- and that's what determines the Popular Vote.

It means more people supported her than anyone else on the ticket.

If I told you "Ok. I'm going to go to every protestant and Catholic I know and give them a financial payment out of taxpayer pockets for every child they have so that in 18 years the Christians will have a population majority even if most of them are only located in Oklahoma and Nebraska".... would you consider that a valid tactic that you would accept as "Well... guess they won!"

Because you keep pushing that popular vote narrative that's what is going to happen. And guess what... the "oppressors" *if* they mobilize will easily overwhelm if they start using the same tactics of the people they have been "oppressing".

Careful what you wish for. Think longer than 5 minutes from now.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Irishhaf

She's won more votes than anyone else on the ticket-- and that's what determines the Popular Vote.

It means more people supported her than anyone else on the ticket.

A democracy takes 50.1% if she didnt get that most of the voting country voted against her, your argument looks much weaker when you look at the entrire picture rather than a snap shot that benefits your propoganda.

originally posted by: DJW001

You're looking in the wrong place. Try looking in a dictionary. A popular mandate means that a leader's agenda is supported by a majority of the people. Trump failed to get a popular mandate. It's like he won a battle but is in danger of losing the war.

So your premise is that the President of the United States draws his/her powers from a dictionary?

p.s. I looked in the dictionary. "Popular Mandate" isn't there.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
This right here is the denial.

No, denial is thinking that Hillary Clinton won something.

It's pretty simple... If you think Trump is the pick of the people... well...

But I don't. Trump won the pick of the States. You know, the governmental entities that he will be the President of.

if that was the case, the popular vote would reflect that.

On the federal level, popular vote is for Representatives and (unfortunately) Senators. The Founders knew that mob mentality could not be trusted to hand over Executive power to a single person so they created the Electoral College to prevent the whim of population centers from drowning out the voices of the nation.

The fact that he did not win people's vote will haunt him his whole Presidency...

Doubtful, but I expect people with a lack of civics knowledge will keep harping on it daily. Like you seem to.

just as it did Bush after losing the popular vote to Gore. Fact is more people voted for Hillary than Trump.

Yes, we know. And thank God for the EC. And it didn't 'haunt' Bush one iota.

She's won the vote of the people by over 2 million votes.

and...?

The first woman to do it,

Good for her. Atta girl!

and she won by more votes than anyone in U.S. history to not be elected President. Quite the injustice.

If the President were voted in by popular vote, it sure would be.

But they aren't.

So HIllary lost the Presidency.

And you can't let it go.

But Trump did win the Presidency

Because he got more electoral votes.

And people say "but but popular"

Because they don't learn history or civics.

Try learning some.

To put another way, no President-elect in History has ever lost the popular vote as badly as Trump has.

Good thing the popular vote has nothing to do with electing a Chief Executive. If it did, boy, leftists might try to tell us Trump isn't the President Elect of the United States.

But he is.

Because the States elected him.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Irishhaf

She's won more votes than anyone else on the ticket-- and that's what determines the Popular Vote.

It means more people supported her than anyone else on the ticket.

More people in 20 states supported her than Trump.

In the other 30 states, more people supported Trump than her. With more Electoral Votes.

Guess which vote actually matters?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I'm not sure how any American can feel good gloating about people's votes not mattering.

I think it's interesting how some are so unreasonable that they can't even accept that Hillary Clinton won the Popular Vote...

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I'm not sure how any American can feel good gloating about people's votes not mattering.

Absolutely their votes mattered.

In their states.

As was intended.

I think it's interesting how some are so unreasonable that they can't even accept that Hillary Clinton won the Popular Vote...

I think it's interesting how you keep thinking that matters...

I can see what you're saying but actually, the only reason Hillary won the popular vote is largely because she won ONE hugely populated, hugely left-wing county in CA. There should be a new office created--President of California or President of Los Angeles haha. That would be best instead of their skewing an election and being misrepresentative of most of the country with their disproportionate amount of electoral votes and monster population.

No offense, but you seem obsessed with this. But again, I understand needing a coping mechanism when dealing with a traumatic event. Cold comfort, nevertheless. As a Trump supporter from way back when he announced, I certainly would've been pissed too if the roles were reversed!

a reply to: Teikiatsu

So your premise is that the President of the United States draws his/her powers from a dictionary?

No, they derive their powers from we, the people. The Constitution puts limits on the power of the Federal government and outlines how the President can be removed from office if necessary. Richard Nixon lost his popular mandate and look what happened. Trump is starting out without one.

It's coming out that 3 million dead people voted for Hillary now, and 4 million illegal aliens, so Hillary's so called popular vote is nullified.

Plus Jill Stein is doing these recounts in 4 states where Trump won by a narrow margin, and not of course in any states where Hillary won by a narrow margin, even though voter fraud was already discovered and publicly announced in those states.

The corruption level is astonishing.

It isn't going to work

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
It's coming out that 3 million dead people voted for Hillary now, and 4 million illegal aliens, so Hillary's so called popular vote is nullified.

According to which fake news site?

a reply to: DJW001

You already know it's true as do all hardcore extreme Hillary corruption supporters. It's just that you don't care because the end justifies the means to force her into the white-house at any cost. Even at the cost of your own soul.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

It's bordering on pathetic to celebrate somebody's political achievements based alone on their sex/gender. It takes a highly superficial, sexist and narrow-minded individual to prioritise gender above merit when it comes to voting for somebody.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: spiritualzombie

It's bordering on pathetic to celebrate somebody's political achievements based alone on their sex/gender. It takes a highly superficial, sexist and narrow-minded individual to prioritise gender above merit when it comes to voting for somebody.

Agreed. It's a pity so many people voted for Trump because Jill Stein is a woman.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: DJW001

You already know it's true as do all hardcore extreme Hillary corruption supporters. It's just that you don't care because the end justifies the means to force her into the white-house at any cost. Even at the cost of your own soul.

I don't support Clinton corruption, I oppose Trump corruption. So, got a source for your claim or are you just making things up like Trump?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: spiritualzombie

It's bordering on pathetic to celebrate somebody's political achievements based alone on their sex/gender. It takes a highly superficial, sexist and narrow-minded individual to prioritise gender above merit when it comes to voting for somebody.

Also pathetic that women were denied voting rights based on their sex alone until 1920.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: spiritualzombie

It's bordering on pathetic to celebrate somebody's political achievements based alone on their sex/gender. It takes a highly superficial, sexist and narrow-minded individual to prioritise gender above merit when it comes to voting for somebody.

Also pathetic that women were denied voting rights based on their sex alone until 1920.

Yes, thst is disgustiing that womens rights were limited, but praising someone just because she is the first woman to run for president, and ignoring how much of a horrible person she is is just wrong!

Every person who has tried to argue with me on this on this thread, has chosen to just ignore all the bad things she has done.

It annoys the hell out of me and shows what people are really like, and how they worship this people like mini gods or something.

Thank God i am not bringing up my daughter like this!

a reply to: Jay-morris

Every person who has tried to argue with me on this on this thread, has chosen to just ignore all the bad things she has done.

It might help if you acknowledge how horrible Donald Trump is.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Also pathetic that women were denied voting rights based on their sex alone until 1920.

Yes, but that has rightfully been rectified. It's 2016 and in most parts of the world and especially in the West, woman are bound only by the limits of their minds. They can be politicians, pilots, engineers, doctors, CEOs, directors, artists etc.. They can pretty much do anything they want and are not excluded like in the past.

Moreover, there have been, are and will be more female Prime Ministers and Presidents. A shame that feminists such as yourself are stuck in the past.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Jay-morris

Every person who has tried to argue with me on this on this thread, has chosen to just ignore all the bad things she has done.

It might help if you acknowledge how horrible Donald Trump is.

Have i ever stated that trump is a great person? Again , you people ignore the fact that Hillary has done terrible things, but go on about how bad trump is.

Can you not seriously see the hypocrisy in this?

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Jay-morris

Every person who has tried to argue with me on this on this thread, has chosen to just ignore all the bad things she has done.

It might help if you acknowledge how horrible Donald Trump is.

Have i ever stated that trump is a great person? Again , you people ignore the fact that Hillary has done terrible things, but go on about how bad trump is.

Can you not seriously see the hypocrisy in this?

They seriously can't see their own hypocrisy.