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.

 

California main reason for Clintons popular vote win

page: 5
34
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: imjack




Over complicating? I'm suggesting we just use a popular vote BASED on the previous systems electorate power.


So keep the electoral college then?

It's amazing to me you don't realize why this sounds so stupid.


"The college" is the part that would be removed.

The way it distributes voter power would be the infrastructure for balancing a popular vote. You're only angry because you're hearing words you just don't like. It's pretty funny that "popular vote" triggers you, you do understand in many aspects the Popular vote applies to the election and state electorates, and the one that possibly matters least is the country wide popular vote. Despite all this, you just hate the phrase. I'm suggesting a medium that you only hate because it doesn't comform to your narrative. You're beyond busted, and my idea first is oppressive, and then is stupid when I break it down completely because you just don't get it. You can create equivalencies in voter power and just measure the popular vote to get the exact same result the EC would. It's simple math, you just hate it because the words.

You keep calling it stupid, give me reasons we need faithless electors.
edit on 20-12-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack




You're beyong busted, and my idea first is oppressive, and then is stupid when I break it down completely because you just don't get it. You can create equivalencies in voter power and just measure the popular vote to get the exact same result the EC would.


Your idea is stupid because it makes no sense.

If the results are the same as having the EC then why get rid of the EC at all?

Then to distribute multiple votes per voter is even dumber and you think this is simply a matter of mathematics.

This is my last post to you since you're just doubling down on your own idiocy.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Now you can't differentiate between:
the EC(Who are electors) and the EC(the system).

I'm done. Talking to a wall. Not to mention you can't fathom how it would work without the EC but be based on the EC. The EC is essentially based on population you ******. You're probably Cousins with the Shrillary reps that run your state. Got to defend them electors against any proposed identical system without them.

edit on 20-12-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: RazorV66
How are the secession talks going out there in Cal?
Are they getting close to really doing it?, is there any way I can help to speed up the process?
California - the capital of Liberal mental illness


I have never heard that California wants to secede. People form Texas and people in the Texas state government have said it many times, though.

In a recent poll, Trump voters stated that California shound't have been nor should be, in future, included in the popular vote. ATS





posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBulk

If anyone succeeds, it will be multiple states at the same time.

Colorado, Texas and California hate the Fed and are the only big players in acting against them.

It's ironic people say California and Texas can't succeed, when they have economies larger than countries. Both of them together are a huge chunk of tax revenue.
edit on 20-12-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Not to mention the fact that California wouldn't last two days without the water!



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei


I guess it's only a bad thing until you win, right?


I admittedly had the same feeling about the EC. And it was ignorance that kept that thought in my head. This is the first year I actually paid close enough attention to things to fully understand the process. You may hear me bitch about the winners and losers in the future, but you won't hear me whine about the EC, it makes so much sense it was genius to have had the vision to put that in the Constitution.

Don't worry, Trump will say lots of stupid things you will get to make threads about in the future.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: LumenImagoDei

Yup, just like it's a good thing until you lose. Welcome to Earth.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: liveandlearn

California is not the main reason for Clinton's popular vote win.

California is the *ONLY* reason.

If you add up the popular vote totals for *all* other 49 other states combined - Trump wins the popular vote.

And that includes NY where Clinton had a very large margin of victory.

Neither CA nor any other single state or two gets to pick the President of the United States. We are the 50 United STATES of America.

Period.


Texas is the *ONLY* reason.

If you add up the Electoral vote totals for *all* other 49 other states combined - Trump loses the Electoral vote.

And that includes Florida where Trump had a very small margin of victory.

Neither TX nor any other single state or two gets to pick the President of the United States. We are the 50 United STATES of America.

Period.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: liveandlearn

California is not the main reason for Clinton's popular vote win.

California is the *ONLY* reason.

If you add up the popular vote totals for *all* other 49 other states combined - Trump wins the popular vote.

And that includes NY where Clinton had a very large margin of victory.

Neither CA nor any other single state or two gets to pick the President of the United States. We are the 50 United STATES of America.

Period.


Texas is the *ONLY* reason.

If you add up the Electoral vote totals for *all* other 49 other states combined - Trump loses the Electoral vote.

And that includes Florida where Trump had a very small margin of victory.

Neither TX nor any other single state or two gets to pick the President of the United States. We are the 50 United STATES of America.

Period.


not sure you understand this thread. It was about Clinton and the popular vote, not the EC and the winning of Trump.
California is why She had the popular vote. If you feel that is incorrect, please show the math.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
There's reason many Americans are rooting for the cascadia fault in this one.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: liveandlearn

California is not the main reason for Clinton's popular vote win.

California is the *ONLY* reason.

If you add up the popular vote totals for *all* other 49 other states combined - Trump wins the popular vote.

And that includes NY where Clinton had a very large margin of victory.

Neither CA nor any other single state or two gets to pick the President of the United States. We are the 50 United STATES of America.

Period.


Texas is the *ONLY* reason.

If you add up the Electoral vote totals for *all* other 49 other states combined - Trump loses the Electoral vote.

And that includes Florida where Trump had a very small margin of victory.

Neither TX nor any other single state or two gets to pick the President of the United States. We are the 50 United STATES of America.

Period.


not sure you understand this thread. It was about Clinton and the popular vote, not the EC and the winning of Trump.
California is why She had the popular vote. If you feel that is incorrect, please show the math.


I was making a point that removing 1 state you don't like because it voted against your candidate is a dumb and fruitless endeavor.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: bender151

Traditionally, it's far left Democrats against the EC. Whatever you just said makes sense, just doesn't follow reality.


Reality #2 is that it's been popular recently for moderate/middle Republican's to criticize the EC. Exhibit A. the Trump tweet.
edit on 20-12-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: liveandlearn

California is not the main reason for Clinton's popular vote win.

California is the *ONLY* reason.

If you add up the popular vote totals for *all* other 49 other states combined - Trump wins the popular vote.

And that includes NY where Clinton had a very large margin of victory.

Neither CA nor any other single state or two gets to pick the President of the United States. We are the 50 United STATES of America.

Period.


Texas is the *ONLY* reason.

If you add up the Electoral vote totals for *all* other 49 other states combined - Trump loses the Electoral vote.

And that includes Florida where Trump had a very small margin of victory.

Neither TX nor any other single state or two gets to pick the President of the United States. We are the 50 United STATES of America.

Period.


not sure you understand this thread. It was about Clinton and the popular vote, not the EC and the winning of Trump.
California is why She had the popular vote. If you feel that is incorrect, please show the math.


I was making a point that removing 1 state you don't like because it voted against your candidate is a dumb and fruitless endeavor.


But doesn't that kind of solidify why the EC exists and is the way things work? I thought that was the reason behind this thread and others like it.

If Texas had more people in it than CA and most of them were Republicans, you can bet you folks would be against using the popular vote. If not, then Texas would choose the president each year and the tears would be a never ending story.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
There is no national popular vote.

Period.

The popular vote takes place in each state. Those states then place electors based on the majority of voters for that state.

This whole popular vote BS is just another way for people to cry about their candidate not winning.



Though it's fun to point out that, when considering the popular vote at state level, Trump won the popular vote in 60% of states, while Clinton only won in 40% of states.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: liveandlearn


HONEST QUESTION. Would the USA, as a whole, suffer in any meaningful way, if California became it's own country?



Ahh. First you have to ask "how much of California would split off?"

There have been proposals to split California up for years, with a lot of the staunch republican areas unhappy at being controlled by the democratic cesspits. If the Democratic-lead portion of the state wanted out of the Union, there would be a significant geographical area (especially in the north) that would want to stay in. How would they be handled?

Then you would need to look at geographical dependence. Cali generates a tremendous amount of money, but how much of that business would remain there? If your primary customer is the US government, will it be financially better for your business to move a few hundred miles to the East rather than screw around with cross-border regulations?

It's an interesting but complex question.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

yeah take away Clinton's 4.5 million California votes and Trumps beats her by 1.3 million votes with the rest of the states.

This is why the Electoral college was set up so one group in one location cannot put in their special interest candidate over the rest of the people. The founding fathers were smart.

Just wait now the liberals will want to get congress to get rid of the electoral College all together.

You know what was even sweeter is that Trump lost 2 electorate defectors while Hillary lost 5. And if it wasn't for two electorate being replaced because they wouldn't vote for Hillary she would have lost 7.
edit on 20-12-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That, too!

They'd probably invade!!



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: neo96

That would certainly go for votes in Texas, NM, AZ as well all who have a large illegal population. It would also go to imply illegals are voting everywhere esp where voting laws are lax.

After obama told illegals that voting makes them a citizen, a group of 40 were arrested in some county in Ca.


Texas has voter ID laws. Is it possible for illegal aliens to get a drivers license? Genuine question.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I'm actually all for it. Create a liberal society they can flock to. One condition through, they must renounce their U.S. citizenship which prevents them from returning when California collapses.




top topics



 
34
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join