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.
originally posted by: Tardacus
originally posted by: Dudemo5
originally posted by: Tardacus
it absolutely was fake news , there is no way in hell that legit polls could be that wrong, those polls were created and geared to manufacture the desired results, showing Hillary as the sure winner.
the polls were fake and rigged and the reporting of the fake and rigged polls was designed to influence the voting.
forget about the fake "Russians trying to influence the election", when we have irrefutable proof that the American MSM tried to influence the election with fake polls and fake news reporting.
Except the polls -- the national polls most often cited -- were not wrong. They were more accurate than they've been since the 1930s.
well I never saw any of those polls on the news I only saw the polls that gave Hillary a guaranteed win,i guess the MSM didn`t report "national" polls they just reported their own rigged polls,and the rigged polls of the other MSM outlets.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Xcathdra
Stop saying the popular vote doesn't exist. It most certainly DOES exist. It just isn't used to to determine the President. Learn your civics man...
originally posted by: Dudemo5
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Dudemo5
People who keep arguing in this thread that Clinton won the popular vote.
She didnt because there is no such thing as a national popular vote.
If you arent going to follow the thread then why respond at all?
Seems you aren't the one following along.
The OP claimed that the polls were wrong. The polls cited most often predicted the national popular vote. Those polls were CORRECT.
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
With 20/20 hindsight and retrospect can we ever trust polls again?
Out by 20% even, but I think that documentary on Frank Luntz polling techniques show just how far out the polls can be manufactured to be out.
With only 2 weeks to go to be out this much is "FAKE NEWS"
A year later, it stands as one of the biggest media blunders in modern times. but maybe more an outright lie than a blunder, and it makes them lose credibility. People will always say, "but remember 2016 and Trump" when these crazy figures ever come out again.
originally posted by: thepixelpusher
This video details the spin that spun out of control and Trump was elected. Sweet delight to see so many high profile news and celebs eat their words.
originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Xcathdra
Yeah, I was kinda going off on a tangent. I'm pretty sure I used the wrong word or worded it incorrectly. The point I was trying to make is that we should have more people in the House and we should also have more Electoral Votes as to better represent the populace.
originally posted by: Aazadan
The truth is, a representative republic simply doesn't scale well to a large population.
originally posted by: Dudemo5
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Arnie123
You guys are ruthless, we can, at the very least, let them have their participation ribbon? If it makes them feel better, then perhaps we should let them have it, calm them down a bit. They're a bit rattled, even after this long.
Leftist liberal delusions dictates the popular vote as important as the EC because we're all winners!!! lol, smh.
Yes, because making a thread to gloat about an election that you won a year ago is TOTALLY a rational thing to do and not just pure pettiness.
Except for the fact the thread was talking about polls and how incredibly wrong they were. At that point some people started the national popular vote bs and we went from there.
Because most of the polls oft-cited by the media were polls PREDICTING the national popular vote.
What about this don't you understand?
originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Xcathdra
It's a deeply flawed system that isn't representative of the will of the people so long as congress doesn't increase the number of representatives. The people want to elect the president, they don't want the electoral college to do it for them.
It may have been right for the time but the time has passed and it should be either abolished or updated.
originally posted by: links234
a reply to: TheScale
In a perfect world with a perfectly representative democracy we'd all have an equal number of representatives. Looking at the 2016 elections though;
Republicans got 49.1% of the vote and 55.4% of the seats in congress.
Democrats got 48% of the vote and 44.6% of the seats.
Libertarians got 1.3% of the vote and 0% representation.
What kind of representative republic is it where a party that gets less than half of all votes nationwide gets the majority of the seats in congress? It's broken and not what the founding fathers wanted.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: links234
You and others dont seem to understand that it is not just the will of the people but that of the states as well. The Senate is designed to represent that states themselves and not the population of the state.