Hillary's popular vote

So the losing side goes on and on that Hillary got the popular vote and it is the reason she should be the next President. The entitled whiners and complainers are ok with losing as long as they win.

Interesting thing about the majority of the states she won in is they are the worst at allowing illegal immigrants in and have the biggest sanctuary cities. Does an invading force get to decide who our President is? Is this how it needs to be so that liberals can feel smug again after making fools of themselves? Sanctuary city states voted for Clinton. Go have a look see yourself and read between the lines to see what this implies.

I for one see Trump putting people together that will come down hard as hell on illegal immigrants. If the man accomplishes this one thing I'd help put him back in office in 2020. If you want to be idealistic and say they just want a better life then move to Mexico and change their society and government. Go ahead, go do that right now... Yeah, I thought so.

Interesting thing about the majority of the states she won in is they are the worst at allowing illegal immigrants in and have the biggest sanctuary cities.

a reply to: Apollumi

If Trump showed is anything, it's that he is unpredictable and will not necessarily align his agenda with his promises. We will see what the coming 4 years will bring but I am sure it will be clear about 12 months from now.

Soak up the victory...this is hysterical listening to liberals come unhinged...

As a bonus, without Clintons we won't be assaulted with 24/7 scandals...
So no more pizzagate, strokegate, emailgate, faintgate, berniegate, whitewatergate, icouldgoonforevergate....

Heck, California may secede so it may be a twofer victory...

No Clintons and no more Californian subsidies = Utopia

-Christosterone

a reply to: eisegesis

Remember the tens of thousands of "kids" that poured across the border in 2014? The ones that looked like they were around 17 years old?

Those "kids" were relocated all over the country by this administration and we were not told where they were being sent. I have a feeling, after listening to Obama a few weeks ago basically telling illegals they would not be prosecuted if they voted, they were located in those sanctuary cities that carried Hillary.

Yeah...right...Hillary won the popular vote.

a reply to: Apollumi

The Democrats don't care one bit about the people involved.
They do not promote open borders for any kind of humanitarian reason.
They don't care if a flood of immigrants would hurt our economy, put a burden on social services, or endanger the public as terrorists, human traffickers, and drug dealers have freedom to enter without vetting.

There was only goal of the open border policy.
They wanted to boost the number of illegal immigrants, and then give them the right to vote, thus solidifying the power and dominance of Democrats permanently.
They think that immigrants are group-think, and would always be beholden to the Dems, which they would ensure by giving them free stuff and making them dependent upon the government.

Sanctuary cities were step one in implementing their plan.
And I'm certain that the areas Clinton won were in many cases due to illegals voting.
Obama told them it was ok to vote.

a reply to: queenofswords

BINGO!

Hillary popular vote win should have a big asterisks * symbol next to it. Obama pretty much told illegals no one will come after them, if they commit voter fraud.

a reply to: Christosterone

Here's an interesting thought...

Regarding CA's alleged desire for succession, not that I believe it will happen (or even close), but let's go with that for a moment. Only a foolish person would believe if this were to take place there would be no downsides to it. There most certainly would. (personally, I think if any of this were to gain momentum CA would likely split into two states, but I digress). Let's imagine for a moment CA, from SF and south succeded from the Union (forget the 'how' mechanics for a moment). The first negative impact America would feel is the loss of a MAJOR coastal entry Port. And, it would likely take trillions of dollars in infrastructure development (i.e. re-routing) to fix this thorny little problem. Now I'm sure some may be sharpening their fingertips to fire off a flaming response to this, but keep reading...

Sounds like an ugly problem, right? Well, maybe not as bad as we may think!

The next logical solutions for major seaports are Seattle and Vancouver and north to Alaska (Valdez and Anchorage). Rerouting our national infrastructure to support these ports would create millions of jobs in both the US and Canada, strengthen ties with Canada and create a much more competitive economic environment. There's also another not so obvious benefit. The shift would place a bottleneck on Chinese imports entering the US, in essence creating countless opportunities for American businesses to fill the void. Yes, it would be painful at first, but eventually competition within the US market would return (and not be subjected to cheap imports).

It's also funny that the liberal criers earlier wanted to abolish the electoral college because it just isn't fair, but were told they can't do that so easily, so now they want to use the electoral college to their advantage to change their vote, because those delegates probably didn't want to vote for Trump in the first place, (especially after the death threats and stalking), so they should vote their conscious instead of following the rule of law.

If they can just be shown that Hillary must be the president because they really, really, really want her to be, then everything will be fine.

Nah........ not happening.

Anybody with a half a working brain knows how Hillary got the so-called popular vote. Personally, I don't think she really did. Polls and msm reports don't impress me anymore.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Christosterone


Regarding CA's alleged desire for succession, not that I believe it will happen (or even close), but let's go with that for a moment. Only a foolish person would believe if this were to take place there would be no downsides to it. There most certainly would. (personally, I think if any of this were to gain momentum CA would likely split into two states, but I digress). Let's imagine for a moment CA, from SF and south succeded from the Union (forget the 'how' mechanics for a moment). The first negative impact America would feel is the loss of a MAJOR coastal entry Port. And, it would likely take trillions of dollars in infrastructure development (i.e. re-routing) to fix this thorny little problem. Now I'm sure some may be sharpening their fingertips to fire off a flaming response to this, but keep reading...

Sounds like an ugly problem, right? Well, maybe not as bad as we may think!

The next logical solutions for major seaports are Seattle and Vancouver and north to Alaska (Valdez and Anchorage). Rerouting our national infrastructure to support these ports would create millions of jobs in both the US and Canada, strengthen ties with Canada and create a much more competitive economic environment. There's also another not so obvious benefit. The shift would place a bottleneck on Chinese imports entering the US, in essence creating countless opportunities for American businesses to fill the void. Yes, it would be painful at first, but eventually competition within the US market would return (and not be subjected to cheap imports).

Aside from our hypocrisy about Russian satellite nations breaking off no state will be leaving the US. The south tried that once. You don't get to leave no matter how much we tell others it's ok.

Now they could try to do that on their own. That would be their choice. The bright side is we could take care of the immigration problem without worrying about hurting some idealists sensitivities. Burning tires and molotov cocktails, meet M1A2 abrams tank.

California will never be allowed to leave. If for no other reason than we don't want the nation of California having an alliance with China and Chinese planes and missiles being stationed there. It's ok if we do it across the world but we don't want it here.

So California can chose either to whine a little and go on with life or they can be a smoking rubble heap to be discovered 5,000 years down the road by archeologists as a ruined city that was built on top of.

The a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Great analysis.

Heres my thought. Cali tries to secede. The feds have to respond by sending in the military to stop it while invoking martial law. They are opposed by the Cali National Guard. The idiot Feds respond by massive force including bombing cities as they fight for control.

If the Feds win quickly, with minimum loss of civilian life all is well except we still have Cali and its leftists around our necks.

If they could meet stiff resistance, Mexico would step in to save Mexican lives with the backing of the Chinese! Voila! WW3 Plus, over half the population of Cali wiped out!

If California secedes...what happens when the 'BIG ONE' strikes?
Who pays to put it back together? Mexico?

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Christosterone

Here's an interesting thought...

Regarding CA's alleged desire for succession... The first negative impact America would feel is the loss of a MAJOR coastal entry Port. And, it would likely take trillions of dollars in infrastructure development (i.e. re-routing) to fix this thorny little problem. Now I'm sure some may be sharpening their fingertips to fire off a flaming response to this, but keep reading...

The shift would place a bottleneck on Chinese imports entering the US, in essence creating countless opportunities for American businesses to fill the void. Yes, it would be painful at first, but eventually competition within the US market would return (and not be subjected to cheap imports).

I agree it will never happen. However China ships a lot into Mexico which is then driven across the border using NAFTA. That is one of the reasons these trade agreements cause problems. Countries and businesses will do everything possible to use the cheapest labor and cheapest way to get their products into other countries. It is a race to the bottom for workers and the globalist elite love it. We can only keep our style of living by putting limits in place.

The United States is the world's largest national economy in nominal terms and second largest according to purchasing power parity (PPP), representing 22% of nominal global GDP and 17% of gross world product (GWP).[4] The United States' GDP was estimated to be $17.914 trillion as of Q2 2015.[4][32]

Source

originally posted by: Apollumi
The entitled whiners and complainers are ok with losing as long as they win.

Trump was preparing legal challenges before the election even happened.

Fact.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
If California secedes...what happens when the 'BIG ONE' strikes?
Who pays to put it back together? Mexico?

Haven't you seen the movie "2012"?

We meet up somewhere on the top of Cape of Good Hope.

It seems most odd to me that Jill Stein is asking for the recount. What is she going to get out of it? Also, I am sure that any recount puts more eyes onto illegal voting. This would only hurt Hillary, and once again, how is any of this benefiting Jill Stein?

California would never secede. It doesn't have a reason to. The relationship it has with the Feds is too important. If they weren't getting money from the other 49 states to help support its nonsense, it would have already failed as a state.

a reply to: Apollumi
The North had to fight the south's succession . We fed em and clothed em.....and all that sweet tariff money
Nothing says that California cannot leave the Union. Nothing

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Apollumi
The entitled whiners and complainers are ok with losing as long as they win.

Trump was preparing legal challenges before the election even happened.

Fact.

Source. Put up or shut up time