Politifact isn't assembled by a truth machine, it's assembled by a bunch of journalists that have their own (likely liberal) biases, just like any other source.

(11-15-2016 03:01 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Hillary Clinton Will Never Be President. Actually, I have nothing to say about this. I just like typing it.

Isn't that sweet? I love it too.

(11-15-2016 03:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:02 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 02:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 02:51 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 02:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  exactly. Republicans simply don't give a F--- about democracy or fair elections. they just care about #TeamOverCountry.

What wasn't fair?

The fact that more people voted for the candidate that lost.

Did you not realize that could happen? I mean electoral votes have been the deciding factor in every presidential election. Is it fairer to change the rules after the contest?

we all know it can and had happened in the past. the question is "is that fair." Obviously not. and yet the cons don't give a ****. so therefore they do not care about fair elections.

It's happened before, will again. No one makes any big push to change it. Gotta assume people accept it as fair.

(11-15-2016 03:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:02 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 02:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 02:51 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 02:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  exactly. Republicans simply don't give a F--- about democracy or fair elections. they just care about #TeamOverCountry.

What wasn't fair?

The fact that more people voted for the candidate that lost.

Did you not realize that could happen? I mean electoral votes have been the deciding factor in every presidential election. Is it fairer to change the rules after the contest?

we all know it can and had happened in the past. the question is "is that fair." Obviously not. and yet the cons don't give a ****. so therefore they do not care about fair elections.

Neither would you had the roles been reversed. I also did not see a big push from Democrats to change the rules prior to the election.

(11-15-2016 03:20 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:02 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 02:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 02:51 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  What wasn't fair?

The fact that more people voted for the candidate that lost.

Did you not realize that could happen? I mean electoral votes have been the deciding factor in every presidential election. Is it fairer to change the rules after the contest?

we all know it can and had happened in the past. the question is "is that fair." Obviously not. and yet the cons don't give a ****. so therefore they do not care about fair elections.

Neither would you had the roles been reversed. I also did not see a big push from Democrats to change the rules prior to the election.

you are obviously clueless. I was advocating against the electoral college in the days prior to the election and have a longstanding history of arguing against it.

no big push? lol you are again clueless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_P...te_Compact

We don't have a nationwide election. Never have, never will. We have 50 separate state elections for Electors, not President. The President is elected by the Electors.

/End

(11-15-2016 03:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:20 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:02 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 02:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The fact that more people voted for the candidate that lost.

Did you not realize that could happen? I mean electoral votes have been the deciding factor in every presidential election. Is it fairer to change the rules after the contest?

we all know it can and had happened in the past. the question is "is that fair." Obviously not. and yet the cons don't give a ****. so therefore they do not care about fair elections.

Neither would you had the roles been reversed. I also did not see a big push from Democrats to change the rules prior to the election.

you are obviously clueless. I was advocating against the electoral college in the days prior to the election and have a longstanding history of arguing against it.

no big push? lol you are again clueless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_P...te_Compact

Only passed in democratic states. My guess is that Penn. and Michigan will drop the legislation.

My assumption is that this will get struck down by the supreme court if it ever got enough signatures.

(11-15-2016 03:28 PM)muffinman Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:20 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:02 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Did you not realize that could happen? I mean electoral votes have been the deciding factor in every presidential election. Is it fairer to change the rules after the contest?

we all know it can and had happened in the past. the question is "is that fair." Obviously not. and yet the cons don't give a ****. so therefore they do not care about fair elections.

Neither would you had the roles been reversed. I also did not see a big push from Democrats to change the rules prior to the election.

you are obviously clueless. I was advocating against the electoral college in the days prior to the election and have a longstanding history of arguing against it.

no big push? lol you are again clueless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_P...te_Compact

Only passed in democratic states. My guess is that Penn. and Michigan will drop the legislation.

My assumption is that this will get struck down by the supreme court if it ever got enough signatures.

It's literally state governments disenfranchising their own citizens to benefit another state's citizens. It's begging for a Supreme Court beat down.

(11-15-2016 03:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:20 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:02 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 02:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The fact that more people voted for the candidate that lost.

Did you not realize that could happen? I mean electoral votes have been the deciding factor in every presidential election. Is it fairer to change the rules after the contest?

we all know it can and had happened in the past. the question is "is that fair." Obviously not. and yet the cons don't give a ****. so therefore they do not care about fair elections.

Neither would you had the roles been reversed. I also did not see a big push from Democrats to change the rules prior to the election.

you are obviously clueless. I was advocating against the electoral college in the days prior to the election and have a longstanding history of arguing against it.

no big push? lol you are again clueless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_P...te_Compact

Well if you are all fired up to eliminate the electoral college then I suggest you read up on how to do it:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

Good luck!

(11-15-2016 03:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  We don't have a nationwide election. Never have, never will. We have 50 separate state elections for Electors, not President. The President is elected by the Electors.

/End

and many (and rightfully so) would call a system that does not acknowledge the principle of one man one vote to be unfair.

(11-15-2016 03:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  We don't have a nationwide election. Never have, never will. We have 50 separate state elections for Electors, not President. The President is elected by the Electors.

/End

and many (and rightfully so) would call a system that does not acknowledge the principle of one man one vote to be unfair.

Because they are ignorant of the law, like many on that side. The principle of one person one vote is alive and well, within the states' individual borders. It is also alive and well in the Electorial College, because each Elector's vote is equal.

It was only passed by democratic states? well jeez I wonder why? remind me (as has already been established in this thread) which is the lone party that cares about fair elections? (it's not the republicans).

It is by no means unconstitutional. all it does is keep the electoral college and allows the states to decide for themselves how to award their votes. remember the RNC chair being the ******* that he is encouraged GOP states to do the exact opposite by awarding their EC votes via congressional district. yall seem to have no problem with that.

I'm starting to think we have some serious masochists among the left on this board. Why else come here and take a daily "beating"? And then start silly threads begging for more?

(11-15-2016 03:37 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  We don't have a nationwide election. Never have, never will. We have 50 separate state elections for Electors, not President. The President is elected by the Electors.

/End

and many (and rightfully so) would call a system that does not acknowledge the principle of one man one vote to be unfair.

Because they are ignorant of the law, like many on that side. The principle of one person one vote is alive and well, within the states' individual borders. It is also alive and well in the Electorial College, because each Elector's vote is equal.

then explain to me how the politician with the most amount of votes didn't win

Our system is no closer to the concept of one person one vote than the South African proposed tricameral system that divided their govt into three branches with one branch being given to each race that nelson mandela rejected in the early 90s.

gotta love leftists, when things dont go their way, they try to change it

(11-15-2016 03:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:37 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 03:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  We don't have a nationwide election. Never have, never will. We have 50 separate state elections for Electors, not President. The President is elected by the Electors.

/End

and many (and rightfully so) would call a system that does not acknowledge the principle of one man one vote to be unfair.

Because they are ignorant of the law, like many on that side. The principle of one person one vote is alive and well, within the states' individual borders. It is also alive and well in the Electorial College, because each Elector's vote is equal.

then explain to me how the politician with the fewest amount of votes didn't win

Because we do not have a nationwide election in The United States of America.

I honestly don't care...

Hillary way outspent trump which forced him, trump, to restrict his campaigning to the electoral states he needed to win. The fact that once state, California, was the difference maker validates his strategy.

Hillary spend 1.3 Billion to trumps 700 million and she still only won by several hundred thousand votes (about what a half%)?

its like losing a football game and complaining that the other team used the forward pass.

Thems the rules

(11-15-2016 03:42 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I honestly don't care...

Hillary way outspent trump which forced him, trump, to restrict his campaigning to the electoral states he needed to win. The fact that once state, California, was the difference maker validates his strategy.

Hillary spend 1.3 Billion to trumps 700 million and she still only won by several hundred thousand votes (about what a half%)?

it will be over a million when all is said and done