Hillary did NOT get the popular vote.
True.
Side Score: 26
|
 |
Wait..., what? No!!!
Side Score: 19
|
|
|
|
|
5
points
4
points
Liberalism is a conglomerate of Special Interest Groups, each determined to force millions of people to operate their lives revolved around the wants of a fraction of a percent of special interest. They band together with You-scratch-my-back-and-I'll scratch yours mentality, to overpower the majority. As time goes on, those born into this mentality are brainwashed since infancy and aren't even capable of rational thought. Liberals can't understand the concept of majority rule, their minds have not progressed since age two when everything is all about ME. Side: True.
Also to be factored in: millions of illegal immigrants votes, enabled by the likes of California, Obama, and democrat voter fraud that was already well underway before Nov. 8. When all of that is accounted for, Hillary didn't even come close to getting the popular vote. Side: True.
1
point
|
1
point
If anything, it means that you'd rather prefer to declare US as an anarchy. I doubt the founders would have ever wanted that. It is meant to be ruled; maximising decentralisation would result in an abusive democracy. It'd be better to have it ruled by a dictator than its people directly. Well, enough against anarchy. A majority in casted votes is enough to mean that you've chosen your rulers. Indifference does not count as an opinion. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
I am interpreting your last comment to mean that those who did not vote are indifferent to who rules. Assuming that is a correct interpretation.... one way to prove that statement wrong is to have some dictator take over and you will see those who did not vote take to the streets with assault rifles (not protest signs) If that is not a correct interpretation then.... never mind ;) https://www.youtube.com/
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
That'd be the correct interpretation, somewhat, of my last sentence. But a bit stretched. Just enough indifference to not go and vote does not imply that they are a ready-to-rule population. If that were my opinion, I'd be making it too easy for you by contradicting myself in the same comment. Side: True.
1
point
Yes. Trump got roughly 25% of the legible votes. That is not a mandate. Hillary got roughly 25% of the legible votes. That is not a popular vote. The majority of voters (those that cast a vote and those that did not cast a vote) do NOT support Hillary. Hmmm, maybe people don't understand legible votes. OK, different tact. Here's a quote from a liberal publication: "Neither candidate got more than 50 percent of the votes that were cast: As of noon Wednesday, Clinton stood at 47.7 percent and Trump at 47.5 percent." Yes. Trump got less than than 50% of the votes that were cast. That is not a mandate. Hillary got less than than 50% of the votes that were cast. That is not a popular vote. Yes, Hillary got the most votes that were cast. But that is not the definition of the popular vote. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
What are you talking about? The "Popular Vote" is defined by the number of legible voters. She did NOT get the most number of legible voters. She got roughly 25% of legible voters. By definition, that is not a popular vote. If you want to change the definition, send a letter to your congress person. ;) Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
This is how a dictionary defines popular vote: the vote for a U.S. presidential candidate made by the qualified voters, as opposed to that made by the electoral college. What you are referring to is the electoral vote. Indeed Trump won that one, but he did not win the popular vote. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
|
