HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Trump was NOT ELECTED by ...

Sun May 21, 2017, 07:31 PM

Trump was NOT ELECTED by VOTERS. Hillary had 3 Million more!


50 replies, 5796 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 50 replies Author Time Post
Reply Trump was NOT ELECTED by VOTERS. Hillary had 3 Million more! (Original post)
William769 May 2017 OP
leftstreet May 2017 #1
William769 May 2017 #2
mhw May 2017 #5
sheshe2 May 2017 #7
LineLineLineLineReply *
mhw May 2017 #11
Trial_By_Fire May 2017 #9
Mr.Bill May 2017 #15
Trial_By_Fire May 2017 #19
Amaryllis May 2017 #32
mhw May 2017 #21
Trial_By_Fire May 2017 #23
progree May 2017 #26
mhw May 2017 #29
JI7 May 2017 #42
Trial_By_Fire May 2017 #48
JI7 May 2017 #41
dalton99a May 2017 #10
BarbD May 2017 #27
Motownman78 May 2017 #33
wysi May 2017 #36
DK504 May 2017 #24
mhw May 2017 #30
justiceischeap May 2017 #35
mcar May 2017 #3
yallerdawg May 2017 #4
Trial_By_Fire May 2017 #6
Locutusofborg May 2017 #13
JoeStuckInOH May 2017 #49
Mr.Bill May 2017 #18
former9thward May 2017 #38
JI7 May 2017 #44
Thinkingabout May 2017 #20
karynnj May 2017 #45
sheshe2 May 2017 #8
shenmue May 2017 #14
sheshe2 May 2017 #25
JHB May 2017 #12
JoeOtterbein May 2017 #16
dchill May 2017 #17
oasis May 2017 #22
Gothmog May 2017 #28
dflprincess May 2017 #31
former9thward May 2017 #39
dflprincess May 2017 #40
JI7 May 2017 #43
SunSeeker May 2017 #34
onecaliberal May 2017 #37
Baconator May 2017 #46
Voltaire2 May 2017 #47
jmg257 May 2017 #50

Response to William769 (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 07:37 PM

1. The Democrats need a candidate with no history

I don't think it just took 'the rnc, wikileaks, the fbi, and trump russia' to bring Clinton down.

It was years and years and YEARS of rightwing smears

How the DNC didn't guess this might happen, I don't get

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #1)

Sun May 21, 2017, 07:59 PM

2. The American people got it, well most of us anyways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #1)

Sun May 21, 2017, 08:32 PM

5. A candidate with "no history" would have made no difference in the outcome of 2016.

 

The selection of DT & RW power control was organized long before the primaries began.
The massive direction & money it took to pull off such a coup wasn't just something put together in a matter of months.
It was years in the making.

It wasn't Hillary Clinton that lost the electoral college.

It was an international criminal organization.
That's how we got here.

None of this was actually Hillary's fault at all.
It's the fact that the RW's lies about her were taken at face value by so many & even now, knowing what the "republican party" did to get where they are today, its astonishing that there are still those who rely on the intentional slander & lies to proclaim why "she lost"..

Fact is, she had an impeccable career.
Her outreach for human rights followed her from a young age.
Her knowledge of bringing about lasting policies necessary to bring about a future for the world, where the playing field held promise for all races & creeds, was what this world needed to move from war & despair to negotiating an existance that respected humanity in all its colors.

The baggage you say was what undid Hillary Clinton's Presidential chances really never existed at all.
To claim it did says the lie is still believed.

To still believe the slander & lies of the RW is why we have Trump & why we now watch the dismantling of our American civil & constitutional rights, & watch as human rights become an invisible thought from the past.

This is why she was silenced throughout the campaign.
Their first priority in selecting Trump was to keep Hillary Clinton from being heard.

Had she been allowed to proceed in an unbiased & fair campaign, her policies & words for the future of humanity would have drowned out the Republican Party.

They knew this. And this is why she was censored & slandered.
And people still lay the lies they told at the feet of Hillary Clinton, the 2016 loss to Trump & his massive & globally organized, international criminal billionare club for white thuggery is somehow her fault.

Hillary did nothing wrong. The Trump crime family just said she did.

Thanks
&
Love 2 William769






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mhw (Reply #5)

Sun May 21, 2017, 08:37 PM

7. Wow!

Excellent post, mhw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #7)

Sun May 21, 2017, 08:59 PM

11. *

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mhw (Reply #5)

Sun May 21, 2017, 08:44 PM

9. Here are some facts to consider....

 

In 2008, Obama received 365 electoral votes and 69,498,516 popular votes.

In 2016, Clinton received 65,844,954 total votes - about 3.5 million less votes than Obama in 2008.

What happen to those 3.5 million people who did not vote for Clinton, and more importantly, why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Reply #9)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:21 PM

15. Take a good look

at the voter suppression laws that have been passed during those eight years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #15)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:25 PM

19. Of course... the only way republicans can win is if they cheat...

 

Interstate crosscheck, et.al. but Democratic leadership doesn't really make that a big deal...along with all the other elect fraud tactics...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #15)

Sun May 21, 2017, 10:26 PM

32. And the number of voters purged with Interstate Crosscheck, now used in 30 states,

in the name of preventing"voter fraud" which is a myth created by Rs to justify voter suppression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Reply #9)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:29 PM

21. Those number comparisons were irrelevant in 2016.

 

As the varibles between 2008 & 2016 are completely different.

Its an apples & oranges comparison.
Moot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mhw (Reply #21)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:30 PM

23. Why?

 

Its raw numbers between the years and they I believe are indeed relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Reply #23)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:49 PM

26. How about 2012?

2008 was a profoundly unusual year -- the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression was well underway. Hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost per month. Obviously people were looking for change -- in this case the change was away from 8 years of ruinous Republican rule. Naturally the Democratic candidate -- even a black Democratic candidate -- drew a lot of votes in these desperate-for-change times.

2016 - a much different time, after 8 years of slow recovery under a Democratic administration to back to almost where it was in 2007 by some (but not all) measures, a lot of people thought it was time for change again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Reply #23)

Sun May 21, 2017, 10:05 PM

29. How can they be relevant?

 

Different time
Different conditiins in the world
Different candidate.
Different methods of mass messaging.
2016's International nefarious players buying in like a poker game.
Etc...

For those numbers be a factor for consideration, every person who voted for Obama, would also have had to be voting in 2016.
There would have been no 3rd parties drawing away from Clinton for instance as well as the hundred thousands more removed from voter regs by RW Crosscheck. Etc. Etc. Etc.

This discussion, is about using Obama's numbers to somehow make the point as to HRC being "not as popular as him" in vote tallies.
The truth is that such a comparison is pointless because the varibles between the two campaigns were completly different.

The only thing to draw from the difference in the numbers is...just that.
Any other conclusion would take the consideration of all possible varibles that may have caused the difference.
How many Obama voters were unable to vote in 2016? For instance.
Did some leave the country?
Incarcerated? Pass away? Became ill or were otherwise unable to vote.
One would have to know why that many people did not vote for her & to assume the only reason must be because the exact same people who voted for Obama suddenly chose Trump is a pointless assumption.

We are talking about two completely different campaigns, years apart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Reply #23)

Sun May 21, 2017, 11:28 PM

42. why are you skipping 2012 ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #42)

Mon May 22, 2017, 10:49 AM

48. Because...

 

Because 2012 was a incumbent election for Obama, making the
situation more similar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Reply #9)

Sun May 21, 2017, 11:27 PM

41. Why did you skip 2012 ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mhw (Reply #5)

Sun May 21, 2017, 08:46 PM

10. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mhw (Reply #5)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:56 PM

27. Amen, Brother, Amen!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mhw (Reply #5)

Sun May 21, 2017, 10:28 PM

33. I disagree

 

Yes, she was highly qualified, but the decades of smears did cause a lot of people to have doubts about her. I know more than one person who votes democratic that voted for Trump or sat out the election because of her past and/or fears that all we would have with a Clinton Presidency is investigation after investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mhw (Reply #5)

Sun May 21, 2017, 10:31 PM

36. Great post

I couldn't agree more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #1)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:33 PM

24. It doesn't matter.

We could bring in a vestal virgin up for the presidency and the RWNJ's would make her look like a gutter level hooker.

The media REFUSES to do their jobs and then act all shocked and shaken when they have crapped the country in the toilet. Now that is there a traitor(s) in the WH now they are jumping up and down with their hair on fire. We didn't hold their feet to the fire enough and now they are pretending to do their jobs. They still can't seem to talk about more than one thing at a time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DK504 (Reply #24)

Sun May 21, 2017, 10:08 PM

30. Exactly. Thank you

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DK504 (Reply #24)

Sun May 21, 2017, 10:31 PM

35. I'd just like to amend your statement if I may

Most print media were banging the NeverTrump drum pretty hard.

It was the cable news shows that did us a disservice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 08:03 PM

3. Yes!

Never forget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 08:05 PM

4. If we lived in a democracy...

Hillary Clinton would be president.

Actually, it would have been Clinton, Gore, Obama, Clinton if we lived in a democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #4)

Sun May 21, 2017, 08:34 PM

6. Just a clarification...

 

I believe you are saying 'we should elect the President democratically just like all other US elected officials".

We are a Democratic Republic - meaning we democratically elect our representatives.

Which brings up a question - Why do we have the Electoral College picking the president when we have voters elect all other elected positions by majority vote (i.e. the democratic majority vote)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Reply #6)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:18 PM

13. The reason we have the Electoral College

is because that's what the Constitution specifies.
And over 229 years, we have not seen fit to amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College. By the way, it is really, really difficult to amend the Constitution.
The last time the Constitution was amended (the 27th Amendment) that amendment was proposed by James Madison in 1789 and it didn't get ratified until 1992.
Also, only the president and vice president, of all elected officials are required to be natural born citizens. The Birthers tried to use that against Barack Obama.
Also the minimum age requirement for president (35) is higher than for any other federal elected office.
In 24 states there are laws that require Electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote in that state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Locutusofborg (Reply #13)

Mon May 22, 2017, 11:40 AM

49. What?? There have been numerous amendments proposed (and passed) 20th century...

 

"...
And over 229 years, we have not seen fit to amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College. By the way, it is really, really difficult to amend the Constitution.
The last time the Constitution was amended (the 27th Amendment) that amendment was proposed by James Madison in 1789..."


Amendments 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 were all proposed and passed in the 1900's ... with the most recent proposal being in 1971.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #4)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:23 PM

18. I'm pretty convinced

that if the two term limit was not in place Bill Clinton would be beginning his seventh term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #18)

Sun May 21, 2017, 10:56 PM

38. Clinton never got 50% of the vote so I doubt it.

More likely Reagan's body would have been beginning is tenth term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #38)

Sun May 21, 2017, 11:33 PM

44. Reagan would not do well in the Country as it is Today . he would not win California .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #4)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:26 PM

20. I like your plan, no invasion of Iraq, perhaps no destablization of the ME, and best of all

probably still have control of Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #4)

Mon May 22, 2017, 12:59 AM

45. Even one change would change the entire future

Had Gore won in 2000, Gore/Lieberman ( unless Gore changed VPs - remember that there were many things that Gore and Lieberman agreed on in 2000. Events in 2000 and afterward moved Lieberman to the right (and neocon) and Gore to the left. ) Nothing would have happened in the same way. I don't think Gore would have ignored the Rudman/Hart terrorism report and might have tightened obvious security weaknesses. Airplanes having unsecured cockpit doors was something already corrected on El Al - it was a known risk, but it was thought that the cost was too high given the risk. Let's assume that this prevented 911. Ironically, Gore/Lieberman might then lose 2004, with a Republican, who ran on small government claiming all these environmental and safety regulations slowed business growth!

In fact, sitting in 2017, we might be speaking of how Gore/Lieberman made a serious effort on climate change, but their legacy also included a weakened economy at the end of their term. Their legacy might actually have been more positive, if they lost in 2004.
Many factors that caused 2008 were already in play before 2000 - I would hope that Gore/Lieberman would have responded better and faster to the mortgage crisis, but there would have been a big dip. Remember no one would have the actual 2008 to compare it to.

At any rate, the next time a Democrat ran - not primarying a Democratic President would be 2008 at the earliest. If Gore/Lieberman were ending their second term, you would have to consider that Lieberman might be seen as the establishment choice. Clinton would have been a 6 year Senator, who might be helped by the Clinton reputation on the economy .. or hurt by some blame for the bills that left derivatives unregulated and removed the wall between banks and investments. It is not a given she would have won the primary. With the economy a mess, it is possible that someone like Gephardt, who was pro-union and (I think) not for trade deals, could fit the times.

At that point, it is impossible to think what the votings issues would be, though it is pretty likely that a terrible economy could be the issue. It is not obvious that Gore/Lieberman would have picked Obama to give a keynote speech - Kerry met Obama after a Chicago finance person with a home in Nantucket suggested he look see him when he was in Chicago. So, he would have been a 2 year Senator, without that much name recognition. Not to mention, under the scenario that there have been 4 consecutive Democratic terms and the economy is bad, I assume the very young Obama would wait a better year. Edwards, with no scandal, would likely not be in the running because without 2004 he would have had to be campaigning in Iowa etc in 2007 as he learned his wife had stage 4 cancer. Dodd and Richardson got absolutely no traction in 2008 and there is no reason to think any would have been better. Then there are likely many others - that none of us would think of.

Edwards, with no scandal, would likely not be in the running because without 2004 he would have had to be campaigning in Iowa etc in 2007 as he learned his wife had stage 4 cancer. Dodd and Richardson got absolutely no traction in 2008 and there is no reason to think any would have been better. Then there are likely many others - that none of us would think of.

If the Republicans did win in 2004, that might make Lieberman less likely to be a serious contender, which opens up the race to many Senators to challenge Clinton. Again, it might have been someone seen as someone who wanted the banks held accountable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 08:38 PM

8. +1000

Thanks, Bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #8)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:20 PM

14. Yes

It seems some here still do not like the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shenmue (Reply #14)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:47 PM

25. Yes we do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:08 PM

12. And a quarter-century of manufactured bile and foam-cannonades

The Republican strategy against the Clintons was to throw ball after ball of horseshit, bullshit, elephant shit, etc. at them, hoping a fleck would stick. When just about all of it sloughed off, it piled up around them, giving off an ever-larger fogbank of steam. Then they'd point to that and say "where there's smoke..."

A spoonful of arglbargle helps the horseshit go down, in the most der-red-ful way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:22 PM

16. When a GOP politician says "Americans voted for Trump" it means YOU ARE NOT an American!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:23 PM

17. K&R.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 09:30 PM

22. Trump'll be haunted by HRC's numbers for the rest of his miserable days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 10:02 PM

28. Great tweet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 10:22 PM

31. He lost the popular vote by 10 million

in addition to Hillary's 3 million vote lead, another 7 million voted for third party candidates.

Apparently though no one has told him this because you'll notice when talks about "fraudulent votes" he always uses 3 million as the figure for that. Just a coincidence I'm sure that he thinks the "fraud" count equals Hillary's lead and he ignores the other 7 million votes against him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #31)

Sun May 21, 2017, 10:58 PM

39. Those 7 million were against Hillary also.

Neither got 50% of the vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #39)

Sun May 21, 2017, 11:20 PM

40. True.Hillary won a plurality not a majority

Of the popular vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #39)

Sun May 21, 2017, 11:32 PM

43. she still got millions more votes than Trump

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 10:30 PM

34. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Original post)

Sun May 21, 2017, 10:42 PM

37. YES, THIS EXACTLY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Original post)

Mon May 22, 2017, 01:04 AM

46. So the football team who held the ball the most wins the game?

No? Oh, that's not the game we are playing.

Never mind...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Original post)

Mon May 22, 2017, 06:16 AM

47. Until we abolish the electoral college, no president is elected by the voters.

Not how our system works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Original post)

Mon May 22, 2017, 12:43 PM

50. So trump only won the most states. Unfortunately he still won the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread