Quote from: Naru on December 20, 2016, 03:33:07 AM

How can you say she won the popular vote if not even half the eligible voters voted on election day? I'll only agree to that statement only if 99.9% of eligible voters voted.

Why do you think so many people choose not to vote? Because they don't want to. Either they're not interested, they don't care about politics, they don't know enough about the candidates, they don't consider themselves qualified, they don't like democracy, or they literally cannot choose and are willfully abstaining.

Why is it a good idea to force these people who don't have an opinion to have an opinion?

Do you think that's an accurate representation of what the public wants/needs?

I know that, but saying a candidate won the popular vote when like 47% of the eligible population voted is such... Bullshit

Quote from: Iberian Husky on December 19, 2016, 09:59:07 PM

>Hillary had the most faithless electors since James Madison 200 over years ago.

Every time I think she can't possibly get any more BTFO, she still keeps on getting more and more BTFO, and it's fucking amazing.

Still won the popular vote fair and square. If we weren't a shit country, that would've made her president.

Trump led everywhere but California. America is a federal nation, comprised of constitutionally sovereign states. Allowing California to strongarm the rest of the country would be ridiculous.

Quote from: Verbatim on December 19, 2016, 10:55:49 PM

Quote from: Iberian Husky on December 19, 2016, 09:59:07 PM

>Hillary had the most faithless electors since James Madison 200 over years ago.

Every time I think she can't possibly get any more BTFO, she still keeps on getting more and more BTFO, and it's fucking amazing.

Still won the popular vote fair and square. If we weren't a shit country, that would've made her president.

Trump led everywhere but California. America is a federal nation, comprised of constitutionally sovereign states. Allowing California to strongarm the rest of the country would be ridiculous.

I don't understand this reasoning. Wouldn't state lines be irrelevant going by the popular vote?

Quote from: Verbatim on December 19, 2016, 10:55:49 PM

Quote from: Iberian Husky on December 19, 2016, 09:59:07 PM

>Hillary had the most faithless electors since James Madison 200 over years ago.

Every time I think she can't possibly get any more BTFO, she still keeps on getting more and more BTFO, and it's fucking amazing.

Still won the popular vote fair and square. If we weren't a shit country, that would've made her president.

Trump led everywhere but California. America is a federal nation, comprised of constitutionally sovereign states. Allowing California to strongarm the rest of the country would be ridiculous.

No it wouldn't. Why SHOULDN'T the most populous state strongarm the rest of the country?

Quote from: Verbatim on December 20, 2016, 11:31:56 AM

Quote from: MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE on December 20, 2016, 04:48:29 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on December 19, 2016, 10:55:49 PM

Quote from: Iberian Husky on December 19, 2016, 09:59:07 PM

>Hillary had the most faithless electors since James Madison 200 over years ago.

Every time I think she can't possibly get any more BTFO, she still keeps on getting more and more BTFO, and it's fucking amazing.

Still won the popular vote fair and square. If we weren't a shit country, that would've made her president.

Trump led everywhere but California. America is a federal nation, comprised of constitutionally sovereign states. Allowing California to strongarm the rest of the country would be ridiculous.

No it wouldn't. Why SHOULDN'T the most populous state strongarm the rest of the country?

I'll adjust this to be a bit more....realistic.

Why shouldn't the states who contribute most to the national economy not have a much larger say over the states who require the most aid and government assistance?

I'll answer both. They do. Which is why they have more electoral votes. 55 is literally more than 1/5 of the votes you need to win, from just 1 state.....

Quote from: Verbatim on December 20, 2016, 11:31:56 AM

Quote from: MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE on December 20, 2016, 04:48:29 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on December 19, 2016, 10:55:49 PM

Quote from: Iberian Husky on December 19, 2016, 09:59:07 PM

>Hillary had the most faithless electors since James Madison 200 over years ago.

Every time I think she can't possibly get any more BTFO, she still keeps on getting more and more BTFO, and it's fucking amazing.

Still won the popular vote fair and square. If we weren't a shit country, that would've made her president.

Trump led everywhere but California. America is a federal nation, comprised of constitutionally sovereign states. Allowing California to strongarm the rest of the country would be ridiculous.

No it wouldn't. Why SHOULDN'T the most populous state strongarm the rest of the country?

I'll adjust this to be a bit more....realistic.

Why shouldn't the states who contribute most to the national economy not have a much larger say over the states who require the most aid and government assistance?

This is actually a really good point. It says here that of all the counties that Clinton carried, they contribute to roughly two-thirds of the nation's economic output whereas Trump's mostly rural holdings contribute to only a third of output.

Quote from: MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE on December 20, 2016, 11:59:26 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on December 20, 2016, 11:31:56 AM

Quote from: MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE on December 20, 2016, 04:48:29 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on December 19, 2016, 10:55:49 PM

Quote from: Iberian Husky on December 19, 2016, 09:59:07 PM

>Hillary had the most faithless electors since James Madison 200 over years ago.

Every time I think she can't possibly get any more BTFO, she still keeps on getting more and more BTFO, and it's fucking amazing.

Still won the popular vote fair and square. If we weren't a shit country, that would've made her president.

Trump led everywhere but California. America is a federal nation, comprised of constitutionally sovereign states. Allowing California to strongarm the rest of the country would be ridiculous.

No it wouldn't. Why SHOULDN'T the most populous state strongarm the rest of the country?

Because America is a collection of sovereign states, as set out by the Constitution.

Then we need to fix that.

You think America should be a unitary state merely because Trump won?

Quote from: Icy on December 20, 2016, 11:37:38 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on December 20, 2016, 11:31:56 AM

Quote from: MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE on December 20, 2016, 04:48:29 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on December 19, 2016, 10:55:49 PM

Quote from: Iberian Husky on December 19, 2016, 09:59:07 PM

>Hillary had the most faithless electors since James Madison 200 over years ago.

Every time I think she can't possibly get any more BTFO, she still keeps on getting more and more BTFO, and it's fucking amazing.

Still won the popular vote fair and square. If we weren't a shit country, that would've made her president.

Trump led everywhere but California. America is a federal nation, comprised of constitutionally sovereign states. Allowing California to strongarm the rest of the country would be ridiculous.

No it wouldn't. Why SHOULDN'T the most populous state strongarm the rest of the country?

I'll adjust this to be a bit more....realistic.

Why shouldn't the states who contribute most to the national economy not have a much larger say over the states who require the most aid and government assistance?

This is actually a really good point. It says here that of all the counties that Clinton carried, they contribute to roughly two-thirds of the nation's economic output whereas Trump's mostly rural holdings contribute to only a third of output.

You think anyone who works in Philadelphia or New York City actually live there? HAHAHAHAHHAHA

The citizens of those counties almost never work in those counties.