Hillary Clinton Loses A THIRD Of Washington’s Electoral Votes

More bitter Sanders bots, I assume.
Yah, ya know the guy that ACTUALLY had his election hacked with proof? The temerity of these silly Sander bots wanting a fair election! How dare they be against a stolen election and wide spread corruption!

fTGB1XR.png


Sanders-primary-votes-stolen-based-on-exit-poll-discrepancies-65.png




Democracy is great for Democrats when it is convenient.

#ElectionFraud
 
Lol. Fair point.
What do you think of Powell? I would have possibly voted for the guy as an R or a D. He never stepped up to leadership though, it seems. I remember the Gulf War when he was playing the political general while Stormin' Norman was the man the people loved. Later he got some hair and showed some qualities, but then he did the world's worst impression of Adlai Stevenson, when he embarrassed himself over WMDs. Then he got some hair again during Obama's time...but he still didn't take that step up. Kind of tragic imo. If the Republican party had moved his way politically I think we'd be a happier country.
 
If the Republican party had moved his way politically I think we'd be a happier country.

You might be right. I'd add that if the Democrat Party had moved Colin Powell's way politically that might not have hurt either.
 
Yah, ya know the guy that ACTUALLY had his election hacked with proof? The temerity of these silly Sander bots wanting a fair election! How dare they be against a stolen election and wide spread corruption!

fTGB1XR.png


Sanders-primary-votes-stolen-based-on-exit-poll-discrepancies-65.png




Democracy is great for Democrats when it is convenient.

#ElectionFraud

I'll take extra cheese and pepperoni on my dominoes, wink wink.

Do you have crazy bread? You seem like a guy who has lots of crazy bread.
 
They told them to vote their conscience.
So everyone dumped Hillary.
 
While I'm glad that Hillary has been shamed I really can't get on board with electors not doing their job and using their vote to make a silly political statement.
 
Holy hell you guys are hypocrites. Democrats love to complain about precedents that THEY set in the first place. For weeks democrats have intimidated and threatened electors into not voting for Donald Trump, the guy who actually won the election. For weeks leftists and celebrities beg to change their vote away from Trump. SNL making a skit about and 'it's just comedy man". How many of you condemned the dangerous precedent that doing this was going to cause American integrity? Suddenly 4 electors in Washington (Who guess what? were likely leftists as well) switch their vote away from Hillary (who lost the election) and hear you guys go "HOW DARE YOU PEOPLE LAUGH AT THIS!!!!!, THESE GUYS ARE A THREAT TO THE SYSTEM!" Maybe you guys can learn a lesson for this, don't threaten electors to vote in your favor because it may backfire against you.
well served comeuppance
 
What do you think of Powell? I would have possibly voted for the guy as an R or a D. He never stepped up to leadership though, it seems. I remember the Gulf War when he was playing the political general while Stormin' Norman was the man the people loved. Later he got some hair and showed some qualities, but then he did the world's worst impression of Adlai Stevenson, when he embarrassed himself over WMDs. Then he got some hair again during Obama's time...but he still didn't take that step up. Kind of tragic imo. If the Republican party had moved his way politically I think we'd be a happier country.
I don't think he ever intended to run. I remember him saying so even prior to the Iraq War if I'm not mistaken.
 
On the radio they said one of the four Hawaiian voters switched it from Hilary to Bernie. I think there's a state law against that too. If so, hope he does jail time.
 
Damn WA really rubbing the salt in the wound.
 
In 1808, six New York electors from the Democratic-Republican Party refused to vote for James Madison and instead voted for the party’s vice-presidential candidate, George Clinton.

The last time an elector voted for a candidate from another party was in 1972, when a Republican from Virginia voted for the Libertarian candidate, John Hospers, instead of the eventual winner, Richard M. Nixon. A single elector has refused to vote for the party’s presidential candidate in 11 elections.

The fact that it's been 104 years since there was more than 1 faithless elector says a lot about the two parties and a lot about where we're at today. Keep em comin, I'd like to see 1800s level faithless electors where there were up to 20% faithless electors. Make political parties diversified again.

Having said that, 7 faithless electors out of 538 is nothing. 50 or 100 and we'd certainly have been on the verge of a real political revolution.
 
The fact that it's been 104 years since there was more than 1 faithless elector says a lot about the two parties and a lot about where we're at today. Keep em comin, I'd like to see 1800s level faithless electors where there were up to 20% faithless electors. Make political parties diversified again.

Having said that, 7 faithless electors out of 538 is nothing. 50 or 100 and we'd certainly have been on the verge of a real political revolution.

Interesting, it seems there's more of a rebellious attitude on both sides. Indicative that people don't trust the system like they used to.
 
Interesting, it seems there's more of a rebellious attitude on both sides. Indicative that people don't trust the system like they used to.
104 years is a long time in American history so 7 is significant, but given the elector's choices primarily being troll-worthy, it makes me believe they don't care as much as they should. Democrats and republicans will make a concerted effort to ignore what should be a fucking eye-opening 100-year precedent.There's a solid chance this will just be a forgotten anomaly in the future.
 
All over the place post.

You don't know anything about Ghandi. I've been alive long enough to know liberals never have much interest in history. That's not a generalization, it's a matter of incompatibility/cognitive dissonance. I was merely offering to explain to you the association since both are nationalists who were mocked and slandered en masse by their own people previous to their success and that quote applied well. Not discussing their sex lives.

Almost none of the media's criticisms of Trump have been true. The main tactic they used was fake quotes. The infamous, viral "he called Mexicans rapists" headline. The actual quote was that Mexico allows rapists into the US and it was gruesomely morphed into fake versions by Huffington Post, CNN, etc. He was relentlessly depicted an extreme social conservative despite having almost no stance on LGBT crap (this ironically may have backfired and won him the primary nomination). This was the basic theme of all media coverage of Trump's campaign; depicting a fairly moderate candidate who spoke up about border security as an unhinged extremist madman. Either you know this and are playing dumb, or you are the target demographic and it worked.

I'll assume you're joking about the Russia thing? Most anyone who isn't an indoctrinated leftist responded with gratitude to the DNC leaks for exposing media corruption and a rigged primary. That is not the same as formally soliciting Russia's involvement. The Russians do however deserve some sort of formal thank you from the American people if it was they who leaked it. Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, you deserved to know that information.

As to the bolded above, I don't get your reasoning. Most of academia is "liberal" or "open-minded". You suggesting that a conservative mindset, one that is perverse to change, suggestion, or innovation, and seems to hold onto a simplistic view of history where everything was better, and should be preserved, rather than a more realistic outlook as more information becomes available, is somehow more attuned to an 'interest in history', is confusing.

In all honesty though, I don't think it has anything to do with partisan politics. I would say that it is terribly simplistic to make a generalization that one side or the other as a whole takes more interest in history.

The rest of your post, you make some fair points, however you are doing the same thing as with the history comment. You are dumbing everything down into a dichotic all or nothing issue. Some of what you state is true, but ignoring Trump's own words, being caught on film mocking the handicapped, "grab her by the pussy", or hiding behind a piece of paper to avoid taking fiscal responsibility for failed business decisions is just as stupid as saying that everything that was reported about Trump is true.
 
What do you think of Powell? I would have possibly voted for the guy as an R or a D. He never stepped up to leadership though, it seems. I remember the Gulf War when he was playing the political general while Stormin' Norman was the man the people loved. Later he got some hair and showed some qualities, but then he did the world's worst impression of Adlai Stevenson, when he embarrassed himself over WMDs. Then he got some hair again during Obama's time...but he still didn't take that step up. Kind of tragic imo. If the Republican party had moved his way politically I think we'd be a happier country.
I read his book and his wife is the one that asked him to never run for president because she felt he would be the one targeted for assassination.
 
I read his book and his wife is the one that asked him to never run for president because she felt he would be the one targeted for assassination.
What a ball drainer she must have been.
 
Back
Top