President Hillary Rodham Clinton

[Lemonade]

I expected the Clinton Cleaners to be active after her victory, but they are seemingly just as active after this loss.

[C-Mag]

I expected the Clinton Cleaners to be active after her victory, but they are seemingly just as active after this loss.

Probably more so.

If you look at the list, in 2016 and 2017 there have been a lot of coincidences.

[The Conservative]

I expected the Clinton Cleaners to be active after her victory, but they are seemingly just as active after this loss.

Probably more so.

If you look at the list, in 2016 and 2017 there have been a lot of coincidences.

I don't believe in coincidences, and I don't bet against gods who play with dice either.

[clubgop]

Also the side that keep braying about "money in politics" calling for a national pop. vote is laughable.

Unless they are spending $50 Million on some punk in Georgia who doesn't even live in the District he's running in......................................... then LOSE !

These people have no idea. LA media market, NY media market. Fools.

[SuburbanFarmer]

That's fine. We will deport all eleven million illegals or whatever meme number they are running with this week and their children.

You're thinking about it backwards.
They should have to prove that any Hilary votes were from legal citizens.
Until then, I am calling 100% of the real popular vote for Trump.

I think it's pretty obvious that Trump won the "popular vote", though what people are calling the popular vote is not the popular vote at all.

Further, I think democrats calling for a true popular vote should be careful what they wish for. The electoral college disenfranchises HUGE numbers of otherwise republican voters who live in those cities. When you look at those demographic electoral maps, don't make the mistake of thinking every bit of that demographic tower is "blue". There's still a pretty sizable minority of red voters in there who don't even bother to vote. I'd estimate perhaps 20% of Chicago's electorate, for example, would vote republican in a popular election where their vote counted. Meanwhile, there really is no corresponding disenfranchisement of democratic votes to any comparable degree. Get rid of the electoral college and you might just hasten the day that the democratic party is no longer a national party.

This is why the so-called popular vote is not a popular vote at all. If we held a popular vote election, the outcome would be even more shifted towards the GOP.

Lastly, we already know that, as far as the actual votes cast, Trump wins even the totals when you discount the illegal voting. Recent studies have confirmed his assertion that millions of illlegals votes, especially in places like California where the democratic election boards go out of their way to not police illegal voting (just like they don't police illegal immigration).

When you really step back and look at it objectively, that woman crashed and burned big time. The only reason she got as many votes as she did was that we have millions upon millions of illegal migrants who were desperate to avoid getting transported back to their own countries, and the democrats were keen to both encourage them to vote and to ensure nobody would prosecute them for it.

"Recent studies indicate" = "Anonymous government officials"

[Speaker to Animals]

JustFacts.com, an independent think tank, did some serious number crunching on immigration to the U.S. and said this about the 2008 election:

Based on:

the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1002] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared voting is ± 5 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1003] [1004] [1005]
the number of non-citizens in this poll who were in the database,[1006] the margin of sampling error for their undeclared voting is ± 8 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1007] [1008] [1009]
these study results and Census Bureau population estimates, 594,000 to 5.7 million non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 election.[1010] [1011]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/17769/tru ... oseph-curl


Sorry, did CNN not tell you about this?


That was just the 2008 election. Would less illegal immigrants vote in the 2016 election in which one of the candidates explicitly vowed to deport their criminal asses back to wherever they came from?

[SuburbanFarmer]

JustFacts.com, an independent think tank, did some serious number crunching on immigration to the U.S. and said this about the 2008 election:

Based on:

the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1002] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared voting is ± 5 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1003] [1004] [1005]
the number of non-citizens in this poll who were in the database,[1006] the margin of sampling error for their undeclared voting is ± 8 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1007] [1008] [1009]
these study results and Census Bureau population estimates, 594,000 to 5.7 million non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 election.[1010] [1011]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/17769/tru ... oseph-curl


Sorry, did CNN not tell you about this?


That was just the 2008 election. Would less illegal immigrants vote in the 2016 election in which one of the candidates explicitly vowed to deport their criminal asses back to wherever they came from?

LMFAO Not much difference there.. just a zero or two.

[PartyOf5]

JustFacts.com, an independent think tank, did some serious number crunching on immigration to the U.S. and said this about the 2008 election:

Based on:

the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1002] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared voting is ± 5 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1003] [1004] [1005]
the number of non-citizens in this poll who were in the database,[1006] the margin of sampling error for their undeclared voting is ± 8 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1007] [1008] [1009]
these study results and Census Bureau population estimates, 594,000 to 5.7 million non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 election.[1010] [1011]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/17769/tru ... oseph-curl


Sorry, did CNN not tell you about this?


That was just the 2008 election. Would less illegal immigrants vote in the 2016 election in which one of the candidates explicitly vowed to deport their criminal asses back to wherever they came from?

LMFAO Not much difference there.. just a zero or two.

Even the low number is unacceptable. I recall many a liberal over the years screeching about how if voter ID disenfranchised ever 1 person, it was too much to take.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Grumps,
Just remind him (and Nuke) that polls and data and sources are meaningless, except on the occasions when they are outright manipulations designed to heard the sheeple into socialist re-education camps.

CROSS THREAD SNIPE

[Speaker to Animals]

So up to 5 million illegals voted in 2008, and it probably had no effect in 2016 when Trump was running on a platform of shipping their freeloading asses back to the third world.

Right..

Oh, and didn't states like California make it even easier for these people to vote since 2008?


Get out of here. Get out. You fucking loon.