You know who isn't in any legal hot water?

What a coincidence it is still benefitting the same people.

 

Using a government computer for work emails? You think this person should have been prosecuted?
Ivanka Trump used a personal email account to send hundreds of emails about government business last year

 

And Condi Rice. And Colin Powell. And Karl Rove. And…

It’s more common than accidentally taking a few classified documents home over the course of a few years.

 

Your lack of understanding that the popular vote isnt a factor in that politicians dont campaign in states they know they will lose meaning millions of votes are probably left on the table, Is a you problem brother.

 

First of all, I'm not sure that millions of would-be voters stay home because a candidate didn't come to their state often enough or at all. But even if that were true, wouldn't it even out for both sides and we'd still have Republicans winning elections when more Americans voted for the Democratic candidate?

 

Maybe. My point is, we have no idea. The entire strategic plan for a national candidate is hyper focused on swing states and winnable states.

The Dem states of NY and Cali are huge in raw numbers. I have no doubt that many conservative R's and I's don't bother in those states.

But this whining about popular vote is meaningless because no one even makes an effort to win a meaningless metric.

 

Must be a slow day in the den when a certain white poster comes over here to "educate" us all on how bad white people are yet again.

 

She may not be in legal trouble, but she is projected to make history at the Mexico California border this weekend

 

Think about what you are saying: huge numbers of people don't even matter when selecting a President. Think about how screwed up defending that would be.

 

Eight years into this and we still pretend not to see what is right in front of our eyes. Hillary “lost” for lot of interrelated reasons, all of which were necessary but not sufficient, standing alone. Jim Comey’s superciliousness, FBI NY Field Office’s right wing corruption, active Russian interference, NY Times “even handed” both sidesism, latent and patent misogyny, instrumental theocracy.

But at its core, she lost because a strong plurality of Americans, strategically positioned in that election but never a majority, saw Trump exactly for who he was and said that’s what we have been waiting for. And they still do. Obviously not concerned with handling of classified information. Fine with supporting a foreign leader that hates the US so long as he hates gays.

We still make excuses for them, claiming they were forced to support him because of her emails, the economy, wokeness, whatever the excuse of the week is. Times change, but the fact that 70 million Americans know exactly who he is and love him for it, doesn’t. And they will expect the best available simulacrum of him after they swear they saw him assumed into heaven after a deep state assassination was made to look like a natural death.

They will destroy everything this nation has stood for for the last 50 years to make their point. And still we will excuse them, sending reporters to rural diners to better understand their undisclosed motivations while ignoring the loudly and repeatedly stated motivations all around us.

 

Amateur freestyle wrestling did something similar for several years a decade or so ago, switching from who scored the most points at the end of the match to who took 2 out of 3 periods. Everyone hated it...for obvious reasons. Since switched back.

 

I tend to disagree. Although the votes of Republicans in New York and California may not matter in presidential elections they do make a difference in Congressional elections which take place at the same time. As an example. Trump may not have carried his former home state of New York in 2020 but enough Republicans voted to reelect Elise Stefanik. Same for Kevin McCarthy in California.

 

Excellent point!

 

Hillary lost bigly and she continues to cackle about it.

 

Wow, you really think I don't understand how the anti-democratic electoral college system works? That may be the biggest insult you've ever said to me.

 

Only republicans would call it whining to be against stacking the deck for republicans in an election.

The popular vote is VERY meaningful in giving a POTUS a mandate. When Bush 2 and Trump lost the popular vote but won the White House, it proved that the Electoral College defied the will of the people. Any honest, decent President would take an electoral win and popular vote loss to mean they need to be a president to ALL Americans, not just the ones in the minority.

But they never do that.

 

The thing that bothers me about modern republicans is not the difference in ideology. It's the way you've followed the Fox News template of being mean and dishonest. It wasn't that way before the mid-90s (and it was by design by McConnell, Gingrich, Limbaugh & Murdoch).

To wit on honesty: "Hillary lost bigly"

*She won the popular vote by over 3 million votes.

*She lost the un-Democratic electoral college vote by losing Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, an assumed Democratic firewall. She lost those 3 states by just 24,000 votes each. Literally 0.057% of the total voters cost Clinton the presidency.

No honest assessment of that election could ever suggest that Hillary lost by anything but the narrowest of margins.