50-100 Electoral Votes For Trump May Have Been Cast Illegally

[Xar226]

Oh, stop it. I hate the man as much as the next person but he won. Time to move on.

[Swagger]

I love liberals. After Trumps blowout win for President I've been extremely entertained by them.

An entire generation of people given participation trophies and told that they are the most important thing in the world have no idea how to take a loss.

It's pretty great. #MAGA

[Ghostpanther]

last min. grasp for a straw. Sorry guys, Trump will be the next President, just accept it and move on. You will sleep better.

[JadedTauren]

Never heard of your source had to look it up and here is what I found

AlterNet is a progressive activist news service
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNet

and it has also been listed as a fake news site
http://www.fortliberty.org/hoax-sites.html

lol does srs resrch... links wikipedia and right-wing blog.

[Mister Cheese]

What would this change? You get different electorates and then they cast their vote for Trump anyway. Pack it up.

[Heladys]

which makes it twice as hilarious as well as ironic.
democrats/liberals complain that conservatives on this forum are obstructionists who spam anti obama threads. trump wins election via electoral college. dems on this forum turn into obstructionists and start spamming anti trump threads.

You like to obstruct, you should be shown obstruction. Simple as that.

[Bullettime]

What would this change? You get different electorates and then they cast their vote for Trump anyway. Pack it up.

It's more that it's further proof of our voting system being dysfunctional. Every single reason for having the system has been exposed as failing in this election cycle.

Will of the people? Trump lost the popular vote by a huge margin. This is extremely rare historically for the wining candidate to lose the popular vote, but has happened now multiple times in the last 20 years.

Educated voice to eliminate foreign demagogues and populists? Trump won despite that.

Neutral/non government electors? Proof now that a bunch of electors are actually state party reps or elected officials, meaning their opinions are biased beyond even party lines and violated the law in casting those votes.

Faithless elector laws in general fly in the face of the system.

Populated states like California, Texas, Florida, and New York actually not having proportional votes to their populations.

Every single reason or "fail safe" failed this year. That's why it's such a big talking point.

[Tinykong]

Trumps blowout win

Loses popular vote, 46th out of 58 for margin of victory in Electoral votes.

"blowout"

lol

[Deleted]

If Russia influenced the election, that's an issue to look into. Not to turn over Trump's presidency (because it won't), but to STOP that from happening again.

Russia influencing the election has been so chaotic in the news. First they literally hacked the machines and changed the vote. They hacked Podesta's email servers. Now it was the phishing. And at last the important part was the leak but not hack itself at all. Why would I take that seriously anymore?
The Russia 'hack' is a phishing email. How do you look or prevent that? Tell Podesta to not click suspicious emails. That's literally it. Anyone can send those emails, I've received those and somehow been hacked even without clicking it. I don't think the proof for it being Russia is concrete enough.

If the Electoral College isn't fulfilling it's duty (To prevent an unfit person from taking the presidency), whether it be due to unfaithful electorate laws or not, that's an issue to look into. Not because it will turn over Trumps presidency (because it won't), but because that's a serious issue with our voting system that should be taken care of. Not when another election happens and we have this same stupid discussion about how this is how it's worked for years and we should have done something sooner, but NOW when you're saying it SHOULD be getting done, but are now preventing the conversation that needs to start to make it happen.

Democrats were trying to influence electors for their own political beliefs, not because the candidate is unfit. Electors didn't fall for it. Why should that be taken seriously?
How do you define an unfit person anyway? You could discuss about that until ends of the earth and never get an answer. When the candidate is dead or really sick he's unfit sure. When his political beliefs are different to yours, does that make him unfit? How different does it have to be to be unfit?

The 50-100 being cast illegally is the only strange one. Maybe we'll get answers, maybe not. But we've seen so much EC complaining already, it's starting to get old.

There are real answers, been there from the beginning.

- - - Updated - - -

Will of the people? Trump lost the popular vote by a huge margin. This is extremely rare historically for the wining candidate to lose the popular vote, but has happened now multiple times in the last 20 years.

It wasn't a huge margin. Also it hasn't happened that many times. 2 times, 2000 and 2016, and it happened 2 times in 1878 and 1888. Only if the next ones continue the trend it'll actually be something new.

Neutral/non government electors? Proof now that a bunch of electors are actually state party reps or elected officials, meaning their opinions are biased beyond even party lines and violated the law in casting those votes.

The law doesn't state the elector has to be neutral. Being biased doesn't violate law. It's a dual-office law in some states. Maybe next time they'll just keep some friends who aren't on government payroll and have them be electors.

Faithless elector laws in general fly in the face of the system.

Historically faithless electors have only affected the election when a candidate has died. How is it that this time it "flies in the face of the system"?

Populated states like California, Texas, Florida, and New York actually not having proportional votes to their populations.

There's a reason for winner takes all. It gives the state itself more say in the federation.
For example if one state gives proportionatelly 50 votes, it'd be 25 and 25. If another state gives all 50 to one candidate, that state's candidate will always win. It gives a single state more power and say on federal level.

The "fail safe"s haven't failed this year. Just because you don't like someone, doesn't make them a bad candidate.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Witness the last attempt by the "not accepting the results is outrageous (but only if our gal wins)" crowd to stop Trump.

Joe gets pretty annoyed.

Paul laughs it up.

The best outrages from the butthurt result deniers can be found at these timeframes:

0:49
6:02
7:16 <-- if you only watch one, watch this one, "IT IS OVER" --Joe 2017
20:10
27:40
28:37
29:35
32:18

[PosPosPos]

Not surprising, considering Republicans have an extensive history of subverting the law for political/monetary benefit, often in an egregious manner(see Flint and the war in the Middle East) - all the while pinning the blame on "liburuls", as if their hypocrisy coming the so-called party of personal responsibility somehow leads their political opponents into forcing them to commit heinous crimes.

[Nathreim]

Its over Trump won fair and square stop bitching. You can disagree with his plans and ideas but hes going to be the President no amount of bullshit is going to change that.

Good on Biden not giving these children who cant follow basic rules any time. I never agreed with his politics but hes a good guy.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Not surprising, considering Republicans have an extensive history of subverting the law for political/monetary benefit, often in an egregious manner(see Flint) - all the while pinning the blame on "liburuls", as if their hypocrisy coming the so-called party of personal responsibility somehow leads their political opponents into forcing them to commit heinous crimes.

Whats not surprising is that people are falling for yet another bit of false fake untrue conspiracy theory news.

Trump won.

He won the nomination.

He won the election.

He won the recount.

He won the EC vote.

Congress certified it all.

Trump is President.

[Forogil]

How many that voted Hillary were the same?

You can look at the original report: https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=788otalK

Looking at the overview and the numbers I get the following:
Seems 16 republicans were from the wrong district and 1 democrat.
Seems 34 republicans held dual-office and perhaps 15 democrats.

But I might be wrong (didn't bother to look at the states etc). In addition there were other irregularities, and as many other things in the US it is unclear - since they have to look at names for voter registrations etc.

So, it is not a republican issue - but it happens to be that slightly more republicans were detected by this. It should be cleaned up.

[Deleted]

He has won.

Get over it.

[iperson]

Keep at it libs. I honestly won't ever get tired of watching dems lose...

[want my Slimjim]

Bad news indeed if they forfeit their choice. The last thing we need is a Hillary presidency. And a war with Russia would be upon us.

[Noogai131]

But you're cool going to war with China? Or whatever other country Trump pisses off?

Pissing another country off won't cause a war. The worst it can do is cause a re-negotiated trade agreement which would not favor the US.

I dare you to find ANY country on earth with the balls to attempt a war against the US on its own, or even with a group of like-minded nations. Not even North Korea has the insanity to do so, they'd get stomped into the dirt by the entire US military that has been doing nothing but scratching their balls and twiddling their thumbs for the last 6 years.

[Noogai131]

Japan? Just off the top of my head. And when I say "piss off" I'm obviously using a very informal term. Trump had undermined decades old foreign policy and attacks foreign companies on fucking Twitter. War isn't always fought with guns.

Japan? Mounting a war against the US? Prey tell, exactly how would they do that? They have less of a navy than China, and China is currently the only country that would stand a snowballs chance in hell at doing ANYTHING to the united states.

War isn't always fought with guns, no. But the point made was that Hillary would have started an ACTUAL war, the one where bullets and missiles go flying because the president thinks a no-fly zone over a contested middle eastern country is solid foreign policy.

Trump making another country feel sore in the pants because he said something stupid isn't going to have the same effect.

[Noogai131]

They've done it before. You think no one but China could even have a chance then you claim that war with Russia would be for sure with Clinton? Make up your mind.

I didn't say russia would have a chance. I said it would happen. They'd still lose, but it would be guaranteed war compared to another country attempting to declare war.

A war between the US and Russia based on the no fly zone would be held within Syria, which would give Russia the illusion of a chance. They wouldn't have to invade the US.

No other country in the world would have a chance at invading the US. Not a snowballs chance in hell. You're more than welcome to think they can, but you'd be wrong. It's been discussed time and time again.

How do you think a country with a combined fleet strength of 154 has a chance in hell compared to a country with over 400, let alone the air power it commands?