George Soros funding Jill Stein?

[Kiri]

46% or around there since counting seems to still be happening. That is not the majority.

Is it? Last number I heard was 48% turnout. In that case, the majority of eligible voters did go to vote, yes, but let's assume it is 60% to high-ball. Since the two are pretty close on total number of votes, that would mean 30% each of the total eligible population. So still more people did not vote at all than voted for either candidate, therefore neither can claim that the majority of citizens are behind them.

[Daymanmb]

I thought his kids were going to run his company? He can't think letting that happen and them having any position in his adminstration will actually happen, can he?

Hes already applied for his family and daughter's husband, access to sensitive government information. Lets not pretend that he wont be running the businesses too.

[Wolfheart9]

You're reaching a new level of vocabulary ignorance here - at least as how the word majority applies to elections.

Majority means greater than 50%. The word you are looking for is plurality.

If there are 1000 votes, and one person wins 501, the other wins 499, the 501 has won the majority of votes. If you're intending to split hairs over a meaning of a meaning of a word, then no one won the majority. If you stop trying to find fights or or the likes and realize that they mean 'Hillary won more popular votes than Trump', then that is, in fact, a fact. It is, in fact, a fact, that more voters wanted Hillary than wanted Trump.

[Zan15]

I'll never get the US' right's obsession with Soros.

its their way of deflecting attention away from people like koch brothers, Peter Thiel, etc etc

they make you think soros is the only one doing it

[Daymanmb]

I agree. I think holding onto such dumb irrelevant facts is stupid. I mean, it does disgrace the system, but regardless irrelevant imo being a president.

Is it irrelevant though? Because he seems to hold onto a lot of dumb ideas that he tries to pass off as fact. Wait until he tries to legislate some of them..

[Citizen T]

If there are 1000 votes, and one person wins 501, the other wins 499, the 501 has won the majority of votes. If you're intending to split hairs over a meaning of a meaning of a word, then no one won the majority. If you stop trying to find fights or or the likes and realize that they mean 'Hillary won more popular votes than Trump', then that is, in fact, a fact. It is, in fact, a fact, that more voters wanted Hillary than wanted Trump.

I'm not disputing that Hillary won more popular votes than did Trump. I'm disputing that she won a majority of votes. She won a plurality of votes - as did her husband in both elections that he won for President - but did not win the electoral college. I support the Electoral College but there is another thread debating that and I'm not going to start that discussion here.

[Zan15]

wow are you really fighting the fact she won the majority of votes. geeze you trumpeters will freaking fight over everything and bend the laws of stupidity just to try to make your side come out on top.

[Zyster]

Well, tell me, mr.acute case, how are the protests worse this time around, then when people were burning effigies of the president?

http://www.infowars.com/hillary-supp...sing-election/

The problem with this election isn't that the indicents are secular to either group, it's that there are more people participating in them this year than ever before.

here is a good read if interested.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/histo...ry?id=37634969

- - - Updated - - -

Is it? Last number I heard was 48% turnout. In that case, the majority of eligible voters did go to vote, yes, but let's assume it is 60% to high-ball. Since the two are pretty close on total number of votes, that would mean 30% each of the total eligible population. So still more people did not vote at all than voted for either candidate, therefore neither can claim that the majority of citizens are behind them.

I really wish there was a system in place that required all eligible voters to vote. Maybe some incentive of sorts. Something that wouldn't quite force them to since I think many people would be disgusted with such a system.

[araine]

A couple of news sites have made the claim that Soros is funding Stein, given that magically she's coming into more money than she actually raised to run for office. I think myself she's acting as a Clinton pawn as a last ditch effort by the left to cheat a victory out. I mean for all their bellyaching and pissing and moaning, their "Popular Vote" claim is not as valid as they would like to believe. Mitt Romney won popular vote in 2012.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/...r-recount.html

All hopes that Trump extradites Soros to Russia. He's a cancer and needs to be excised.

But hey, we all know what the Left will say if they "alter" the election results by recounting and finding "enough votes were improper" <insert bullshit excuse>, to cheat their way back to the White House. They'll be all "Oh you need to move on blah blah etc etc.". Since you know, only the Left is allowed to raise hell if life doesn't go their way. Is there no way to block a candidate who got 1% from doing this? I honestly expect the results will be tampered with in some material way to change the outcome if this is allowed.

No he did not win the popular vote not in 2008 or 2012 keep on trying until you actually post that he lost it big big big time you are and will be wrong. he lost the popular vote by a HUGE margin Obama won in a landslide

[Wolfheart9]

I'm not disputing that Hillary won more popular votes than did Trump. I'm disputing that she won a majority of votes. She won a plurality of votes - as did her husband in both elections that he won for President - but did not win the electoral college. I support the Electoral College but there is another thread debating that and I'm not going to start that discussion here.

*faceplants*

She won the majority of the votes in the English definition of the word majority.
She did not win the majority of votes in the Political definition of the word majority.
To say she did not win the majority of votes is factually wrong.
To say she did not win the political majority of votes is factually right.

This is called splitting hairs, because you understand what they're trying to say but you're trying to prove it wrong by, you guessed it, splitting hairs over definitions. Has nothing to do with the electoral college unless people are specifically talking about the political definition of majority, which those here so far are not.

[Zyster]

Is it irrelevant though? Because he seems to hold onto a lot of dumb ideas that he tries to pass off as fact. Wait until he tries to legislate some of them..

Completely not irrelevant. I think I should of been more clear. I don't believe in making claims without significant proof. For example (I'm just using this as an example. Not saying this ever happened), Obama was seen in Kenya, therefore he was born there. Instead of proven documentation that he isn't a US citizen.

[araine]

Is it? Last number I heard was 48% turnout. In that case, the majority of eligible voters did go to vote, yes, but let's assume it is 60% to high-ball. Since the two are pretty close on total number of votes, that would mean 30% each of the total eligible population. So still more people did not vote at all than voted for either candidate, therefore neither can claim that the majority of citizens are behind them.

Thats why you got the democracy you deserve, with pathetic voter turnout, anything below 80% is a disaster when it comes to voter turn out if you ask me. and i havnt not missed a single election since the mid 80s

[Citizen T]

Recounting where democrats won would be a waste of money for them. Why don't you start raising money to do a recount there?

The democrats are all saying that they are only doing this to ensure that a fair count was done. If that is truly their reason then New Hampshire should be one of their target states.

I have no reason to waste time nor money for a recount in NH or anywhere else. I'm not a sore loser.

[Wolfheart9]

Thats why you got the democracy you deserve, with pathetic voter turnout, anything below 80% is a disaster when it comes to voter turn out if you ask me. and i havnt not missed a single election since the mid 80s

Just make voting for the president be dialed in from your phones while they prove their talents on a TV show. This election was damn near that already and people show they love voting for crap like that.

/s

[May90]

Don't read through his posts too much, it will make you sad.

Oh, I don't, he is not the kind of the person who's posts are worth reading. It is just a bit sad that this guy is going to be the president for the next 4, if not 8, years.

He is almost like David Icke. He lives in his own world, makes up conspiracy theories left and right ("Romney won the popular vote", "Obama was born in Kenya", "The FBI is covering up after Clinton", "The election is riiiiigged" are just few of many) - but, unlike Icke, he is actually given more power than just making weird speeches in front of his faithful followers. He is actually going to manage the most powerful country in the world. :/

[Wolfheart9]

The democrats are all saying that they are only doing this to ensure that a fair count was done. If that is truly their reason then New Hampshire should be one of their target states.

I have no reason to waste time nor money for a recount in NH or anywhere else. I'm not a sore loser.

Cool, so enjoy that they're wasting their money.

[Zyster]

The democrats are all saying that they are only doing this to ensure that a fair count was done. If that is truly their reason then New Hampshire should be one of their target states.

I have no reason to waste time nor money for a recount in NH or anywhere else. I'm not a sore loser.

I'm surprised he claimed this tbh. Talks about a fair system, then says get fucked for anywhere democrats already won.

[Citizen T]

*faceplants*

She won the majority of the votes in the English definition of the word majority.
She did not win the majority of votes in the Political definition of the word majority.
To say she did not win the majority of votes is factually wrong.
To say she did not win the political majority of votes is factually right.

This is called splitting hairs, because you understand what they're trying to say but you're trying to prove it wrong by, you guessed it, splitting hairs over definitions. Has nothing to do with the electoral college unless people are specifically talking about the political definition of majority, which those here so far are not.

The fact is that you tried to criticize someone else's use of the word majority (sarcasticly I might add) when he was using it correctly since it was in reference to an election. You were either incorrect or splitting hairs. I'm just pointing that out.

[Wolfheart9]

The fact is that you tried to criticize someone else's use of the word majority (sarcasticly I might add) when he was using it correctly since it was in reference to an election. You were either incorrect or splitting hairs. I'm just pointing that out.

Consider it pointed out, and my point remains that those that that post was aimed at were speaking of the normal definition of majority which means more than 50% of a whole.

[Nihilist74]

I don't expect it but im going to laugh my ass off if this results in trump losing.