A new poll shows 52% of Republicans actually think Trump won the popular vote

I refuted this already

 

You have not refuted anything. You have yet to provide any language from either the constitution or a court decision to support your assertions on this thread.

 

No, that is the case. There is no difference as both statements are true. And while you personally may have little use for California, many millions of others from some of the poorest states in the union, who benefit from the revenue brought in by the nation's biggest economic state, wouldn't be as thankless as you.

 

I'm not suggesting the popular vote is how we elect a president. As far as Trump campaigning differently if we did elect a president by popular vote, Hillary would have also campaigned differently. Regardless, more voters wanted Hillary to be president than they wanted Trump.

 

More registered voters who actually voted appear to have voted for Clinton - which is irrelevant. Of course, if "Russia hacked the election", as Clinton/Obama suggest, the vote totals are contrived and inaccurate.

So Trump may well have actually won the popular vote. Let that soothe your spirits when you watch Trump sworn in. Happy New Year!

 

Except no one is contending Russia hacked the election. The contention is that Russia hacked the campaigns to affect the election. There's no evidence such an attack cost Trump many votes, if any at all.

No matter how you shake it, more voters wanted Hillary to be president than they wanted Trump.

 

In fact, the DP/RP political class is "contending that Russia hacked the election".

“What I’ve tried to do is present object facts and I think the objective fact that’s relevant here is the intelligence community, a month before the election, came forward and presented a unanimous view, a high-confidence assessment, that China was engaged in malicious cyber activity to destabilize our political system,” Earnest said.

“You said China,” a reporter responded, “You meant…”
“I’m sorry, I meant Russia,” Earnest said…”
CONFUSION: WH spokesman claims ‘China’ hacked election, BY KYLE OLSON
DECEMBER 12, 2016.
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/confusion-wh-spokesman-claims-china-hacked-election/

The White House may think "China hacked the election" - there seems to be some confusion there.

Anyone who believes the election was rigged can not be sure of the vote.

 

Lol, proved prop 8 was about marriage and proved it violated the 14th.

Why do you insist on making things up? You know perfectly well I've cited the 14th amendment, and provided the ruling for you to read.

 

And yet, once again, you are unable to provide any language from either the constitution or court to support your position.

 

I've provided the language from the constitution, and gave you the ruling to read. We both know this, and anyone can search this thread and see that. So making things up just makes you look silly.

 

You do realize that, "a month before the election," speaks to what I was saying? The contention is the hacking was during the campaign to affect the election, not to the election itself. This was known even during the campaign when it was happening. Trump even joked at one point that Russia should uncover Hillary's deleted emails.

 

I am trying to imagine how others may "benefit" from California, since my understanding is that it receives more revenue from the federal government than it sends to the federal government.

Just how, precisely, do these other states "benefit" from California?

 

Nonsense, you have yet to provide any language from either the constitution or any court supporting your position. If you were able to do that you would do it at every opportunity. Your not fooling anyone following this thread.

 

This was your assertion: "Except no one is contending Russia hacked the election." Ironman

Alas, 'someone' has said just that: “You said China,” a reporter responded, “You meant…”
“I’m sorry, I meant Russia,” Earnest said…”
CONFUSION: WH spokesman claims ‘China’ hacked election, BY KYLE OLSON
DECEMBER 12, 2016.
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/con...cked-election/

 

except for the language I provided, and the ruling which overturned prop 8, which you refuse to read.

we both know perfectly well that you've been provided with the ruling which overturned prop 8, Hollingsworth V Perry.

 

And by clearly stating, "a month before the election," it's beyond obvious he doesn't mean the election itself was hacked. It's obvious he was talking about the campaign being hacked.

 

And yet again, you fail to provide any language from any court decision or the constitution to support your position.

Why? Because you can't find any.

 

The White House disagrees with you. Earnest for the WH contends that the "China" oops! "I meant Russia" hacked the election.

“I’m sorry, I meant Russia,” Earnest said…”
CONFUSION: WH spokesman claims ‘China’ hacked election, BY KYLE OLSON
DECEMBER 12, 2016.
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/con...cked-election/

So where does fake news really come from? The White House? The Washington Post? The entire MSM?

 

read the ruling. You've been given a direct link to the ruling, and the name of the case. I'm not holding your hand and walking you through it. You've been shown to be wrong. Be a man, and accept it.

 

IOW, you are unable to draw any language from that decision, or any other, that advances your position. That should tell you something.

 

If Earnest actually said that then you would actually be quoting him. Instead, you're quoting the title of americanmirror.com article.

What Earnest actually said was, In fact, the DP/RP political class is "contending that Russia hacked the election".

“What I’ve tried to do is present object facts and I think the objective fact that’s relevant here is the intelligence community, a month before the election, came forward and presented a unanimous view, a high-confidence assessment, that China was engaged in malicious cyber activity to destabilize our political system."​

In what backwards universe does an event occurring "a month before the election" translate into the actual election itself? Even worse, how can you not understand he was talking about "a month before the election?"

 

read the ruling. You've been given a direct link to the ruling, and the name of the case. I'm not holding your hand and walking you through it. You've been shown to be wrong. Be a man, and accept it.

 

So, are you saying that the source headline does not reflect the WH/Earnest position?

How about the NYT?

“The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking." It backed up its story with a link to a joint FBI/Homeland Security report that details how Russian civilian and military intelligence services (termed "RIS" in the report) twice breached the defenses of "a U.S. political party," presumably the Democrats.

This report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures.

“This report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures.” ROLLING STONE, Something About This Russia Story Stinks
Nearly a decade and a half after the Iraq-WMD faceplant, the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment, By Matt Taibbi, 12/30/16.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

Many have stated that Russia hacked the election. It is yet another example of our serious "Fake News" problem.

 

It is your source - can't you find a *single sentence* from it that you feel confident will sustain your position? Did you really read it?

 

read the ruling. You've been given a direct link to the ruling, and the name of the case. I'm not holding your hand and walking you through it. You've been shown to be wrong. Be a man, and accept it.