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

Of course the headline doesn't match the story. If it did, you would have quoted Earnest saying China Russia had hacked the election instead of quoting the headline; since Earnest actually referred to the hacking occurring "a month before the election."

 

IOW, you cannot find even a sentence from your own source to support your position. But you remain comfortable with the nullification of elections and the popular vote in CA. Or maybe your are not very comfortable in your position - which would make sense - and explain why you can't support it.

 

Let me refresh your memory. This is your position: "Except no one is contending Russia hacked the election." Why persist now that you have been shown that no less than the NYT has joined the fake news chorus and said exactly that?

“The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking." http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...stinks-w458439

 

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.

 

I take this to mean you've abandoned your claim that Earnest said the election was hacked since he actually said the hacking occurred before the election?

Only now you've gone from quoting the americanmirror.com to quoting Rolling Stone Magazine.

Try quoting an actual leftie. It looks like this...

"We were frankly more concerned in the run up to the election to the possibilities of vote tampering, which we did not see evidence of. And we’re confident that we can guard against.” - Barack Obama

Again.... the contention is that the hacking occurred during the campaign, not to the election itself.

 

Of course Earnest, the administration spokesman, has contended that the election was hacked by Russia. Almost the entire MSM and the DP/RP political class has made advanced the fake news that Russia hacked the election. Surely you noticed.

“Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking,” By DAVID E. SANGER, New York Times, DEC. 29, 2016.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/u...est&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=collection&_r=0

"Except no one is contending Russia hacked the election." Ironman

In fact, the entire corrupt political establishment was unusually united in advancing the absurd fake news that Russia hacked the election.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course Earnest, the administration spokesman, has contended that the election was hacked by Russia. Almost the entire MSM and the DP/RP political class has made advanced the fake news that Russia hacked the election. Surely you noticed.

“Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking,” By DAVID E. SANGER, New York Times, DEC. 29, 2016.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/politics/russia-election-hacking-sanctions.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2Frussian-election-hacking&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=collection&_r=0

"Except no one is contending Russia hacked the election." Ironman

In fact, the entire corrupt political establishment was unusually united in advancing the absurd fake news that Russia hacked the election.

 

Is there even 1 sentence in that case that might be relevant to any issue on this thread?

 

That is not surprising at all. A poll taken in the middle of the Cheney/Bush Iraq War revealed that a majority of Republicans believed that Iraq attacked us on 9/11. All most Republicans really know is that they hate Democrats, especially Clinton and Obama, because they have been trained like monkeys by Fox News and AM talk radio hacks.

 

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.

 

You have yet to paste up a single sentence from any source - even your own. Why?

 

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.

 

It's a pity you don't bother to read your own links...

Intelligence agencies have concluded that the G.R.U. ordered the attacks on the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations, with the approval of the Kremlin, and ultimately enabled the publication of the emails it harvested to benefit Donald J. Trump’s campaign.​

So now you have quoted Earnest saying the hacking occurred a month before the election; and now you reference an article which states the hacking, which was reported in the news before the election, was to the benefit of Trump's campaign-- which occurred before the election.; and I quoted Obama saying there was no evidence of vote tampering.

Yet here you are, digging your heels in to the contrary of your own articles and Obama.

 

LOL! Here is a link to a far better source: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7849

Read it.

 

Focus. This is what you posted: "Except no one is contending Russia hacked the election." Ironman

Your statement is false. In fact, many have and are contending just that. How many examples do you need to see?

Here is another example from the fake news blitz on this issue:

“On Tuesday, the director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, was asked about the WikiLeaks release of hacked information(*)during the campaign, and he said, "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He added, "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily." Mother Jones, The NSA Chief Says Russia Hacked the 2016 Election. Congress Must Investigate. It's up to Capitol Hill to protect American democracy,DAVID CORN, NOV. 16, 2016.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics...nvestigate-russian-interference-2016-campaign

Do you know how to use Google? Enter this: "Russia hacked the election" and see how many hits you get.

 

LOL

Now you're quoting motherjones.com as Rogers did not say the election was hacked. Like Earnest and Obama were clear about, the hacking before the election -- which is what I said.

 

you seem confused. that link doesn't contain any mention of the ruling of Hollingsworth v Perry.

 

Read it - carefully.

 

you seem confused. that link doesn't contain any mention of the ruling of Hollingsworth v Perry.

 

Much of that text relates directly to all your issues. Read it carefully. OTH, there does not appear to be anything of any substance in your cited case related to the topic at hand.

 

you seem confused. that link doesn't contain any mention of the ruling of Hollingsworth v Perry.

 

Repeat the poll next year, but among Democrats ... you will find out that also Democrats will be changing their persuasion ... It's how politics works. People tend to please the winner [despite reality ... reality doesn't give you a job ... Trump could reopen mines and firms ... according to his electoral promises ... I will wait for him ...].

 

There is nothing in "Hollingsworth v Perry" that is relevant to this thread.

 

I was refuting your comment about the "will of the people" or "popular vote" being overturned by some ruling political class. It was overturned because it violated the US constitution. Ballot initiatives can't violate the US constitution.

 

Again you are unable to provide any language from either the Constitution or any court that supports your conclusions. The popular vote, and the will of the people is now routinely overturned at the whim of the political class. I look forward to seeing something substantive from some source you may have discovered.

Here is something from my source: “Before the law sits a gatekeeper.(*)To this gatekeeper comes a man from the country who asks to gain entry into the law. But the gatekeeper says that he cannot grant him entry at the moment. The man thinks about it and then asks if he will be allowed to come in sometime later on. “It is possible,” says the gatekeeper, “but not now.” The gate to the law stands open, as always, and the gatekeeper walks to the side, so the man bends over in order to see through the gate into the inside. When the gatekeeper notices that, he laughs and says: “If it tempts you so much, try going inside in spite of my prohibition. But take note. I am powerful. And I am only the(*)lowliest(*)gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the last. I cannot endure even one glimpse of the third.” The man from the country has not expected such difficulties: the law should always be accessible for everyone, he thinks, but as he now looks more closely at the gatekeeper …” BEFORE THE LAW, a parable by Franz Kafka.
http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/kafka/beforethelaw.htm

 

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.