Clinton winning popular vote

That is the basis of the demands for the recounts, you don't support the reasons for the recounts?

 

Why don't you want the millions of middle class IRA's and 401k's to increase in value?

 

Liberals are too emotional to be patient. I saw posts all over the place when the stock market dove after Trump was elected. Then silence when it climbed to a record high.
The fun of watching CNN pundits whine and thrash around since election day has made all of this worth while. The democrats have less seats in both houses than at anytime since the 1920's.
They are actually contemplating moving toward Bernie and Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren as their only answer to come back.
Republicans are going to place at least three Supreme Court Justices into a lifetime appointment. I may never see democrat rule again in my lifetime.
This dream is just too good to be true.

 

They left it up to each state, if you want to change to that in your state your state is perfectly free to do so.

 

OK, you totally made up the part about me saying anything about "the Russian hacked voting machines especially in Pennsylvania."

Now, where did I say anything about recounts? You made that up too.

- - - Updated - - -

Alexander Hamilton described the framers' view of how electors would be chosen, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated [tasks]."[28] The founders assumed this would take place district by district. That plan was carried out by many states until the 1880s. For example, in Massachusetts in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district."[29] In other words, the people did not place the name of a candidate for a president on the ballot, instead they voted for their local elector, whom they trusted later to cast a responsible vote for president.

Some states reasoned the favorite presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way – a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.[30] So the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."[31] Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.[30]

When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution. According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."[28] According to Hamilton, the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector to violate the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates. Madison agreed entirely, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts and it was inconceivable a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay,

The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [many years later].[32]

The founders assumed electors would be elected by the citizens of his district, and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president.

Madison and Hamilton were so upset by what they saw as a distortion of the framers’ original intent, they advocated for a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan: "the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823.[32] Hamilton went further. He actually drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.[33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

The EC was supposed to be informed represenatives to protect the Republican from charlatans who are "utterly amoral," a "pathological liar" "fraudster," “narcissist" "phony" "dangerous national security risk" "con man" "national embarrassment" who is "wholly unprepared to be president.

Instead it is a system of party lackeys whose job it is to keep the establishment parties in power.

It is nothing like what the founders intended.

 

Please quote where I said I don't want the millions of middle class IRA's and 401k's to increase in value.

It's never too early for you to start making (*)(*)(*)(*) up about what I post, is it?

- - - Updated - - -

So what?

 

Here's a solution for the democrats. Move! There's no reason every democrat has to live in California. Send a few thousand democrats to a few key Midwestern states and shore up that blue wall.

It might do Californians some good to see what life is like outside their liberal bubble.

 

They love to live in big cities and California has a lot of them. The Democratic party has a lot of registered African Americans and Latinos. California being next to Texas has the highest Latino population in the country. My wife grew up in California and she knows spanish well. It is a second language in that state that all of the schools teach. As long as Latino's continue to move to California and continue to vote for a Democrat that state will never turn red.

Colorado is a great example of how a state can go from being Republican in past elections to leaning Democratic this election. The Latino population there has increased to over 1 million people and some are attributing that to the reason Hillary flipped the state. Big cities can decide the outcome of which states will vote for which party and Latinos and African Americans heavy populate a lot of big cities.

I would also like to point out Republicans don't campaign in California. Sarah Palin admitted on Fox News when she was campaigning for Trump the Republican party told her certain states were a no go. So expect the state to be blue for a long time.

 

I am a native of California and have lived here since 1938. We once had a time when republicans could win elections.

So what happened? This is just my guess, but I believe it reasoned and rational.

As people came here, they were independent spirits. They had bailed out of other areas of the country, and in some cases came from other nations.

Cities were developed by republicans. Democrats were far too racist for California's taste.

CA did have our own form of racism. Against both NA types, those NA from both this country and those above and below the border.

They were a minimum.

Blacks made a grave error getting tied to Democrats. But they did.

They came into CA mostly due to the war effort. CA was rich with war industry. Jobs were easy to find.

Given time, cities grew like mad. NA and Blacks breed like rabbits, though not in every case.

CA over time attracted more Democrats. As time passed, into the early 1950's, republicans still held power.

That changed. By the time of Arnold Schwarzenegger, it had totally flip flopped. He managed to be governor since he came from the movie industry. He more than likely is our final republican unless we have a major shake-up.

California rules you already with 55 electoral votes. But must you wish for the popular vote here as well?

For many states, it would be suicide.

 

Every time we cut those rates the economy does well and the markets go up as we are seeing just in the aniticipation. That helps all of us who are properly planning for our futures and our retirements. Why would you not want policies that accomplish that?



- - - Updated - - -



So what?[/QUOTE]

 

So you support the recounts but the the basis for them, care to elaborate on that? Or do you not support the recounts.

That matters not a twit, Trump was elected under the Constitutional system we have. If you want to change that then start a move to amend the Constitution which is NOT going to happen.

 

Between African Americans and Latino Hispanics it will be very difficult for a Republican to take California unless they get tired of the Democratic party which does not seem to be happening any time soon. Even after the Democratic party had such a big defeat they will probably still do good in the next election because of California. With that state they have a huge advantage over the electoral college. Having both Chicago and New York City also gives them an even bigger advantage over the EC. If Donald does a poor job and I don't honestly think he will but if he does it will be hard to defeat the Democrats in the next election.

California used to be a very Republican state but times do change.

 

Let's just hope they are successful in their endeavor to secede.

 

I was born here in 1938 and let's take a look at the period from 1947-55.

I think I met my first Mexican in 1948, could have been 1947. They made awesome tamales. I loved them and mom would buy them from time to time. Were they here legally? Back then, I did not know what an illegal alien was. I never asked Rudy or Narci if they were here legally or not. One did not ask parents of your friends such questions. Much later in high school, Rudy became a bad A$$ punk and I beat a boy up due to things he told me. That part is my fault. But Rudy and I had this bond going back to 6th grade. Then at high school, I ran into several more Mexicans who lived in a tiny community serviced by Hayward High school called Russell City. There were some serious bad punks there. They often got sent to jail. Hayward took the area over and it is now commercial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_City,_California

What alarms me about CA is that illegals vote in the elections. The law says they break the law and of course Mexicans never break laws, do they? But one can watch the video of Obama coaching them to vote illegally all over America.

[video=youtube;7R_aT6ucGNQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R_aT6ucGNQ&t=14s[/video]

The thrust of my message is we kids had no idea. We had a Mexican man in the family. I can't tell you today if Jess was illegal or not. That never came up during the years I knew the man. Jess was born in Guanajuato though. I totally lost track of him and his wife and kids by 1964. Mom used to stay in touch with the family and she died in 1980.

So, though i live in about the middle of CA in the SF area, I understand that down south Mexicans are all over the place and no doubt back Democrats for the most part. My niece married a Mexican who is an American Citizen and she told me her husband was going to vote for Hillary. She voted for Trump.

 

A lot of us in CA prefer the country stick together. But Democrats in this state make it harder and harder on us.

 

California also has a lot of illegal's that are registered democrats.

- - - Updated - - -

I lived on the border in Texas in the 50's and there were plenty of what were called 'wetbacks' then. Dad even hired one as a maid.

 

http://eaglerising.com/31596/califo...every-california-vote-should-be-disqualified/