In addition to blatantly disregarding the Constitution, one relevant test of the argument is whether, if the situation were reversed, you would see Mr. Lessig write the same article.
I think not.
Meanwhile, the b*tch STOLE the popular vote with illegal aliens voting (and Obama urging illegals to vote), rigged voting machines that flipped votes from Trump to Clinton, multiple votes cast by RATS in the names of deceased people and fake names, etc.
I would also point out, that Hillary got a minority of the popular vote.
Yes she got more votes than anyone else; she go a plurality not a majority. About 52% of voters voted against her.
The Clintons didn’t bitch about the electoral vote when Bill got only 43% of the vote in 1992, on his way to a clear electoral vote win.
The difference can be attributed to illegals voting for Hitlery.
Trump adviser, Newt Gingrich wrote in his book “Real Change” that companies like PayPal, Amazon, Stub Hub or FedEx do billions of transactions with over 99% accuracy and they should be considered as contractors to handle federal elections in a fair and legal way.
When that comes to pass the democrats are going to lose the ability to carry secured districts achieved through illegal vote manipulation.
It is far more egregious than that. The better analogy would be that a game is decided not by the number of hits, but by the number of fans that came to the game.
Remarkably observant piece. Thank you.
Well actaully and factually no one won the popular vote because we do not conduct a popular vote for the President in America
>>>>Lessig has written an article for The Washington Post saying that members of the Electoral College should ignore what they were actually elected to do, and should take it upon themselves to give the presidency to Hillary Clinton.
This would be a coup - literally be an act of war. Amazing that they think they could do this without bloodshed.
The process IS unitary and that’s what Trump and Hillary both played to. Jill and Hill are screaming to yank one piece out, change it in isolation, and call that “integrity.” That’s not integrity. That’s a Frankenstein monster complete with ugly stitches.
Anyone believing the popular vote should decide the election, by the same reasoning, should believe that less populous states should give up their senate seats to more populous states. It just doesn’t work that way.
If “red states” didn’t have representation, it would clearly be the recipe for another civil war.
Well, there's a problem right there. The president is elected not by being the “people’s choice” but by being the choice of the states.
It all involves a little thing called the Rule of Law, something that libs tend to ignore when it suits them.
If this happens, well...
let’s just say that pissy post-election protests, window smashing, and street fires will be like a kitchen match compared with the conflagration that would ensue.
January 20th can’t come soon enough.
I find that “she was the peoples’ choice” comment laughable. Trump was elected by the voters of the United States of America. Hillary was selected by California.
-—His argument is that since Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she is the “people’s choice.”
She’s clearly not the “people’s choice” of the United States. But she’s very likely the overwhelming people’s choice for those voters from Mexico, Guatemala, and Somalia.
If the election process is not cleaned up, the republican party will cease to exist. http://truethevote.org/news
of today, according to The New York Times, Hillary Clinton has 62,391,335 votes from all states. She has 1,969,920 votes from the five counties that make up New York City, and 1,893,770 votes from Los Angeles County, California. Donald Trump has 61,125,956 votes from all states, including 461,174 votes from the five counties that make up New York City, and 620,285 votes from L.A. County. In other words, Hillary beat Trump 3,863,690 to 1,081,459 in New York and L.A.; he beat her by 60,044,497 to 58,527,645 in the rest of the country. So Hillary’s margin in the popular vote rests entirely on her margin in two large cities — neither of which was contested by the Trump campaign.
These sons of bitches would burn down the country just to achieve power.
This is exactly why we need Laura Ingraham as press secretary.
The press lies and spins Trump’s wonderful election victory into a popular vote loss - an outdated electoral system, a victory for racism, etc..
The press is so unaccountable to the truth that in one month’s time they have shifted their self-serving narrative from:
“Trump questioning the election results would be unprecedented, causing a constitutional crisis and loss of public confidence in a time-tested system” all the way to:
“Clinton questioning the election results is a bold and courageous stand against an antiquated, obsolete (and probably racist) electoral system”.
Unfortunately, the dishonesty of the press is so utter and so profound that the public can’t even conceive of such corruption - and therefore remains mostly trusting. They continue to listen, doubting some of it, but for the most part believing that what is reported is fact.
This is such a tragedy - people are not getting the truth!
When Trump drains the swamp, he first has to vanquish the lying press - but somehow do it without censorship.
I don’t know how he’s going to accomplish it, but I know appointing Laura as his press secretary would be a very good start!