Hillary Clinton did NOT win the popular vote

Definitely a Clinton guy, continue saying the wrong thing that is irrelevant.

 

How can illegal aliens vote. In the UK we have strict checks on voters. Just interested.

 

Doesn't matter any more than a football team claiming they should be declared the winner because they gained the most yards even though they got outscored because of the rules of the game.

 

God Bless Texas!!

 

Not true. All votes are counted.

There is more than just the votes for president on most all ballots.

 

Apparently, I'm not the one who needs help.

First, now that I'm home and not pecking on my phone, I'll address your contention that our "lax gun laws" are one of our chief problems.

Last time I checked, a gun does not jump up, load itself, pull its own trigger and kill someone. It takes human intervention.

THAT is where our problem lies! Our problem is liberal "soft on crime" courts who do not fulfill their responsibility to protect our people. I suppose you're happier now that people are using cars and trucks to commit mass murder? I don't see anyone rushing to ban automobiles. How many people do we lose to drunk drivers? Alcohol is still VERY legal - so it must not be the alcohol's fault...nor is it the car's fault.

People kill - not guns - period.

Our "lax gun laws" are the chief reason that the U.S. will NEVER be taken by force from an outside invading Army. They would have to go to every single town and disarm every single "good ol' boy" who could - and WOULD - put up a damn good fight to save his country!

Liberals want to eventually disarm our public from within. They won't come out and say it like that because they know they'd be resisted at every turn. They have to do it slowly....they have to act all indignant whenever someone kills people with guns (except in places like Chicago, where it doesn't suit their agenda) and they have to brand it with names like "social justice", "progressive" and other such tripe.

No, friend...we'll keep our guns, thank you very much!

I'm closing the case on that part - and nothing you say will sway my opinion one bit...so save it.


As for the other part - Chamberlain:

I'm talking about appeasement. Hitler? Sudetenland? Czechoslovakia? Any of that ring a bell?

I'll spell it out. All those points you brought up implying that, had we simply stayed out of Iraq...let them rape and plunder Kuwait...possibly roll right into Saudi Arabia, had we simply allowed Saddam Hussein to wreak whatever havoc he wanted in the Middle East, we wouldn't have all this radical Islamic terrorism.

That's what you're saying, right?

You probably also believe that, were we not allies with Israel, the jihadis would just be really swell guys to us.

Right?

What we should do is appease them....not confront their aggression and just let them do as they please and let that part of the world fend for themselves. We should be more like THEY want US to be.

Right?

That policy doesn't usually work out very well in the long run - or even in the short term. That's where Neville Chamberlain comes in. That's what he did in 1938. He appeased Hitler...he made concessions.

Do you recall how that worked out?

Of course you do. I'm sure you have decades of life experience under your belt...raising a family in uncertain times...along with all the responsibilities inherent to that. I'm sure you have a great deal of "higher education" to go along with it.

Right?

I suspect not. I have quite a different sort of person in mind - a very young and naïve person who has grown up being sheltered beneath the umbrella of freedom paid for by the blood of others.

Am I hitting close to home there?


Friend, if you seriously believe that our confronting Iraq and kicking them out of Kuwait is the cause of all the Islamic terrorism we're now having to deal with, you are seriously mistaken.

I was in the Gulf War. I was among the first to cross the border in February 1991 as a professional, active duty Soldier in a rapid deployment force. I was "in country" since the first few days we activated until long after the cease fire. I saw first-hand what the Iraqi Soldiers did to Kuwait on the orders of Hussein. It was an abomination and it had to be dealt with. It simply could NOT be allowed to stand!

Who is going to deal with that? The Arabs? NATO?

Hardly.

No....nothing happens without our lead, like it or not. We are now seeing what happens when we do NOT take the lead.

We have conceded our leadership role in hope that others will step in and tend to things. The Arabs damn sure won't do it. From East to West...North to South....Arabs are cowards. The only brave Arab is the radical Muslim Arab...and man, do I hate saying that - but it's true.


So we should just leave them to themselves. They'll work it out and Europe and the U.S. will be safe and secure.

As you Brits would say "Not bloody likely!"

I know - let's let Russia take care of it!

Take a look at Syria.


It's about more than oil...if you're planning on going down that road. It's about the friendships we manage to form with the few Arab states we can sorta trust - and our responsibility to come to their aid when they need us.

If that incites the radicals, so be it. The alternative is simply not a viable option.


Next time you want to insinuate that the Middle East would be better off without the U.S./British involvement - track down an honest Kuwaiti or Iraqi. Ask them about the brutality and atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein's forces.

Ask a Kuwaiti woman who was raped in front of her husband's open eyes...and then ask her how it felt to see her husband brutally murdered - disemboweled - right in front of her and her children.

Ask her if she was glad that the Coalition Forces liberated her country.

Ask an honest Iraqi woman about having every male in her family rounded up, taken away, shot in the head, and buried in a mass grave - all because they didn't support Hussein with enough fervor.

These atrocities happen all over the world. No - we cannot stop them all. However, we must try whenever we can possibly make a difference.

Or are all those innocent lives simply "acceptable losses" to you? If so, you apparently have never been a victim or have never lost someone close to such atrocities. If you had, you might be singing a different tune.

Sometimes....someone has to take a stand.


There's more to this world than your ideology you picked up from your college "professor", my dear friend. Before you blame the two countries who are, to this day, responsible for more GOOD in this world than any two others you can name -- think about where this world would actually be without "the good guys"!

Who comes to the aid of countries ravaged by earthquakes, floods, typhoons, etc. - who takes that lead role?


Are we perfect? No. No nation has ever been perfect.

Have we made mistakes? Yes, we have. No nation is without some kind of fault at some time.

There is no perfection...not even in an ideologue's Utopian-centric mindset. There are, however, such things as "good" and "evil".

You might want to brush up on those two general concepts - and then take a more realistic look at the world with the U.S. and Britain (when we actually lead)....and then imagine a world without them.


Thanks for reading. If you reply and I fail to reply again, it's probably because your reply convinces me you're beyond hope and don't feel like wasting any more of my time.


Merry Christmas from your friends in the U.S.

Stay safe.

 

GREAT NEWS!!

I just checked and I am the top of the reputation point list (for this hour anyway) on this site. You know what this means? That's right, I get to be president of America!!

What? What do you mean I have to win the electoral college? Well change the rules then because I'M THE MOST POPULAR!!!

 

I leave your gun laws to you, save to say that many civilians, adults and children, would be alive with tougher laws.

I

I didn't say that. I said we were right to intervene in Kuwait. We had a treaty with them. But we withdrew from invaded Iraqi territory when we had freed Kuwait.

Saddam Hussein was under 'control' by the Middle East. He had invaded Iran, and received a bloody nose and been thrown out.

We entered Iraq to unseat Hussein on the pretence of their being WOMD. We unseated Hussein and the country has been in turmoil ever since. This has encouraged other militia groups in the Middle East and we have had uprisings ever since. And who has benefitted economically. China - Iraqs biggest oil importer.

Who made us THEIR leaders?

.

Nearly half a million people have died from war-related causes in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003, according to an academic study published in the United States on Tuesday.

That's helping make a difference?

The fact is that up until the Iraq War (not the Golf War, in which we were obligated to intervene), the Middle East mainly sorted its own problems (with arms from the West).

After the Iraq invasion the Middle East went downhill fast as militia were encouraged - even by the West - to react. In some cases promised help did not arrive.

So we allow 200 girls in Nigeria to disappear, be sold off - or whatever happened to them, but because of oil we interfere in the Middle East, to our benefit.

Both the US and the UK are indeed 'good Samaritans' and have brought much to the world, but the UK in particular has taken much from the world over the centuries during its conquests, raping and pillaging countries for their natural resources and treating the people poorly. As you say, no country is perfect.

Nearly half a million people have died from war-related causes in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003, according to an academic study published in the United States on Tuesday.

Things change little in the Middle East. Bit of history for you.

Ashurnasirpal II succeeded his father, Tukulti-Ninurta II, in 883 BC. During his reign he embarked on a vast program of expansion, first conquering the peoples to the north in Asia Minor as far as Nairi and exacting tribute from Phrygia, then invading Aram (modern Syria) conquering the Aramaeans and neo Hittites between the Khabur and the Euphrates Rivers. His harshness prompted a revolt that he crushed decisively in a pitched, two-day battle. According to his monument inscription, while recalling this massacre he says "their men young and old I took prisoners. Of some I cut off their feet and hands; of others I cut off the ears noses and lips; of the young men's ears I made a heap; of the old men's heads I made a minaret. I exposed their heads as a trophy in front of their city. The male children and the female children I burned in flames; the city I destroyed, and consumed with fire". Following this victory, he advanced without opposition as far as the Mediterranean and exacted tribute from Phoenicia. On his return home, he moved his capital to the city of Kalhu (Nimrud).

Try your first quote.

I served in the British Services in 1958-1963.

I'm talking about appeasement. Hitler? Sudetenland? Czechoslovakia? Any of that ring a bell?

Certainly does.

Did you know that Sudetenland, part of Poland, Belgium and France were originally part of Germany. Sudetenland and part of Poland were German speaking. These were all taken from Germany by the Treaty of Versailles (1919) following the defeat of Germany by the Allies in WWI. This treaty was so savage that it left the German economy on its knees and unable to afford even the reparations required to be paid. So savage that it was eased several times. The period between 1920-1930 was disastrous for the Germans who resented the horrendous penalty and led to the rise of Hitler, who harnessed that resentment, cancelled reparations payments and boosted the German economy against the treaty arrangements - mainly in armaments.
By offering Germany its own territory back, Chamberlain was attempting to prevent a war. Had it succeeded Chamberlain would have been a hero, German speakers in Sudetenland and Poland would have been reunited with Germany. Unfortunately everyone underestimated Hitler and the effects of WWI's treaty. Germany was on the up, becoming powerful and the resentment overflowed into open hostility.

You have a happy Christmas too.

 

Prove it.

 

Forget the popular vote. Just let the 6 million get a chance to vote who lost their chance to vote because of voter suppression. 1.1 million were purged illegally and were taken off the voter rolls because Kris Kobach claimed they voted twice which was proven false. Many big cities that had large populations of minorities had to be turned away because there was only one polling station open. Security machines were turned off in big cities like Detroit and Lansing where mostly minorities were voting to ensure the vote got counted.

 

More like illegals registered to vote when they passed driver's licenses for illegals via motor voter. They started giving driver's licenses to illegals in Jan 2015.

Obama 2008 - 8,274,473
Obama 2012 - 7,854,285
Hillary 2016 - 8,753,788

Hillary got more votes in California than Obama did in 2008.......say WHAT?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_UquJB1V9k

 

It's not rigged if the machines are broken.

 

He is saying in a state that is overwhelmingly liberal, conservatives would not bother voting, so there would likely be at least another 2,000,000 conservative voters that would have voted trump in those liberal states that didn't waste their time. So he is basically correct in saying it doesn't exist and is irrelevant, because the way the electoral system is set up (which is an excellent system), the popular vote doesn't mean anything. It is a useless illusion that for some reason liberals are clinging to.

 

They were cut off. And by the way, broke or turned off mean the same thing. The votes have yet to be counted, just as the purged voters have not had their vote counted either. Clinton wins if all these people get to have their votes counted.

 

2.8 million, to be more exact.

 

Dude..people stay home or go to the polls. If they stay home they don't matter.

Per your complaint...there's no telling how many Dems in the three swing states that made the difference stayed home because they thought Clinton had it in the bag.

 

Eliminate the EC, period.

 

Don't you think this great nation of geniuses can devise a bullet-proof way to run voting and electing?

 

So how do you know it President Trump and not Hillary? Either way the recount failed.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, however you have to prove that it was President Trump and not someone else.

 

We won't have evidence until and unless the FEC investigates how many illegals voted.

I can tell you that the evidence is clear here in California if you look just at population,
ease of access to drivers licenses and voter registration for illegals, and multi-lingual
ballots. Why would you need ballots in 10 different languages, (more in San Francisco)
except because people who haven't done the basics of learning English, required to
become a citizen?

If you can't speak English, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

Well, what it means is that our "bogus" POTUS elect has a huge problem on his hands,& that is----a majority of American voters will fight him tooth & nail on his policy positions, his choices for his administration,to name a few So, to say the "popular vote is irrelevant"-----Think Again-----just saying----

 

Well, you don't have any real "fight" that anyone needs to worry about. if you mean you'll act like petulant Children who were told they couldn't have that new toy, and that you'll stamp your feet and cry....well go ahead.

Noone cares, and you'll keep losing. People like me will lap it up like honey. You have no House, no Senate and no presidency. Your fight will be useless, but enjoy. I know I will.

 

So, you are saying that the majority of the American people don't have a voice?I disagree with that completely---
The Democrats might not have the majority in the House,the Senate or (for right now anyway)the Presidency---But,I wouldn't get too cocky yet,you have Republicans that aren't too happy with trump & if trump keeps up siding with Russia over America,we will see how quickly the GOP representatives turn on trump-so,then "our" country wins over party politics---No, my fight is not useless---your party however, that is the GOP should keep a sharp eye on your bogus POTUS----

 

They have a voice, and it gave us Donald Trump.



Any other voices that you think you are hearing, aren't going to have any luck in their pursuits. Sorry, you guys lost, better off to just accept it than keep stamping your feet for 4 years. That kind of thing will simply turn 4 into 8.

The guy already, before even taking the seat, seems to be better for America and Americans than that fraud Obama.



Anyway, "fight" all you want I guess.