The sun isn't shining today. BLAME TRUMP.
-
that 3 million illegals voted in the election;
If you look at the US with states that require no id to vote vs ones that do, and compare it to the electoral college results, you might notice something.
Care to guess what that is?
I'll take you up on that:
California – Clinton
Illinois --- Clinton
Iowa -- Trump
Maine -- Trump and Clinton
Maryland -- Clinton
Massachusetts -- Clinton
Minnesota -- Clinton
Nebraska -- Trump
Nevada . -- Trump
New Jersey . Clinton
New Mexico -- Clinton
New York -- Clinton
North Carolina -- Trump
Oregon -- Clinton
Pennsylvania -- Trump
Vermont -- Clinton
West Virginia -- Trump
Wyoming -- Trump
Washington DC -- ClintonThat's 11 for Clinton, 7 for Trump and one tie. If you are talking about Electoral College Votes, the result will be skewed because NY and California have so many.
But, your premise is flawed. Voter ID laws are generally part of a conservative agenda, so where they succeed, one would expect Trump would win. It does not mean that lack of ID permits illegal votes for Clinton.
-
It's funny though, that Hillary dominated in states that required no id to vote.
-
It's funny though, that Hillary dominated in states that required no id to vote
Of all the states without voter ID, (excluding Maine), Clinton won in 62% and Trump won in 38%. Considering Clinton won 48% of the popular vote, while Trump won 46%, I don't think the difference is enough to support your argument.
-
It's funny though, that Hillary dominated in states that required no id to vote.
That's probably because–-since many courts have determined voter ID laws often disenfranchises voters of color and poor voters of all races---those who wouldn't be able to obtain IDs easily were able to vote and they voted for Clinton. That doesn't necessarily mean they were all undocumented immigrants as there are no reputable reports of undocumented immigrants voting in huge numbers, especially not 3 million of them in one election. Some forms of ID require payment, birth certificate and various other things that can be extremely hard to obtain depending on your socioeconomic status. If you live in a rural area of a state and your state requires you to have photo ID to vote but to get that ID you need to provide a birth certificate, then you have to go through extra hurdles to vote and not everyone has the time, money or means of transportation to overcome those hurdles.
If you go to some of these rural areas and even some cities, you will see how difficult voter ID laws make it to vote. I voted easily here in South Carolina because I have a driver's license. Do you want to guess how many family members I have who live nowhere near our state's capital, have never even driven a car, do not have money to obtain a photo ID, do not have transportation to any of the offices to obtain a birth certificate and have always used something like an electricity bill to prove residency to be able to vote prior to voter ID laws? I can tell you I've spent a lot of money in gas taking my family members who live in Edgefield County and Saluda County and Barnwell County to various places to obtain the proper things to be able to vote, and more money helping them obtain the actual photo IDs since using only a voter card no longer gets you access to a ballot. Ask yourself this: why in America does it now cost money to vote depending on who you are and where you live, and why is it disproportionately keeping certain people from casting a ballot?
-
It's funny though, that Hillary dominated in states that required no id to vote.
Very interesting…
-
Trump dominated in the farm belt and dairy country. Does that mean cows and sheep voted illegally?
The entire premise is flawed without underlying facts. -
Trump dominated in the farm belt and dairy country. Does that mean cows and sheep voted illegally?
The entire premise is flawed without underlying facts.Trump won over 98% of the counties across the USA. Hillary got her wins almost exclusively in the major city centers, which are also the hot spots for crime.
http://www.snopes.com/trump-won-3084-of-3141-counties-clinton-won-57/
-
Trump dominated in the farm belt and dairy country. Does that mean cows and sheep voted illegally?
The entire premise is flawed without underlying facts.Hillary got her wins almost exclusively in the major city centers, which are also the hot spots for crime.
Those two topics are mutually exclusive.
-
Trump dominated in the farm belt and dairy country. Does that mean cows and sheep voted illegally?
The entire premise is flawed without underlying facts.Trump won over 98% of the counties across the USA. Hillary got her wins almost exclusively in the major city centers, which are also the hot spots for crime.
http://www.snopes.com/trump-won-3084-of-3141-counties-clinton-won-57/
Frederick you are a hoot and you just shot yourself in the foot. The Snopes article you cite rates the claim as FALSE.
"the claim that Trump won all but 57 of America’s 3,141 counties appeared to be completely untrue."Clinton actually won 487 counties out of 3, 141. But looking at county data is just a way to dilute the influence of New York and California. Los Angeles county has population of 10.1 million, which is more than 43 states.
I am in no way diminishing the strength of Trump's victory, but let's not get carried away… -
Trump dominated in the farm belt and dairy country. Does that mean cows and sheep voted illegally?
The entire premise is flawed without underlying facts.Trump won over 98% of the counties across the USA. Hillary got her wins almost exclusively in the major city centers, which are also the hot spots for crime.
http://www.snopes.com/trump-won-3084-of-3141-counties-clinton-won-57/
Frederick you are a hoot and you just shot yourself in the foot. The Snopes article you cite rates the claim as FALSE.
"the claim that Trump won all but 57 of America’s 3,141 counties appeared to be completely untrue."Clinton actually won 487 counties out of 3, 141. But looking at county data is just a way to dilute the influence of New York and California. Los Angeles county has population of 10.1 million, which is more than 43 states.
I am in no way diminishing the strength of Trump's victory, but let's not get carried away…You are an idiot. You just confirmed the point I was making. Whether 57 of 3141 (over 98% Trump) or 487 of 3141 (85% Trump) - Trump still won an overwhelming number of the counties.
As for looking at the popular vote - which means nothing - It is true that Los Angeles county has a population of 10.1 million.. however, a vast number of them are not citizens. For instance, in California, non citizens are eligible for driver's licenses. And people who have driver's licenses are AUTOMATICALLY registered to vote in California! That is crazy. So.. you have the state of California with 39 million people.. with an estimated 4 million of them voting who had no business voting.
http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-senate-voter-registration-drivers-licenses-20150910-story.htmlBut.. even then.. you can just forget all of the above, because Trump WON!
-
Frederick, you are missing the point. Looking at county data is completely irrelevant. First, the electoral college votes by state, not county. Second, how can you put on equal footing a county with 10,000 people with one that has 10,000,000? The county data is just a way to fill in the map of the US red. Regardless of the popular vote, if a total of 100,000 votes had gone the other way in swing states, Hilary would be President.
Again, I am not diminishing Trump's victory, which was epic, but it was not the massive mandate that you would like it to be. -
Frederick, you are missing the point. Looking at county data is completely irrelevant. First, the electoral college votes by state, not county. Second, how can you put on equal footing a county with 10,000 people with one that has 10,000,000? The county data is just a way to fill in the map of the US red. Regardless of the popular vote, if a total of 100,000 votes had gone the other way in swing states, Hilary would be President.
Again, I am not diminishing Trump's victory, which was epic, but it was not the massive mandate that you would like it to be.What a ripe, steaming pile of Pelosi.
The left has been harping on the "popular" vote since election day.. when it means nothing. The electoral count (which Trump won by a huge margin) is all that counts. The left denied it.
Then, when I point out that across the country, other than a few inner cities that are filled with illegal immigrants and crime… Trump won the at least 85% of the counties.. THEN you say THAT data is irrelevant.
I get it.. any data that you don't like is irrelevant. -
As I have pointed out before, county data is irrelevant. Trump's electoral vote win was effected by slim margins in several swing states, which granted was a difficult task and not to be diminished, but to maintain he had an overwhelming mandate just simply is not true.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login