NO MANDATE 4 DRUMPF

FUCK YOU, BIGOTS!

Sore loser

Perspective: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Donald Trump won 3,084 and Hillary Clinton won only 57.

Well it's a damn good thing that Trump will be deporting the people who rejected him then.

God Bless our Founding Fathers.

...

So, OP is butthurt than a bunch of illegal mexicans in California aren't able to speak for the rest of the country. Do you even understand what the electoral college is for? It's a Bulwark for the millions of illegal mexican assholes and dindus that want to steal from the middle income whites that contribute to society.

Yes, our founders were able to predict eventually, no good deed goes unpunished. Eventually, all the "feed-goodliness" would lead to an invasion of sorts, and as a result, this electoral college was designed specifically to prevent that.

>occupy democrats
How is that cure for the butthurt going?
Repeat with me:

MADMAN PRESIDENT
A
D
M
A
N

>Executive branch
>Congress
>Senate
>No mandate
stay cuckt /leftypol/

Hillary also beat Obama in the 08 primary. Nobody cares

Do you think they just stack all the lesbians cucktards or squish them in standing up?

Hm, guess that claim would have more impact if we were a direct democracy.

They knew some kike would try to import shitskins into a few particular counties and bribe them with votes. They were fucking visionary geniuses.

Ok, everytime i think i understand burger politics, a new word comes up
Wtf is a mandate in us politics?

Because of the electoral college, every state (and DC) matters. If not for it, only NYC, LA and San Francisco would matter.

They are just saying that he's not President, in more fancy words. They are obviously wrong. Technically he has full-mandate since the House and Senate are Repub too. Top kek, he can do whatever he wants.

What the fuck does "no mandate" mean? I never heard this phrase until election night. Are they trying to say people don't have to follow the order of the President of the United States of America if they didn't vote for him?

your tears sustain us

It's a word politicians use to say that they have legitimacy in office to accomplish their agenda, or that their opponent doesn't.

Slurp, I sure do love libcuck tears.

It basically means the presidents support from the people. If he gains alot of popular support his policies are more likely to be pushed through

How many chess analogies do you need before you realize that you're complaining about losing to rules that have been in place forever?

came here to ask and say the same thing.

A candidate has the mandate of the people if they won the election, basically justifying anything the candidate does in the name of the people, since trump lost the popular vote they're trying to say he doesn't have the mandate of the people

>Trump won the election

>Hillary lost the election

>Never forget this

>Ever

Nah cuz millions of illegals would get exposed just for a vote

At the time only white men could vote. Were they really thinking that far ahead?

>Trump has no mandate

He does have Congress and soon the Supreme Court though.

So that's helpful.

Not our fault they completely blew their load on a state guaranteed to be theirs anyway.

"permission".

It's Literally Fucking Nothing.

It's part of their #NotMyPresident whining - Drumpf Has No Mandate!

But he does have the House and the Senate, so unfortunately for them, it's irrelevant.

The popular vote is meaningless in the electoral college system.

I don't mean it's not relevant. I mean it doesn't can't be used for anything at all.

"safe" states suppress the vote turnout for the alternative candidate, and for the democrats the "safe" states are some of the most populous in the country. That means that the republican popular vote was substantially suppressed in the most populous cities and states in the country.

As a result you can't use the popular vote for any useful purpose because were the system based on pure popular vote you'd see an entirely different turnout!

A mandate is the 'right' to implement policy over objections of the minority party because those policies were supported by a sizable majority of the electorate. The premise being that if the majority didn't vote for the winner, then the winner doesn't have a mandate to implement his policies.

However, leftists lost all claim to 'mandate' credibility when they shoved obamacare down the throat of the american public despite a vast majority of the population being against it.

I kind of prefer that Trump lost the popular vote in this case, as it puts pressure on Trump to impress the people instead of using "majority rules" to excuse stupid decisions.

>More states chose Trump over Hillary

This is true. Republicans in California aren't going to implore their friends and family to vote for their candidate as such a vote is effectively meaningless.

We've heard this rant before..

More like he'll have to work harder to impress the neo-cons. Trump not winning the popular vote made it harder to get his ideas passed in Congress than it would be if he won it

Thanks, so it's just another 'we will fight you' declaration

Think of it as something akin to what the People's Army did in Tienanmen Square back in '89.

Ain't no one gonna fuck with you after the beatdown.

A "mandate" in American politics is when there's a larger amount of support for something or someone more than just 50% +1. An example of a mandate would be if the Brexit got 75% of the vote. Not only have you hit the threshold to get the result, but the support is such that politicians are essentially mandated or compelled to effectuate it or face their constituents' wrath

Fun fact: most of the mp are in constituencies which voted to leave overwhelmingly. Much like how raw numbers don't elect people in the USA, they don't either in the UK. So, yes, the people in government did receive a mandate, a single constituency can't change the will of others.

Feels good man.