But user, she won the popular vote!

>But user, she won the popular vote!

What do you do?

Oh, so you don't think Obama was good enough?

explain how representative republics work

Update, she lost the popular vote too.

Laugh and be happy that the electoral college helps keep city leeches from making the big decisions.

If you subtract California's votes from both Trump and Hillary, Trump won the other 49 states' combined popular vote by 2.5 million

Hillary can go be president of California when they secede

Update no she didn't

>What do you do?
grab her by the mouthpussy
with muh dick

They weren't running on the popular vote though. If they were, both of them would have campaigned differently, and different people (like republicans in solid blue states, democrats in solid red states) would have came out and voted. The election results very well might have ended up with Trump still winning. It's not fair to change the rules after because you lost.

Yes, Hillary should have been the nominee in 2008.

You don't need the electorates to have a republic. Electing a President and congressmen and governors etc does that.

Hate to break it to you but that's not true. I did this calculation last night and if you won 60% of the urban area and 0% of the rural in each state you'd win the electoral college. In popular vote, you wouldn't. You'd lose with about 48% of the vote.

>How many of those were even alive?

...

To expand on what I'm saying, Trump did almost 0 campaigning in California or New York which are huge population centers because he knows that they're permanently blue. If it was just the popular vote that mattered, he would have campaigned there and a lot of Republicans in these states would have voted for him.

>loses chess game
"But I had more pieces at the end and I still have a queen so I win"

>majority of states voted for trump
>constitution spells out how electoral college works
>hillary said the loser needs to step down and accept the outcome

Give sources.

There is no such thing as a popular vote. It is literally called an ELECTORAL VOTE. You are not voting for a president, that does not happen at any point in a United States Election. ---You are voting for what you want your state's Electorate to do.--- That's it. There is no such thing as a 'popular vote' in US election, it literally does not exist.

Fucking kill your self you uneducated hilltard.

They were campaigning to win the electoral college and not the popular vote so its irrelevant.

This user said it the best

HIllary wasnt running for dog catcher.

General Election is a electoral college vote.

If it were an election for popular votes it would have been run entirely differently.

Grab her by the pussy

She got less than 50%. None of them got more than 50%, and it seems far more likely that libertarian Johnson's 3% would have preferred Trump.

This has got to be by far the stupidest post I've seen all day.

I don't get this liberal retoric, maybe I don't fully understand the US election system.
The people electing Trump is the popular vote right?? The people chose him, so why they keep saying the oldbag won the popular vote??

stop sharing this retarded analogy

Thank you for correcting the record.

Google this shit you retard.

unzip dick

care to explain why it's retarded?

so did Al Gore and he too didn't become president!

But I'm an anarchist, user.

>it's dumb because it proves me wrong

The people in a state vote for who gets their state's votes. The people of the US don't vote for who gets everyone's vote.

piss on her face

Just like the anti-Trump rioters. Now isn't that a coincidence?

oh so you are stupid AND edgy

>Yes, Hillary should have been the nominee in 2008.

She conceded then and she conceded now.

I'm hearing it in a few circles with nothing concrete yet but I am noticing the Trump vote count is being frozen while the Clinton one keeps growing. I think in reality Trump won the popular vote as well but not by much. Millions of those Hillary votes can be discounted because of fraud, voting machine rigging, and illegal aliens voting in California.

The media still places 279 electoral votes on Trump instead of the 306 that he won. They are dragging their feet and refusing to admit that this election was a blowout.

Exactly how can you compare a board game to a presidential election? They are two entirely different things. It's the most contrived, ridiculous analogy you could have come up with.

Yes, Trump won fair and square according to the rules of the election. No one is arguing otherwise. What people are saying is the rules should be different.

No rational person is arguing to change the rules of Chess so the person with the most pieces wins. That's fucking retarded.

Kill yourself, pathetic little man.

oh silly me, I forgot to add.
No Canada cucks allowed in the discussion, get back to love muslims or something.

Anarcho-communism is the biggest contradiction of all time.

Prove me wrong
>Pro-tip: you can't

Your response should be this:
>I know. It's so unfair, but I don't see it changing during our lifetimes. For now we should just try to keep racists and rednecks from infiltrating the Trump administration. That's why I'm applying to be part of his transition team.

What? No. There are different kind of anarchists. Are you an idiot? I'm anarchist in terms of the political system. Mutualist to be more exact because I like the free market.
How is it edgy to have your own idealistic political views? There's tons of nat socs and an caps here and apparently that's not edgy.

OK, then go ahead and vote to change the rules.
Pro-tip: It wouldn't have helped Hillary get elected, it won't be a 'retroactive' change, and the way presidential elections are decided will be pretty much focused entirely on pandering to California, New York, and Texas voters. Enjoy, and good luck getting 3/4 of the states to ratify the change.

So, with this analogy, you think that the rules of chess should be changed so that the player with the most pieces left wins? You realize that's called checkers, right? AKA chess for retards.

So you are a snowflake anarchist, that's so special! You sure rock that safety pin.

I'm not an anarcho-communist, but I would like to see your reasoning for why it's contradictory.

I don't like Hillary, user. She's a cunt. I liked Obama a lot more and think Hillary should have been the nominee. I think that Gore is somehow even worse than Bush and think he should have been President. I can complain about a system and still be happy about the outcome, they aren't mutually exclusive.

Fuck her right in the pussy.

The US election is already illegitimate because ruling parties in certain states blatantly allow illegal immigrants to vote.

Dems are playing to win.

Because both have established rules and you can't back-pedal on them when the outcome is not what you wanted

No, I don't. A presidential election is not a board game, and piece number has nothing to do with winning chess directly while voting does in the US, just it's statewide.

How the fuck does the king get that far?

The difference of votes for both candidates is so small it shouldn't even count.

It's useless to complain about something that is more or less irrelevant, will never change (3/4 of states needed, when it benefits only the 4-5 largest states and severely undermines the rest) especially when your proposed solution would make things worse, though.

A communist system by its very definition requires a state to enforce economical equality and protect the worker. Can't have that with anarchy.

Not backpedaling. I just don't like the rules, and unlike Chess the American people are forced to play by one set of rules. Perhaps trump would have won regardless, but we won't ever know.

The untegulated popular vote where democratic party was caught multiplease times cheating padding votes. No, no she didnt

love that show desu

very weird at first but actually funny

It's fine if you want to change it but do so for the next election. This one counts

No it doesn't. You clearly haven't read very much on communism. Marx and Lenin wanted a transition state that would eventually end itself and create communism, which is why the USSR was never actually a communist country. Anarchists propose to not have a transition state because it doesn't work. But Marxists and anarcho-communists have the same end goal.

Fair enough. I'm not the one making all of these threads to be fair.

>low quality shitpost
straya pls

They aren't forced to play by it. If they want to change it they can elect people who will enact that change.

Trump won the popular vote in florida, and won those electoral votes

Same with Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, etc. etc.

In fact because he won more popular votes in more states than Hillary, he is now President-Elect.

That's how it works.

I don't really care that much. I'm Canadian, we have our own electoral problems to deal with like how we can't vote for our house and Prime Minister separately which fucks rural areas who have to vote for the MP whose party wins or you're wasting your time. Our rural areas are ass fucked a lot more than any of yours could be.

The election was not a contest for the popular vote. Clinton and Trump did not campaign to win the popular vote, they campaigned for the electoral college. Complaining about the popular vote is like complaining that your sports team held possession for a longer time so they should win the game.

This.

If you disagree with the electoral college, petition to your state's representatives to change it

It's nearly impossible because it's constitutional, though.

Communism relies on a statist welfare state. Anarchism rejects the implementation of any state.

I thought this post summed it up nicely as well

what the fuck are you talking about? I went to a trump rally in Fresno and San diego, he raised a few million in the central valley as well so it's clearly not just electoral votes that they are campaigning for -_-

...

No, that's state socialism. Communism by definition requires a lack of state. Marx only advocated for a transition state. That's it.

The name of the country says it best: the United States. That's why some small states still get more electoral votes as a % than the bigger ones.