Clinton,
A f*cking legend in his own mind! You’re delusional
fauxcahauntas
- Thread starter Rdcldad
- Start date
A f*cking legend in his own mind! You’re delusional
You bring this up frequently. What did Hillary get in return for winning the popular vote?
Also, how do voter ID laws oppress/suppress/disenfranchise people of color? Still waiting on an answer for that one.
Sheila J Lee had the perfect setup line for that "legal scholar" to deliver the canned 'joke' at the POTUS child. Idiots
Yeah, and how'd that work out? Is Hillary the Vice President for coming in second in the EC? Surely she got something for coming in second. 2cents bragging rights, maybe? I'll bet that trophy is impressive. Red Lobster sign in gold paint signed by her #1 fan?
Well since that is what we were discussing, it worked out good for her and not so good for Sanders in terms of the nomination.
Funny how you are completely lost and thought I was talking about the general election popular vote. Try to keep up Meds.
LOL... What a difference 4 years make: https://legiscan.com/OK/text/HB1686/id/1085592/Oklahoma-2015-HB1686-Introduced.pdf
We're you one of the 72 pct of Okies who supported this bill?
You’re slow but keep pushing this stupid idea. What’s funny’s Trump would win the popular vote if it made him president, but he’s smarter than you fatty, so he won the electoral college. Time to move on. President for another four years, and you can’t do shit about it
She got to munch Huma until the Weiner came up again.
Some studies estimated 2 million illegals who voted in Kalifornia were oppressed/suppressed/disenfranchised by the Electoral College.
You'll have to forgive dave. He struggles.
Thalidomide is an immunimodulatry drug that was initially used for anxiety, as a sleeping pill, and for morning sickness in Europe. It caused about 10,000 babies to be born with birth defects in the form of stunted limb growth. The FDA refused to approve it in the US but it still made its way into a very brief use in the US under the guise of being an experimental drug. Only a handful of babies in the US were born with birth defects.
With that history lesson, I think dave is suggesting that you were born in Europe and have stunted limbs.
There should have been a runoff in 1992 rather than handing it to BC with his 43% of the popular vote, according to this thread
You should see a doctor if your delusion that slave states would have preferred a president elected by popular vote lasts more than 4 hours.
Alexander Hamilton was a slave state? Who knew?
Delusion?
In 1860, Abraham Lincoln received less than 40% of the popular vote (the rest was split between three other candidates), but thankfully won enough electors in the Electoral College to win the presidency, while also the first president to win without carrying a single slave state.
The slave owning Democrats in the South backed Breckinridge, who had earlier tried to get Kansas admitted into the Union as a slave state and after the election, fled south to join the Rebel Army and later became the secretary of war for the Confederates. After the fighting was over and the south admitted defeat, he tried to help Jefferson Davis escape, then ran away and lived overseas for a few years until President Johnson issued a blanket pardon for all of the slave owning idiots that had caused the war in the first place.
The racist Democrats in the North supported Douglas, who believed in states’ rights - namely that states should have the right to decide that rich people could own and treat other people like farm machinery and the rest of the country and the federal government should just stay out their slave owning business.
So you're suggesting incoherence, which is common with the left?
That's on the list of differentials. Can't say for sure without knowing what exactly he was going for in that post.
Now you can't even manage to distinguish individuals from states please pop an aspirin and dial 911
The 1,380,202 votes cast by racist northern Democrats (who were okay with slavery, just not succession) and the 590,901 votes cast by racist democrats in Border States who also were okay with slavery but even more inclined against succession) have to factor in as well.
Basically, if the Democrat Party had managed to stick together instead of letting the kooky successionist crazies run off and splinter the party, they would have produced a candidate that would have soundly thumped Lincoln in the popular vote - the three non-Republican candidates gathered 60.2% combined - and they wouls have probably held on to their precious slavery for another decade or more.
Instead, that “Southern Slaveowner” ran electoral college elected Lincoln to the presidency (180 to 123).
Stephen Douglas would have waltzed to victory and continued the northern policy of slowly strangling slavery in the United states if the abolitionists didn't form the Republican party.
“Slowly strangling slavery... if the abolitionists didn’t form the Republican Party.”
Hey, so the Democrat strategy of claiming to help people while giving two shits about them because keeping power is more important than people isn’t a recent thing.
Who knew.
That aside, more revisionist history.
The Democrat Party prior to the 1860 split was mostly concerned with making sure that more states in the west did not enter the union as slave states - the Oklahoma Panhandle was lopped off Texas in order to keep Texas “south” of the Missouri Compromise line so that it could enter the union with their slavery intact. Ending slavery wasn’t a Democrat party goal and the states in the north that ended it did so begrudgingly. So much of the party was aligned to the southern way of thinking that a lot of the laws banning slavery were open ended and the phrase “eventual abolition” was a real thing.
They just didn’t care.
Douglas cared even less.
His view was that slavery was a state’s matter and Congress didn’t have the right to regulate it. He spoke out against religious leaders that rightfully claimed that slavery was an affront to our laws and god.
He didn’t care about people, just retaining power.
Absolutely, but there is a reason the Democratic party split over Kansas and it's because popular sovereignity was an existential threat to slavery in the US.
