Hillary Clinton: What happened

189101113

Comments

  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 11,014
    2016 was not a chicken/egg scenario. We know what came first and it was not Jim Comey. It was the Democratic Party nominating a candidate they knew was the subject of an active FBI investigation. All the finger pointing in the world will not change that. When you choose a candidate that you know is susceptible to an October Surprise, you can't blame anyone else when that candidate falls victim to such a surprise. If the world knew nothing about the investigation and then it leaked out my view would be different. That isn't what happened.

    More and more it seems like this argument over whether Hillary Clinton took responsibility for her loss or didn't take responsibility for her loss or didn't take enough responsibility for her loss, it all misses the point. She can and should take responsibility for the mistakes she personally made. She can and should own the decisions her campaign made. What she cannot and should not do is take sole responsibility for what happened to the Democrats and to this country in 2016. She isn't solely responsible. The Democratic Party itself shares much of that blame. As do Trump voters and third party swing state voters. They don't get a pass.

    Anyone hoping to hear Hillary Clinton someday say "It was all my fault", I hope you are forever disappointed. At the same time, some of these fingers pointing outward in Democratic circles need to be turned inward. It took a village to elect Donald Trump.


    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 6,451
    JimmyV said:
    2016 was not a chicken/egg scenario. We know what came first and it was not Jim Comey. It was the Democratic Party nominating a candidate they knew was the subject of an active FBI investigation. All the finger pointing in the world will not change that. When you choose a candidate that you know is susceptible to an October Surprise, you can't blame anyone else when that candidate falls victim to such a surprise. If the world knew nothing about the investigation and then it leaked out my view would be different. That isn't what happened.

    More and more it seems like this argument over whether Hillary Clinton took responsibility for her loss or didn't take responsibility for her loss or didn't take enough responsibility for her loss, it all misses the point. She can and should take responsibility for the mistakes she personally made. She can and should own the decisions her campaign made. What she cannot and should not do is take sole responsibility for what happened to the Democrats and to this country in 2016. She isn't solely responsible. The Democratic Party itself shares much of that blame. As do Trump voters and third party swing state voters. They don't get a pass.

    Anyone hoping to hear Hillary Clinton someday say "It was all my fault", I hope you are forever disappointed. At the same time, some of these fingers pointing outward in Democratic circles need to be turned inward. It took a village to elect Donald Trump.


    Disagree...there was an FBI investigation related to Trump/Russia...why didn't Comey bring that up?

    You must not visit here much.  Hillary has claimed complete responsibility verbally and in the first few pages of her book.

    Clinton received 3,000,000 more votes than tRump.  The national polls were right on.  The state polls were right on except for MI, PA and WI...tRump won the EC by about 77,000 votes.  That was a calculated effort by something...my guess is Russia.
    Former BernieBro, turned Hillary rotten Clinton #1 Fanboy

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,350
    JC29856 said:
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

    Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

    Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

    The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

    If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

    I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.
    Strangest thing ever, IMO.
    According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
    I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 6,451
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

    Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

    Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

    The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

    If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

    I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.
    Strangest thing ever, IMO.
    According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
    I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.
    I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember. 

    It was definitely odd.  

    But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder.  I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.
    Former BernieBro, turned Hillary rotten Clinton #1 Fanboy

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,967
    JC29856 said:
    CM189191 said:
    JC29856 said:
     most voters also didn’t like his opponent.


    that's just categorically false.  most voters preferred Hillary.

    You remind me of a child learning to speak.  You make a lot of noise, but don't really ever get to the point or say anything worth listening to.

    On the rare occasion you actually do say something coherent, it's to let every know you shit yourself.
    You any good a properly changing a diaper?
    I kinda already stated much of what was in that piece in a previous posts, you may have bumped your head those days.
    To your point, Im not sure if Matt is referring to all registered voters or just those that voted in 2016.
    We know many voters decided to sit that one out, just compare Obamas vote totals to Hillarys.
    A fascinating argument (I stated my opinion previously) given all of the available data, Hillarys messages, campaign ads, including Hillary & Co campaign "plans" depicted in those "Russian Wikileaks emails", did Hillary get more "against Trump votes" or more "for Hillary" votes?  
    Congratulations, you made a dookie! Now next time just leave it in the toilet. No need to show it to everyone.
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,350
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

    Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

    Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

    The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

    If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

    I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.
    Strangest thing ever, IMO.
    According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
    I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.
    I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember. 

    It was definitely odd.  

    But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder.  I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.
    Comey said he couldn't confirm or deny anything with respect to the Trump Russia investigation, I think he said its policy.
    Anyway this is the same guy that said in Jan and Feb, Trump wasn't under investigation and that Flynn was cleared.
    If we're placing blame other than on Hillary, then the Comey thing certainly deserves some. As I stated numerous times, 95% of it is on the DNC and Hillary, but of all the excuses, Comey at least has some validity.
    JimmyV has a good point above, Hillary and the DNC thought that they could convince the public that Hillary is/was the subject to numerous investigations (and cleared if you want to call it that) simply because she is Hillary or a women. It didn't work, the smart people in the room stayed home, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either (horrendous) candidate.  
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 6,451
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

    Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

    Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

    The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

    If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

    I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.
    Strangest thing ever, IMO.
    According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
    I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.
    I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember. 

    It was definitely odd.  

    But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder.  I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.
    Comey said he couldn't confirm or deny anything with respect to the Trump Russia investigation, I think he said its policy.
    Anyway this is the same guy that said in Jan and Feb, Trump wasn't under investigation and that Flynn was cleared.
    If we're placing blame other than on Hillary, then the Comey thing certainly deserves some. As I stated numerous times, 95% of it is on the DNC and Hillary, but of all the excuses, Comey at least has some validity.
    JimmyV has a good point above, Hillary and the DNC thought that they could convince the public that Hillary is/was the subject to numerous investigations (and cleared if you want to call it that) simply because she is Hillary or a women. It didn't work, the smart people in the room stayed home, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either (horrendous) candidate.  
    I can't agree with that.  She got 3 million more votes.  The nation wanted her.  The bullshit that went down in WI, MI and PA is the main culprit.

    Comey gave tRump ammo.  tRump had no momentum up until the point that Comey issued his bullshit.  That gave tRump the opportunity to say that the "investigation was back on."

    And then the facebook targeting started.  
    Former BernieBro, turned Hillary rotten Clinton #1 Fanboy

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,350
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

    Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

    Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

    The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

    If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

    I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.
    Strangest thing ever, IMO.
    According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
    I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.
    I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember. 

    It was definitely odd.  

    But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder.  I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.
    Comey said he couldn't confirm or deny anything with respect to the Trump Russia investigation, I think he said its policy.
    Anyway this is the same guy that said in Jan and Feb, Trump wasn't under investigation and that Flynn was cleared.
    If we're placing blame other than on Hillary, then the Comey thing certainly deserves some. As I stated numerous times, 95% of it is on the DNC and Hillary, but of all the excuses, Comey at least has some validity.
    JimmyV has a good point above, Hillary and the DNC thought that they could convince the public that Hillary is/was the subject to numerous investigations (and cleared if you want to call it that) simply because she is Hillary or a women. It didn't work, the smart people in the room stayed home, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either (horrendous) candidate.  
    I can't agree with that.  She got 3 million more votes.  The nation wanted her.  The bullshit that went down in WI, MI and PA is the main culprit.

    Comey gave tRump ammo.  tRump had no momentum up until the point that Comey issued his bullshit.  That gave tRump the opportunity to say that the "investigation was back on."

    And then the facebook targeting started.  
    Understood but then one can argue that 1 state does not represent a nation, to use your words. Wouldn't all other states and commonwealths except California better represent our nation? = Trump won by 1.3M
    I'm not sure either matter under the current system in place.
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,604
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

    Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

    Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

    The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

    If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

    I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.
    Strangest thing ever, IMO.
    According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
    I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.
    I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember. 

    It was definitely odd.  

    But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder.  I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.
    Comey said he couldn't confirm or deny anything with respect to the Trump Russia investigation, I think he said its policy.
    Anyway this is the same guy that said in Jan and Feb, Trump wasn't under investigation and that Flynn was cleared.
    If we're placing blame other than on Hillary, then the Comey thing certainly deserves some. As I stated numerous times, 95% of it is on the DNC and Hillary, but of all the excuses, Comey at least has some validity.
    JimmyV has a good point above, Hillary and the DNC thought that they could convince the public that Hillary is/was the subject to numerous investigations (and cleared if you want to call it that) simply because she is Hillary or a women. It didn't work, the smart people in the room stayed home, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either (horrendous) candidate.  
    I can't agree with that.  She got 3 million more votes.  The nation wanted her.  The bullshit that went down in WI, MI and PA is the main culprit.

    Comey gave tRump ammo.  tRump had no momentum up until the point that Comey issued his bullshit.  That gave tRump the opportunity to say that the "investigation was back on."

    And then the facebook targeting started.  
    I hate trump as much as the next guy, but some perspective is required here. 3 million people sounds like a lot, and it keeps getting repeated. you know what it amounts to?

    2.4%.

    3 million more votes equals 2.4% out of total votes cast.

    that's hardly "the nation". that's a sliver. 
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,159
    edited September 18
    But that is the difference between a democratic nation wanting her or not.... That's how democracy is supposed to work. Unfortunately, the USA isn't really a democratic nation.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,820
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

    Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

    Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

    The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

    If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

    I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.
    Strangest thing ever, IMO.
    According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
    I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.
    I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember. 

    It was definitely odd.  

    But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder.  I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.
    Comey said he couldn't confirm or deny anything with respect to the Trump Russia investigation, I think he said its policy.
    Anyway this is the same guy that said in Jan and Feb, Trump wasn't under investigation and that Flynn was cleared.
    If we're placing blame other than on Hillary, then the Comey thing certainly deserves some. As I stated numerous times, 95% of it is on the DNC and Hillary, but of all the excuses, Comey at least has some validity.
    JimmyV has a good point above, Hillary and the DNC thought that they could convince the public that Hillary is/was the subject to numerous investigations (and cleared if you want to call it that) simply because she is Hillary or a women. It didn't work, the smart people in the room stayed home, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either (horrendous) candidate.  
    I can't agree with that.  She got 3 million more votes.  The nation wanted her.  The bullshit that went down in WI, MI and PA is the main culprit.

    Comey gave tRump ammo.  tRump had no momentum up until the point that Comey issued his bullshit.  That gave tRump the opportunity to say that the "investigation was back on."

    And then the facebook targeting started.  
    I hate trump as much as the next guy, but some perspective is required here. 3 million people sounds like a lot, and it keeps getting repeated. you know what it amounts to?

    2.4%.

    3 million more votes equals 2.4% out of total votes cast.

    that's hardly "the nation". that's a sliver. 
    In elections, for whatever reason that's considered a large margin. Winning by 5% is considered a beat down. 
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,604
    either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,159
    either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 
    Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,604
    PJ_Soul said:
    either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 
    Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?
    no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post. 
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,159
    edited September 18
    PJ_Soul said:
    either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 
    Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?
    no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post. 
    Oh yeah I agree 100%. That's how most modern nations operate, isn't it? American desperately needs to change its government system... obviously it won't, because for some reason too many Americans think everything they do is the best option.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,604
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 
    Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?
    no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post. 
    Oh yeah I agree 100%. That's how most modern nations operate, isn't it? American desperately needs to change its government system... obviously it won't, because for some reason too many Americans think everything they do is the best option.
    not on that scale. in canada you win seats in much smaller regions, not entire provinces. 
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,159
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 
    Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?
    no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post. 
    Oh yeah I agree 100%. That's how most modern nations operate, isn't it? American desperately needs to change its government system... obviously it won't, because for some reason too many Americans think everything they do is the best option.
    not on that scale. in canada you win seats in much smaller regions, not entire provinces. 
    I am not sure what you're saying then. You think there shouldn't be majority leaders?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,604
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 
    Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?
    no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post. 
    Oh yeah I agree 100%. That's how most modern nations operate, isn't it? American desperately needs to change its government system... obviously it won't, because for some reason too many Americans think everything they do is the best option.
    not on that scale. in canada you win seats in much smaller regions, not entire provinces. 
    I am not sure what you're saying then. You think there shouldn't be majority leaders?
    no, that's not what I'm saying. if only the search function on someone's posts didn't include all of the quotes of every one else's posts,I'd be able to find what Benjs had explained a while back about it should work. I agreed with him, but I can't articulate it myself. 
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,159
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 
    Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?
    no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post. 
    Oh yeah I agree 100%. That's how most modern nations operate, isn't it? American desperately needs to change its government system... obviously it won't, because for some reason too many Americans think everything they do is the best option.
    not on that scale. in canada you win seats in much smaller regions, not entire provinces. 
    I am not sure what you're saying then. You think there shouldn't be majority leaders?
    no, that's not what I'm saying. if only the search function on someone's posts didn't include all of the quotes of every one else's posts,I'd be able to find what Benjs had explained a while back about it should work. I agreed with him, but I can't articulate it myself. 
    Fair enough.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 6,451
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

    Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

    Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

    The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

    If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

    I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.
    Strangest thing ever, IMO.
    According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
    I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.
    I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember. 

    It was definitely odd.  

    But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder.  I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.
    Comey said he couldn't confirm or deny anything with respect to the Trump Russia investigation, I think he said its policy.
    Anyway this is the same guy that said in Jan and Feb, Trump wasn't under investigation and that Flynn was cleared.
    If we're placing blame other than on Hillary, then the Comey thing certainly deserves some. As I stated numerous times, 95% of it is on the DNC and Hillary, but of all the excuses, Comey at least has some validity.
    JimmyV has a good point above, Hillary and the DNC thought that they could convince the public that Hillary is/was the subject to numerous investigations (and cleared if you want to call it that) simply because she is Hillary or a women. It didn't work, the smart people in the room stayed home, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either (horrendous) candidate.  
    I can't agree with that.  She got 3 million more votes.  The nation wanted her.  The bullshit that went down in WI, MI and PA is the main culprit.

    Comey gave tRump ammo.  tRump had no momentum up until the point that Comey issued his bullshit.  That gave tRump the opportunity to say that the "investigation was back on."

    And then the facebook targeting started.  
    I hate trump as much as the next guy, but some perspective is required here. 3 million people sounds like a lot, and it keeps getting repeated. you know what it amounts to?

    2.4%.

    3 million more votes equals 2.4% out of total votes cast.

    that's hardly "the nation". that's a sliver. 
    a sliver....that is 3 million more slivers then tRump got
    Former BernieBro, turned Hillary rotten Clinton #1 Fanboy

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 6,451
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    JC29856 said:
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

    Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

    Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

    The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

    If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

    I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit.  The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.
    Strangest thing ever, IMO.
    According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
    I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.
    I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember. 

    It was definitely odd.  

    But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder.  I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.
    Comey said he couldn't confirm or deny anything with respect to the Trump Russia investigation, I think he said its policy.
    Anyway this is the same guy that said in Jan and Feb, Trump wasn't under investigation and that Flynn was cleared.
    If we're placing blame other than on Hillary, then the Comey thing certainly deserves some. As I stated numerous times, 95% of it is on the DNC and Hillary, but of all the excuses, Comey at least has some validity.
    JimmyV has a good point above, Hillary and the DNC thought that they could convince the public that Hillary is/was the subject to numerous investigations (and cleared if you want to call it that) simply because she is Hillary or a women. It didn't work, the smart people in the room stayed home, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either (horrendous) candidate.  
    I can't agree with that.  She got 3 million more votes.  The nation wanted her.  The bullshit that went down in WI, MI and PA is the main culprit.

    Comey gave tRump ammo.  tRump had no momentum up until the point that Comey issued his bullshit.  That gave tRump the opportunity to say that the "investigation was back on."

    And then the facebook targeting started.  
    Understood but then one can argue that 1 state does not represent a nation, to use your words. Wouldn't all other states and commonwealths except California better represent our nation? = Trump won by 1.3M
    I'm not sure either matter under the current system in place.
    so now we are entering an argument where the # of EC votes doesn't jive with population.  Look at the ratio of EC vote/population in Montana and compare it to CA
    Former BernieBro, turned Hillary rotten Clinton #1 Fanboy

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 6,897
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 
    Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?
    no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post. 
    Oh yeah I agree 100%. That's how most modern nations operate, isn't it? American desperately needs to change its government system... obviously it won't, because for some reason too many Americans think everything they do is the best option.
    not on that scale. in canada you win seats in much smaller regions, not entire provinces. 
    I am not sure what you're saying then. You think there shouldn't be majority leaders?
    no, that's not what I'm saying. if only the search function on someone's posts didn't include all of the quotes of every one else's posts,I'd be able to find what Benjs had explained a while back about it should work. I agreed with him, but I can't articulate it myself. 
    Fair enough.
    In a nutshell, typically Electoral College representatives vote entirely based on the State-level winner. This means if 54% of New Hampshire voted for Trump, and 46% voted for Clinton, and New Hampshire had 5 Electoral College representatives assigned - 5 votes would be placed for Trump (because he was the majority). This is a 'winner-takes-all' situation.

    If New Hampshire chose to vote proportionally based on those results, 54% of their 5 votes would go to Trump (54% of 5 is 2.7, which would be rounded to 3 votes), and 46% of their 5 votes would go to Clinton (2.3, which would be rounded to 2 votes). 

    Unlike abolishing the Electoral College, this would be fully Constitutional, while giving a voice to the voters for the minority within a State.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,604
    benjs said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid. 
    Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?
    no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post. 
    Oh yeah I agree 100%. That's how most modern nations operate, isn't it? American desperately needs to change its government system... obviously it won't, because for some reason too many Americans think everything they do is the best option.
    not on that scale. in canada you win seats in much smaller regions, not entire provinces. 
    I am not sure what you're saying then. You think there shouldn't be majority leaders?
    no, that's not what I'm saying. if only the search function on someone's posts didn't include all of the quotes of every one else's posts,I'd be able to find what Benjs had explained a while back about it should work. I agreed with him, but I can't articulate it myself. 
    Fair enough.
    In a nutshell, typically Electoral College representatives vote entirely based on the State-level winner. This means if 54% of New Hampshire voted for Trump, and 46% voted for Clinton, and New Hampshire had 5 Electoral College representatives assigned - 5 votes would be placed for Trump (because he was the majority). This is a 'winner-takes-all' situation.

    If New Hampshire chose to vote proportionally based on those results, 54% of their 5 votes would go to Trump (54% of 5 is 2.7, which would be rounded to 3 votes), and 46% of their 5 votes would go to Clinton (2.3, which would be rounded to 2 votes). 

    Unlike abolishing the Electoral College, this would be fully Constitutional, while giving a voice to the voters for the minority within a State.
    Thanks Benjs. 
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,159
    Oh, yes, the electoral college is fucking ridiculous as it is. I figure either reworking it as you suggest or abolishing it in favour of a more fair system would be fine. Why do you mention the constitutionality of that Benjs? Is it unconstitutional to abolish the electoral college?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 6,897
    PJ_Soul said:
    Oh, yes, the electoral college is fucking ridiculous as it is. I figure either reworking it as you suggest or abolishing it in favour of a more fair system would be fine. Why do you mention the constitutionality of that Benjs? Is it unconstitutional to abolish the electoral college?
    PJ_Soul, I mention that because the Electoral College is explicitly mandated in the Constitution, whereas the 'winner takes all' method of voting is not. Hence, I have to assume it'd be far easier to reform the process within the Electoral College, than to do away with it. 
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 20,957
    edited September 19
    PJ_Soul said:
    Oh, yes, the electoral college is fucking ridiculous as it is. I figure either reworking it as you suggest or abolishing it in favour of a more fair system would be fine. Why do you mention the constitutionality of that Benjs? Is it unconstitutional to abolish the electoral college?
    I agree- it has to go.

    What do you think of this as an alternative:  The argument FOR the electoral college is that  without the electoral college, the densely, more populated, generally more democrat/"liberal" (what ever that mean these days)  east and west coast states would have more pull than the vast areas of the country that are less populated, generally more republican/"conservative" (whatever that means these days) states in between the coasts.  So to solve that, what about reducing the power of the federal government and increasing the power of state governments? 

    To my way of thinking, this would be an intermediate step to keep things from flying into chaos while we do the even more logical thing which would be to divide the country into bioregions-- that is, get rid of the artificial state lines that have nothing, really, to do with anything real and have bioregional sections of the country.  These already have names like Sonoran Desert, Great Basin, Atlantic Coastal Pine Barrens, Columbia Plateau,  Sandhills, Texas Blackland Prairies. These would make great states names and would make so much more sense!

    And this would encourage  people to see that their home region is actually related to ecologically areas that do best when they are populated by diverse, balanced plant and animal communities rather than having "states" that are simply artificial lines drawn on a map.  This would lead people to make healthier decisions about the laws governing those lands. 
    Post edited by brianlux on
    We're living on the edge of something big. It's a fantastic time in history to be alive.
    AMT, 1.25.15, 00:36 hrs.
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 11,014
    If the Electoral College can be improved I'm all for it. The Constitution is a piece of paper written by man. It can and should be updated as necessary.

    I don't think abolishing the EC altogether is necessary or even a good idea, frankly. It may not be a perfect system but it does force Presidential candidates to run national campaigns. That's important. Running up the score in California shouldn't decide the Presidency, and it is short-sighted to think it should.

    Party affiliations and voting tendencies are always changing. In the 1980's, California voted Republican. In the 1990's, Bill Clinton won in Arkansas, Louisiana and Montana. It would be stunning to see any of that happen today, and 20-30 years from now there will be more states that have flipped just as surprisingly. The EC ensures that no matter what shifts occur, the winning candidate must compete all over.

    IMO, voter supression is a much bigger threat to American democracy than is the Electoral College.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,967
    Why don't more people consider

    Instant Run-Off Voting !!!

    If you want to make 3rd parties relevant in a binary system, this is the way to go
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,350
    CM189191 said:
    Why don't more people consider

    Instant Run-Off Voting !!!

    If you want to make 3rd parties relevant in a binary system, this is the way to go
    I imagine this wouldn't go over too well with those that control the processes, namely the dnc and rnc.
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • 300,000 copies sold in the first week. Not too bad. I can't wait for the criticism.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
Sign In or Register to comment.