Hillary won more votes for President

JC29856 · January 2017

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JC29856 said:
who is advocating changing it to popular vote retroactively?
Not sure, not saying anyone is, but the popular vote totals and calls for audits are desperate attempts to delegitimize the election and his presidency.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_587930cfe4b077a19d180d84?

RoleModelsinBlood31 · January 2017

The cowboys had more total yards than the packers last night, more time of possession, more yards per play, more total plays, way more rushing yards and more yards per carry.

Unimportant because they still lost.

What's the point? You can bat .430 and still lose to a team who batted .150 if they scored more runs.

How many votes isn't how you win an election, and nobody was complaining before the election about the rules.

Weirdo won it, all the complaining about the popular vote is getting sad.

The Juggler · January 2017

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
The cowboys had more total yards than the packers last night, more time of possession, more yards per play, more total plays, way more rushing yards and more yards per carry.

Unimportant because they still lost.

What's the point? You can bat .430 and still lose to a team who batted .150 if they scored more runs.

How many votes isn't how you win an election, and nobody was complaining before the election about the rules.

Weirdo won it, all the complaining about the popular vote is getting sad.

Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people would be akin to Arron Rogers repeatedly saying the Packers blew out the Cowboys despite winning by the slimmest of margins.

Good analogy though.

JC29856 · January 2017

The Juggler said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
The cowboys had more total yards than the packers last night, more time of possession, more yards per play, more total plays, way more rushing yards and more yards per carry.

Unimportant because they still lost.

What's the point? You can bat .430 and still lose to a team who batted .150 if they scored more runs.

How many votes isn't how you win an election, and nobody was complaining before the election about the rules.

Weirdo won it, all the complaining about the popular vote is getting sad.
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people would be akin to Arron Rogers repeatedly saying the Packers blew out the Cowboys despite winning by the slimmest of margins.

Good analogy though.

I like this analogy better, its like saying the Chiefs beat the Steelers because they scored more touchdowns! The winner is decided by points not number of touchdowns!

JC29856 · January 2017

Question: was Hilliary ever seriously considered to be Obama's VP instead of Biden? I was wondering if Hilliary turned it down? Wouldn't she have had a better chance of being the next president if she was Obama VP? I always assumed that as soon as Hilliary lost to Obama in the 08 primaries she (and the DNC) set their sights on her succeeding Obama.

rssesq · January 2017

Joe Biden was given a choice by President Obama of Sec State or VP. He chose VP cuz he didn't want to do all that traveling and become batshit crazy like Hil did.
BA Poli Sci
MA International Studies
JD jurisprudence doctorate

The Juggler · January 2017

JC29856 said:

The Juggler said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
The cowboys had more total yards than the packers last night, more time of possession, more yards per play, more total plays, way more rushing yards and more yards per carry.

Unimportant because they still lost.

What's the point? You can bat .430 and still lose to a team who batted .150 if they scored more runs.

How many votes isn't how you win an election, and nobody was complaining before the election about the rules.

Weirdo won it, all the complaining about the popular vote is getting sad.
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people would be akin to Arron Rogers repeatedly saying the Packers blew out the Cowboys despite winning by the slimmest of margins.

Good analogy though.
I like this analogy better, its like saying the Chiefs beat the Steelers because they scored more touchdowns! The winner is decided by points not number of touchdowns!

Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide, despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people, is akin to Mike Tomlin saying they blew out the Chiefs when, in fact, they only won by the slimmest of margins.

Jearlpam0925 · January 2017

The Juggler said:

JC29856 said:

The Juggler said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
The cowboys had more total yards than the packers last night, more time of possession, more yards per play, more total plays, way more rushing yards and more yards per carry.

Unimportant because they still lost.

What's the point? You can bat .430 and still lose to a team who batted .150 if they scored more runs.

How many votes isn't how you win an election, and nobody was complaining before the election about the rules.

Weirdo won it, all the complaining about the popular vote is getting sad.
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people would be akin to Arron Rogers repeatedly saying the Packers blew out the Cowboys despite winning by the slimmest of margins.

Good analogy though.
I like this analogy better, its like saying the Chiefs beat the Steelers because they scored more touchdowns! The winner is decided by points not number of touchdowns!
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide, despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people, is akin to Mike Tomlin saying they blew out the Chiefs when, in fact, they only won by the slimmest of margins.

The amazing thing is the guy never won the popular vote in any race he's been in - the results this past year really are an anomaly. One which we need to live within for four years.

catefrances · January 2017

Jearlpam0925 said:

The Juggler said:

JC29856 said:

The Juggler said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
The cowboys had more total yards than the packers last night, more time of possession, more yards per play, more total plays, way more rushing yards and more yards per carry.

Unimportant because they still lost.

What's the point? You can bat .430 and still lose to a team who batted .150 if they scored more runs.

How many votes isn't how you win an election, and nobody was complaining before the election about the rules.

Weirdo won it, all the complaining about the popular vote is getting sad.
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people would be akin to Arron Rogers repeatedly saying the Packers blew out the Cowboys despite winning by the slimmest of margins.

Good analogy though.
I like this analogy better, its like saying the Chiefs beat the Steelers because they scored more touchdowns! The winner is decided by points not number of touchdowns!
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide, despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people, is akin to Mike Tomlin saying they blew out the Chiefs when, in fact, they only won by the slimmest of margins.
The amazing thing is the guy never won the popular vote in any race he's been in - the results this past year really are an anomaly. One which we need to live within for four years.

really, anomaly? so long as the electoral college exists this kind of result will persist. this is not democracy... then again define democracy. so long as you have a system thats historically based on slavery and the fact that yeah we'll count slaves as part of the population cause itll serve our purpose but hell no we wont allow them to vote, you cant consider yourself, as a nation, democratic. it fucking boggles my mind that the president elect can have 54% of the vote against him and yet still 'win' the election. anyone that thinks that this is representative of democracy is as big a fool as the man just about to step into the oval office.

The Juggler · January 2017

catefrances said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

The Juggler said:

JC29856 said:

The Juggler said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
The cowboys had more total yards than the packers last night, more time of possession, more yards per play, more total plays, way more rushing yards and more yards per carry.

Unimportant because they still lost.

What's the point? You can bat .430 and still lose to a team who batted .150 if they scored more runs.

How many votes isn't how you win an election, and nobody was complaining before the election about the rules.

Weirdo won it, all the complaining about the popular vote is getting sad.
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people would be akin to Arron Rogers repeatedly saying the Packers blew out the Cowboys despite winning by the slimmest of margins.

Good analogy though.
I like this analogy better, its like saying the Chiefs beat the Steelers because they scored more touchdowns! The winner is decided by points not number of touchdowns!
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide, despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people, is akin to Mike Tomlin saying they blew out the Chiefs when, in fact, they only won by the slimmest of margins.
The amazing thing is the guy never won the popular vote in any race he's been in - the results this past year really are an anomaly. One which we need to live within for four years.
really, anomaly? so long as the electoral college exists this kind of result will persist. this is not democracy... then again define democracy. so long as you have a system thats historically based on slavery and the fact that yeah we'll count slaves as part of the population cause itll serve our purpose but hell no we wont allow them to vote, you cant consider yourself, as a nation, democratic. it fucking boggles my mind that the president elect can have 54% of the vote against him and yet still 'win' the election. anyone that thinks that this is representative of democracy is as big a fool as the man just about to step into the oval office.

have you paid your membership dues?

catefrances · January 2017

The Juggler said:

catefrances said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

The Juggler said:

JC29856 said:

The Juggler said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
The cowboys had more total yards than the packers last night, more time of possession, more yards per play, more total plays, way more rushing yards and more yards per carry.

Unimportant because they still lost.

What's the point? You can bat .430 and still lose to a team who batted .150 if they scored more runs.

How many votes isn't how you win an election, and nobody was complaining before the election about the rules.

Weirdo won it, all the complaining about the popular vote is getting sad.
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people would be akin to Arron Rogers repeatedly saying the Packers blew out the Cowboys despite winning by the slimmest of margins.

Good analogy though.
I like this analogy better, its like saying the Chiefs beat the Steelers because they scored more touchdowns! The winner is decided by points not number of touchdowns!
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide, despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people, is akin to Mike Tomlin saying they blew out the Chiefs when, in fact, they only won by the slimmest of margins.
The amazing thing is the guy never won the popular vote in any race he's been in - the results this past year really are an anomaly. One which we need to live within for four years.
really, anomaly? so long as the electoral college exists this kind of result will persist. this is not democracy... then again define democracy. so long as you have a system thats historically based on slavery and the fact that yeah we'll count slaves as part of the population cause itll serve our purpose but hell no we wont allow them to vote, you cant consider yourself, as a nation, democratic. it fucking boggles my mind that the president elect can have 54% of the vote against him and yet still 'win' the election. anyone that thinks that this is representative of democracy is as big a fool as the man just about to step into the oval office.

have you paid your membership dues?

im a woman.. i pay my dues every single day baby.

mrussel1 · January 2017

catefrances said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

The Juggler said:

JC29856 said:

The Juggler said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
The cowboys had more total yards than the packers last night, more time of possession, more yards per play, more total plays, way more rushing yards and more yards per carry.

Unimportant because they still lost.

What's the point? You can bat .430 and still lose to a team who batted .150 if they scored more runs.

How many votes isn't how you win an election, and nobody was complaining before the election about the rules.

Weirdo won it, all the complaining about the popular vote is getting sad.
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people would be akin to Arron Rogers repeatedly saying the Packers blew out the Cowboys despite winning by the slimmest of margins.

Good analogy though.
I like this analogy better, its like saying the Chiefs beat the Steelers because they scored more touchdowns! The winner is decided by points not number of touchdowns!
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide, despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people, is akin to Mike Tomlin saying they blew out the Chiefs when, in fact, they only won by the slimmest of margins.
The amazing thing is the guy never won the popular vote in any race he's been in - the results this past year really are an anomaly. One which we need to live within for four years.
really, anomaly? so long as the electoral college exists this kind of result will persist. this is not democracy... then again define democracy. so long as you have a system thats historically based on slavery and the fact that yeah we'll count slaves as part of the population cause itll serve our purpose but hell no we wont allow them to vote, you cant consider yourself, as a nation, democratic. it fucking boggles my mind that the president elect can have 54% of the vote against him and yet still 'win' the election. anyone that thinks that this is representative of democracy is as big a fool as the man just about to step into the oval office.

We are a representational democracy, created to ensure some power is retained to the state. Whether you agree with it or not, it is what was ratified by the states and it is longest functioning constitution in history. So there must be something okay about it.

And the 3/5ths clause was eliminated 150 years ago.

catefrances · January 2017

mrussel1 said:

catefrances said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

The Juggler said:

JC29856 said:

The Juggler said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
The cowboys had more total yards than the packers last night, more time of possession, more yards per play, more total plays, way more rushing yards and more yards per carry.

Unimportant because they still lost.

What's the point? You can bat .430 and still lose to a team who batted .150 if they scored more runs.

How many votes isn't how you win an election, and nobody was complaining before the election about the rules.

Weirdo won it, all the complaining about the popular vote is getting sad.
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people would be akin to Arron Rogers repeatedly saying the Packers blew out the Cowboys despite winning by the slimmest of margins.

Good analogy though.
I like this analogy better, its like saying the Chiefs beat the Steelers because they scored more touchdowns! The winner is decided by points not number of touchdowns!
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide, despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people, is akin to Mike Tomlin saying they blew out the Chiefs when, in fact, they only won by the slimmest of margins.
The amazing thing is the guy never won the popular vote in any race he's been in - the results this past year really are an anomaly. One which we need to live within for four years.
really, anomaly? so long as the electoral college exists this kind of result will persist. this is not democracy... then again define democracy. so long as you have a system thats historically based on slavery and the fact that yeah we'll count slaves as part of the population cause itll serve our purpose but hell no we wont allow them to vote, you cant consider yourself, as a nation, democratic. it fucking boggles my mind that the president elect can have 54% of the vote against him and yet still 'win' the election. anyone that thinks that this is representative of democracy is as big a fool as the man just about to step into the oval office.

We are a representational democracy, created to ensure some power is retained to the state. Whether you agree with it or not, it is what was ratified by the states and it is longest functioning constitution in history. So there must be something okay about it.

And the 3/5ths clause was eliminated 150 years ago.

no. there is nothing okay with a system that allows a person who procures millions of votes LESS than their opponent the right to govern. 54% of the american public who voted, allegedly voted AGAINST trump, yet he is in charge for the next 4 years. how is that democratic? simpy put, its not. and you know i dont necessarily see it as a fault of modern democracy, cause when we look bak to ancient athenian democracy, that great example of governemnt for the people , of the peple, we see that not ALL the peope were represented.. and if that is the case, i repeat HOW is that democratic? and again the answer is its not. its okay to admit that the system of government youve been born into ,and currently live under is not democratic... its okay that we dont fool ourselves into thinking that despite the rhetoric that says we live in a free and equal society, we admit that in actuality we dont. elections are a popularity contest and when the person who wins the most votes by millions DOES NOT WIN the election then you have to question the system. and you have ask yourself what exactly is democracy. and does it even exist or is it simply a buzz word people use, and have used against them, to make themselves feel good about the broken system they live in as a measure against the 'enemy' in order to keep us in line?

Jearlpam0925 · January 2017

Hi, Cate. It's been a while. I forgot about the days of these kinds of posts.

Anyway, yes, anomaly. Less than 100k people decided an election in which the winner never won a single popular vote. That is very, very rare.

mrussel1 · January 2017

catefrances said:

mrussel1 said:

catefrances said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

The Juggler said:

JC29856 said:

The Juggler said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
The cowboys had more total yards than the packers last night, more time of possession, more yards per play, more total plays, way more rushing yards and more yards per carry.

Unimportant because they still lost.

What's the point? You can bat .430 and still lose to a team who batted .150 if they scored more runs.

How many votes isn't how you win an election, and nobody was complaining before the election about the rules.

Weirdo won it, all the complaining about the popular vote is getting sad.
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people would be akin to Arron Rogers repeatedly saying the Packers blew out the Cowboys despite winning by the slimmest of margins.

Good analogy though.
I like this analogy better, its like saying the Chiefs beat the Steelers because they scored more touchdowns! The winner is decided by points not number of touchdowns!
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide, despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people, is akin to Mike Tomlin saying they blew out the Chiefs when, in fact, they only won by the slimmest of margins.
The amazing thing is the guy never won the popular vote in any race he's been in - the results this past year really are an anomaly. One which we need to live within for four years.
really, anomaly? so long as the electoral college exists this kind of result will persist. this is not democracy... then again define democracy. so long as you have a system thats historically based on slavery and the fact that yeah we'll count slaves as part of the population cause itll serve our purpose but hell no we wont allow them to vote, you cant consider yourself, as a nation, democratic. it fucking boggles my mind that the president elect can have 54% of the vote against him and yet still 'win' the election. anyone that thinks that this is representative of democracy is as big a fool as the man just about to step into the oval office.

We are a representational democracy, created to ensure some power is retained to the state. Whether you agree with it or not, it is what was ratified by the states and it is longest functioning constitution in history. So there must be something okay about it.

And the 3/5ths clause was eliminated 150 years ago.
no. there is nothing okay with a system that allows a person who procures millions of votes LESS than their opponent the right to govern. 54% of the american public who voted, allegedly voted AGAINST trump, yet he is in charge for the next 4 years. how is that democratic? simpy put, its not. and you know i dont necessarily see it as a fault of modern democracy, cause when we look bak to ancient athenian democracy, that great example of governemnt for the people , of the peple, we see that not ALL the peope were represented.. and if that is the case, i repeat HOW is that democratic? and again the answer is its not. its okay to admit that the system of government youve been born into ,and currently live under is not democratic... its okay that we dont fool ourselves into thinking that despite the rhetoric that says we live in a free and equal society, we admit that in actuality we dont. elections are a popularity contest and when the person who wins the most votes by millions DOES NOT WIN the election then you have to question the system. and you have ask yourself what exactly is democracy. and does it even exist or is it simply a buzz word people use, and have used against them, to make themselves feel good about the broken system they live in as a measure against the 'enemy' in order to keep us in line?

Anytime enough people, as represented by their elected officials, want to call a Constitutional convention to eliminate the electoral college, they can do it. There are mechanisms within the document that allow for it. Democracy is not purely defined by majority rules. Democracy is not purely a popularity contest. There have been five presidents to take office without winning the popular vote. Bill Clinton took office in 92 after winning a measly 43% of the popular vote. 43%!! Does that mean 57% of the people voted against Clinton? What should have happened in his case?

Don't get me wrong... I dislike Trump as much as anyone on this board. I was a Hillary supporter to the point where @Free consistently accused me of being a paid HIllary-bot. But his victory is an indictment of lots of things.. media, Russia, wikileaks, the least sophisticated voter, racism, nationalism, anti-trade.. lots of things. But it's not an indictment of democracy or our Constitution. It worked precisely as designed, residing substantial power to the states. That's the point. And again, it is leading to a peaceful transfer of power which is something that is uniquely American.

If you want to change the process, use the tools that the Founders set forth. Start a group, raise money, lobby your congressmen or state legislature. There are mechanisms at your disposal.

catefrances · January 2017

Jearlpam0925 said:
Hi, Cate. It's been a while. I forgot about the days of these kinds of posts.

Anyway, yes, anomaly. Less than 100k people decided an election in which the winner never won a single popular vote. That is very, very rare.

hi ya! :wave:

catefrances · January 2017

mrussel1 said:

catefrances said:

mrussel1 said:

catefrances said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

The Juggler said:

JC29856 said:

The Juggler said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
The cowboys had more total yards than the packers last night, more time of possession, more yards per play, more total plays, way more rushing yards and more yards per carry.

Unimportant because they still lost.

What's the point? You can bat .430 and still lose to a team who batted .150 if they scored more runs.

How many votes isn't how you win an election, and nobody was complaining before the election about the rules.

Weirdo won it, all the complaining about the popular vote is getting sad.
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people would be akin to Arron Rogers repeatedly saying the Packers blew out the Cowboys despite winning by the slimmest of margins.

Good analogy though.
I like this analogy better, its like saying the Chiefs beat the Steelers because they scored more touchdowns! The winner is decided by points not number of touchdowns!
Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide, despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people, is akin to Mike Tomlin saying they blew out the Chiefs when, in fact, they only won by the slimmest of margins.
The amazing thing is the guy never won the popular vote in any race he's been in - the results this past year really are an anomaly. One which we need to live within for four years.
really, anomaly? so long as the electoral college exists this kind of result will persist. this is not democracy... then again define democracy. so long as you have a system thats historically based on slavery and the fact that yeah we'll count slaves as part of the population cause itll serve our purpose but hell no we wont allow them to vote, you cant consider yourself, as a nation, democratic. it fucking boggles my mind that the president elect can have 54% of the vote against him and yet still 'win' the election. anyone that thinks that this is representative of democracy is as big a fool as the man just about to step into the oval office.

We are a representational democracy, created to ensure some power is retained to the state. Whether you agree with it or not, it is what was ratified by the states and it is longest functioning constitution in history. So there must be something okay about it.

And the 3/5ths clause was eliminated 150 years ago.
no. there is nothing okay with a system that allows a person who procures millions of votes LESS than their opponent the right to govern. 54% of the american public who voted, allegedly voted AGAINST trump, yet he is in charge for the next 4 years. how is that democratic? simpy put, its not. and you know i dont necessarily see it as a fault of modern democracy, cause when we look bak to ancient athenian democracy, that great example of governemnt for the people , of the peple, we see that not ALL the peope were represented.. and if that is the case, i repeat HOW is that democratic? and again the answer is its not. its okay to admit that the system of government youve been born into ,and currently live under is not democratic... its okay that we dont fool ourselves into thinking that despite the rhetoric that says we live in a free and equal society, we admit that in actuality we dont. elections are a popularity contest and when the person who wins the most votes by millions DOES NOT WIN the election then you have to question the system. and you have ask yourself what exactly is democracy. and does it even exist or is it simply a buzz word people use, and have used against them, to make themselves feel good about the broken system they live in as a measure against the 'enemy' in order to keep us in line?

Anytime enough people, as represented by their elected officials, want to call a Constitutional convention to eliminate the electoral college, they can do it. There are mechanisms within the document that allow for it. Democracy is not purely defined by majority rules. Democracy is not purely a popularity contest. There have been five presidents to take office without winning the popular vote. Bill Clinton took office in 92 after winning a measly 43% of the popular vote. 43%!! Does that mean 57% of the people voted against Clinton? What should have happened in his case?

Don't get me wrong... I dislike Trump as much as anyone on this board. I was a Hillary supporter to the point where @Free consistently accused me of being a paid HIllary-bot. But his victory is an indictment of lots of things.. media, Russia, wikileaks, the least sophisticated voter, racism, nationalism, anti-trade.. lots of things. But it's not an indictment of democracy or our Constitution. It worked precisely as designed, residing substantial power to the states. That's the point. And again, it is leading to a peaceful transfer of power which is something that is uniquely American.

If you want to change the process, use the tools that the Founders set forth. Start a group, raise money, lobby your congressmen or state legislature. There are mechanisms at your disposal.

to be honest i think the average voter is too unsophisticated, or disenfranchised to give a shit. i agree trump victory is an indictment on a lot of things, not the least being the aforementioned disenfranchisemnt and lack of sophistication. i dont believe in democracy and havent done for a great many years. i see too many goverments ignoring the will of the people at the expense of the freedom and lives of those of other countries as well as those of the countries said governments are supposed to represent. the biggest disjoint i see i regard to alleged democracy is capitalism. i dont have the answer, but what i do is that capitalism is not the answer. too many people suffer at its expense... and how can that be democratic? simple answer... its not. it was never mean to be. if democracy is meant to work then it has to work for everyone, not the 1%.

Jason P · January 2017

Smaller states wouldn't have representation without it. Candidates would just focus on large metro areas. (a strategy Clinton may have used and ended up paying dearly). Sad for Clinton, because she and her team knew the rules. There were six states that need to be fixated on but she turtled worse then Claude Lemieux because her team (and most everyone) thought she had it in the bag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08q4o4MWXM

mrussel1 · January 2017

^^ I fucking hated Claude Lemieux. What a dick. What a cheap shot dick. What a cheap shot dickhead with that cheap shot boarding on Kris Draper. Piece of shit. I don't even like the Wings and the Avalanche made me root for the Wings.

JC29856 · January 2017

Jason P said:
Smaller states wouldn't have representation without it. Candidates would just focus on large metro areas. (a strategy Clinton may have used and ended up paying dearly). Sad for Clinton, because she and her team knew the rules. There were six states that need to be fixated on but she turtled worse then Claude Lemieux because her team (and most everyone) thought she had it in the bag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08q4o4MWXM

Claude was suckered from the outset, you can also see that once he was sucker punched and down he threw his glove off and attempted to get up and fight but McCarty was pounding on his head and neck. McCarty was seeking revenge for Draper, revenge okay, sucker punch, not okay.
McCarty won the battle but Claude won the war as I think he has a WJ Cup, Canada Cup, 4 Stanley cups and a Conn Symthe!
Best part they all shook hands after and years later both Lemieux and McCarty sat together for an interview.

Hillary won more votes for President

Comments

Categories