Clinton claim of v**er supression
May 27, 2017 11:44:12 #
In her commencement speech at Wellsley she claimed that one of the reasons she lost was a result of v**er supression, So here are the raw popular v**es of the last 3 p**********l e******ns (rounded off). 2009- Obama 67million-McCain 58million. 2012- Obama 65 million- Romney 60 million. 2016- Hillary 66 million- Trump 63 million. So will some one please explain how Clinton's claim of v**er supression makes sense. Pardon me if it sounds like clinton is a very sore looser. and still doesn't take responsiblity for her loss.
May 27, 2017 11:57:23 #
May 27, 2017 12:13:47 #
May 27, 2017 12:18:11 #
ken hubert wrote:
Lol, you really are dumb! 
You think the population is shrinking?
May 27, 2017 12:19:36 #
JamesCurran wrote:
You think the population is shrinking?
That wasn't the point he was making, duh!
May 27, 2017 12:22:41 #
ken hubert wrote:
That wasn't the point he was making, duh!
No, that as the point he was missing....
May 27, 2017 12:30:01 #
JamesCurran wrote:
No, that as the point he was missing....
Forgot that you are from Jersey. That explains a lot!
May 27, 2017 12:43:58 #
JamesCurran wrote:
You think the population is shrinking?
That is not the point, stupid.
May 27, 2017 12:52:46 #
FlyingTiger wrote:
That is not the point, stupid.
So, what exactly is the point he is making --- that can't be explained by a increasing population?
May 27, 2017 15:15:15 #
boberic wrote:
In her commencement speech at Wellsley she claime... (show quote)
She is a sore loser not to mention that liberal logic can't be explained..
May 27, 2017 16:03:10 #
JamesCurran wrote:
The population is growing.
Let's try this again dumbazz... 2009- Obama 67million-McCain 58million. 2012- Obama 65 million- Romney 60 million. 2016- Hillary 66 million- Trump 63 million
Obama in 2009 received 9 million more v**es than McCain- total v**es = 125K
Obama in 2012 received 5 million more v**es than Romney- total v**es =125K
Hillary in 2016 received 3 million more v**es than Trump- total v**es = 129K
All three past e******ns the Democrat candidate won the popular v**e yet the total v**es virtually stayed the same, with the exception of 2016 with 4 million more total v**es. From 2009-2016 it appears that Dems lost 6 million v**es and the Reps gained 5 million more v**es since 2009. Where is this v**er suppression?
May 27, 2017 16:26:28 #
JamesCurran wrote:
So, what exactly is the point he is making --- that can't be explained by a increasing population?
prove your point with facts not opinions.
May 27, 2017 16:48:09 #
JamesCurran wrote:
The population is growing.
The population is growing due to the influx of immigrants as well as i******s, who tend to v**e democrat. Hillary's claim of v**er supression is totally without merit
May 27, 2017 17:04:49 #
boberic wrote:
The population is growing due to the influx of immigrants as well as i******s, who tend to v**e democrat. Hillary's claim of v**er supression is totally without merit
Wrong. Net migration has been close to zero for the last 8 years. The population is growing primarily due to the birth rate of Americans.
May 27, 2017 17:22:22 #
Keenan wrote:
Wrong. Net migration has been close to zero for the last 8 years. The population is growing primarily due to the birth rate of Americans.
The nations birth rate is in DECLINE. The population as a result is aging as a result. The death rate is higher than the birth rate.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.