It's also possible that while the electoral college was created to give sparsely populated areas the same voice as densely populated areas, at some point the system began to be manipulated by political forces just looking to maintain white male christian dominance of the national agenda.

"Recount" is a pretty good movie about how Bush stole Florida in the 2000 election.

Washington post owner owns Amazon let the far left buy from Amazon I will never buy from them again.

Both Obama and Bill Clinton won two terms, where is the republican corruption?

Yes, definitely go watch it if you like fictional films. Jumanji, Star Wars, Jaws and Jurassic Park are also entertaining movies that have little in common with the real world.

Uh, no. You might actually want to read what the Constitution says and its explanation in Federalist 39 of the Federalist Papers before pulling "facts" out of the air. As myself and others wrote, the House of Representatives gives voice based on population, and the Senate and the Electoral College give fair voice to states. Otherwise, only the most populated states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania -- but mostly California -- would dictate control of the country. The less populated states would have no say whatsoever in how a president is elected. If states weren't given fair participation in the federal process they wouldn't have been motivated to form the United States in the first place.

To make matters worse, since the amount of federal members of the House of Representatives is based on population, California and other Democratic Party-controlled states encourage undocumented immigrants to move to their states. Yes, illegal immigrants are counted in the census. If California lost its illegal population it would lose representatives in the House.

Recount is not a fictional film. It very accurately portrays the events of the 2000 election.

Like I said, a work of fiction. The Washington Post and Miami Herald did their own separate investigations and concluded that Bush won. Since both papers tend to support Democrats, their conclusion was contrary to their interests, which makes it (their shared conclusion) even more credible. On the other hand, Recount was written by Left wing hack Danny Strong for the Left wing cable network HBO, so it has ZERO cred. Films are inherently biased and can create their own reality. If you think Recount is unbiased and objective, please let me when you'll be buying my beachfront property in Arizona.

Your theory relies on the "Media is 100% loyal to Democrats" myth.

Another claim pulled out of thin air, unless you have a source that says "the media is 100% loyal to the Democrats." Even conspiracist Alex Jones doesn't go that far. My only claim is that the media, in general, is overwhelmingly biased towards the Left. That includes being biased toward the Democrats, but no one has said it's 100% or close to that figure. But even before Trump came along as a GOP candidate, Hollywood and the media was known to be biased toward Democrats by about 70-90%. There's been a lot of studies done, studies that you probably have no idea exist since you already admitted you get most of your news from social media.

There is absolutely no evidence that the media is "overwhelmingly biased towards the left". None. It's an oft repeated theory on the right that has little to no basis. In fact, when you consider the ownership of the media, there is more evidence that the media leans right than there is that it leans left.

So, your argument that two newspapers "concluded" that Bush would have won Florida has absolutely no merit. The votes weren't counted. Nobody will ever know. And, the movie "Recount" is a very accurate portrayal of the events surrounding that election. I highly recommend it.

This is funny. If Hillary had been elected their would be not a peep about the electoral college. Nada. She loses but wins the popular vote and it's sour grapes. Everybody should just support President Trump and quit whining. That being said when Obama won twice I didn't burn a flag or go on midnight protests. Too busy working and raising children. Got people wanting to make it the popular vote like it's American Idol.

Trump was the one who said before the election that he wouldn't accept the results. Consider this the first promise he broke, of hundreds I'm sure.

[quote=OakAsFan]Trump was the one who said before the election that he wouldn't accept the results. Consider this the first promise he broke, of hundreds I'm sure. [/quote}]no use crying over spilled milk. Embrace your new president or leave the country bud. Don't know what to tell you. Just don't act like it's the first time a candidate lied to you.

Yeah those white christian males are some evil bastards let me tell ya.

Don't worry. Trump is going to be embraced just as much as Obama was.

Honestly I don't give a damn if anybody embraces him or not. At the end of the day it will be more money in my pockets for me and my family. And no , we don't take government assistance or handouts. We take care of ourselves with government help.

Good to see Trump's supporters have their fellow citizens in mind.

Well, he they really don't. It's kind of the shoe on the other foot revenge for the last 8 years. Good luck. Least we didn't cry and burn the U.S. Flag. We persevered through it. Shoe is on the other foot now. Bye Bye Birdie.

Oh, and as I said, Trump can expect the same loyalty from this country that Obama received. These things cut both ways, you know?

Actually you guys cried a lot, but you did not burn the American flag. On the subject of flag burning, it is protected by the first Amendment, the problem is that a lot of people don't know you need to get a burning permit to do that within city limits.

My memory is foggy. Good thing about the internet age and social media everything is on video. If you can will you show me videos of protests aftet the 2008 or 2012 election. Thanks Pal.

"Absolutely no evidence..." That's funny from someone who gets all his news from social media and makes absolute statements out of pure ignorance.

Have you read this? https://books.google.com/books/about/The_media_elite.html?id=b-VoAAAAIAAJ

How about this? http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/120/4/1191.short

Here's another: http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

Then after you falsely claim that there's no Left-wing bias in the media you toss the old canard about "corporate bias", as if corporate bias is somehow Right-wing. Aside from Rupert Murdoch you're not going to find any Right-wing bias. The owners of ABC News, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, MTV, the Comedy Channel, CNBC and CNN, as well as papers like the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., are all on the political LEFT. Yes, there's corporate bias -- Left-wing corporate bias. Look at the news hosts: Chuck Todd, Chris Matthews, George Stephanopolous, etc. -- they all worked for DEMOCRATS before working in the media.

Then you use your series of bogus claims as a refutation of the investigations done by the Washington Post and Miami Herald, which it does nothing of the kind. Then you assert what they did has no merit although it's clear that you haven't read what they wrote and you're probably ignorant about it and wouldn't even be aware of those studies had I not mentioned them.

Take the red pill and get out of the Matrix.

Birther movement.

Tea Party groups bringing rifles to Obama's speeches.

Congressman Joe Wilson screaming at Obama during a speech to congress

Republicans in congress vowing to block every item on Obama's agenda.

Those are just a few things.

I don't see any reason why Trump shouldn't get the same love and support, right everyone?

There is no evidence that the media is on the political left, Faithful.

You're posting links to books as sources? Why not just cite the specific arguments in those books? You think I'm going to read an entire book tonight? Come on. I just got done watching the game.

This notion that the media is liberal is just something Republicans like to say whenever the media holds them accountable for something. It's a lazy, baseless retort that that conservatives at the ground level have bought into and eventually started repeating themselves as if it were fact.

When you look at the ownership of media, it is certainly no liberal bunch. The media has become increasingly consolidated by corporations over the years. Not exactly hippies.

It's a myth, Faithful1. The media is about marketing, ratings, and the stock. Nothing more. If anything, they lean right.

Lol. Sounds like pretty mild stuff in comparison to the way people are reacting to Trump's win.


That's a good thing. Boggles my mind when people say this as of this is an act of terrorism.

If any good comes of this, maybe the Left will be more open to decentralization of powers. Some talking secession in California. Not that it's about to happen but, the idea behind it is good. This all 50 states "are one" shit is insane.

Sorry, you were talking about the general public, I thought you were talking about the Republican leaders. My bad. No nothing like that on the Republican side.

Oak, you are putting the tea party in with the Republicans, that's not right. Tea baggers are insane in general. From your logical stand point you would put the Libertarian party in with the Democrats, which is untrue. That asshole Bill Maher is not the spokesman for the Libertarian party.

SCG,

I agree that California wouldn't secede. The nation needs us. Without our agriculture and entertainment (including tech, internet), the United States would be in the dark ages. California would never do that to you.

Vacari,

I sure as heck didn't invent the term tea party Republican. Not sure who coined the phrase in pop culture. I know Sarah Palin has identified with the movement. She was on the Republican ticket in 2008.

Not sure where you're going with your point about Libertarians and Bill Maher. Never said anything about them.