Normally I don’t respond to people who use silly fake names, but the point seems like an important…
Sonia Simone

For all we know “Sonia Simone” could be a silly fake name as well, but I guess that’s not the point here and I wonder how that should even matter — it should be about content not identification. *)

It does not really matter where or how the rules of elections are set, if the system is broken — and I guess ignoring the popular vote does constitute as such — it should be fixed. That is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. Using the popular vote only when it happens to be convenient for the own agenda makes it a relatively poor argument (I doubt you would have made the same case if it had been the other way round).

Yes, there might be legal difficulties, but it is not impossible if the responsible parties agree that it needs fixing (which they hopefully will). If they don’t .... well, I guess that answers it.

I am not sure why you mentioned the three millions as a fact, as I never disputed the number. While this difference certainly does not look nice, the majority of it came from California (who plan to calxit soon anyhow ;-) ) and the first two previous elections actually had worse gaps.

To reiterate what I already wrote, Trump won the elections fair and square. The popular vote issue is undoubtedly a problem, but one that should have been fixed a long time ago. And there are still four years until 2020 ;-). For the 2016 election it is a bit late now and complaining just makes for a sore loser.

As for the intelligence bit, that is far from a fact but rather allegations. The only fact is, data has been leaked and subsequently published. Nothing else.

*) Apparently not, if we consider the act of publishing the Podesta emails was made into a bigger issue than its questionable content — better to blame the messenger than the actual author.

Like what you read? Give .... a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.