I've already shown this crap to be false.
I've already shown this crap to be false.
Sorry.In an NFL Game, there can be semi-lopsided to totally lopsided games where, by all quantifiable measures of flat yardage, one team out-performs the other.
Team A: 450 passing yards, 150 rushing yards.
Team B: 240 passing yards, 45 rushing yards.
However, that doesn't by definition mean Team A won the game. In this scenario, Team B won 31-17.
How could that be??
1. Per the current rule book of the NFL
2. It is not which team has more total yardage that wins, but who has the most points.
3. Attaining more overall yardage than your opponent is GOOD, it increases your chances of winning a game.
4. But it isn't what determines the outcome of game in the NFL rule book.
5. You might not like Team B, but you have to admit the statistical fact that Team B won the game.
6. If you think the NFL should change how a game is won based on who gains the most yards, the NFL rule book must be changed to do.
7. Until the NFL rule book is changed, NFL fans will most likely laugh at someone who claims Team A REALLY won the game.
Similarly...
1. Per the current laws of the United States
2. It's not which candidate who has more overall votes that wins, but who has the most electoral college votes.
3. Attaining more overall votes than your opponent is GOOD, it increases your chances of winning an election.
4. But it isn't what determines the outcome of an election per the Constitution.
5. You might not like Donald Trump, but you have to admit the statistical fact that Donald Trump won the election.
6. If you think the United States should change how a game is won based on the popular vote, the U.S. Constitution must be changed to do.
7. Until the U.S. Constitution is changed, U.S. Citizens will most likely laugh at someone who claims Hillary Clinton REALLY won the election.
Very few people challenge the election results. Instead, the logic of the electoral college is challenged. It is affirmative action for small states.Sorry.
Democrats won't understand your analogy here.
They still think hillary won.
You can't fix dumb.
heard anything from the DNC on this?Weird you say that when 3 people said the opposite of what you say Trump liked.
You are terrible at this, if you haven't noticed. But you are good at projecting- since you MUST and I mean MUST follow the DNC in lock step.
There are several options and refunds are one.Uh Huh. They issue refunds ? LOL
She didn't need to go there 70+ times. (eye roll)
Who says cities voted 100% for one candidate?LA Trump got about 30%.
New York city is harder to total. Here ya go. I don't know what counties are considered
part of the city. Manhattan hillary got 90%, Nassau Trump got 45%.
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/new-york
Shoots holes in the myth that the cities voted 100% for one candidate. In any case, add up the votes in those cities you think are democratic strongholds and see if they amount to 65 million.
Dawg for one. The logic of cities controlling the election of the president requires that the cities vote as a block. Otherwise there is no point.Who says cities voted 100% for one candidate?
There are several options and refunds are one.
Whether or not she needed to raise money is an odd tangent. Whar is your factual basis for saying that...as if you ever have facts to support your opinions.
I did a search and came up with nothing. I call BS.Dawg for one. The logic of cities controlling the election of the president requires that the cities vote as a block. Otherwise there is no point.
Maybe you're right. Let's see, who to listen to:Very few people challenge the election results. Instead, the logic of the electoral college is challenged. It is affirmative action for small states.
The EC they originally designed is nowhere near what we have today. Winner takes all didn't happen until 1836. In some states the legislature selected the ElectorsMaybe you're right. Let's see, who to listen to:
Wise, early Americans with forethought and principles...
or....
Today's butt hurt liberal cretins.
Gee, that's a tough choice.
So you read every one of Dawg's posts in this thread?I did a search and came up with nothing. I call BS.
Franklin county in Illinois was one of those that supposedly has 190% of the population registered to vote..Do population now IT
Big difference between understanding and agreeing. It was a dumb analogy. Mine was closer.Sorry.
Democrats won't understand your analogy here.
They still think hillary won.
You can't fix dumb.
Oh, the bigots that didn’t think minorities or women should vote? I’ll go with liberals.Maybe you're right. Let's see, who to listen to:
Wise, early Americans with forethought and principles...
or....
Today's butt hurt liberal cretins.
Gee, that's a tough choice.
The founding fathers were liberal slave owners.Oh, the bigots that didn’t think minorities or women should vote? I’ll go with liberals.
Here’s another analogy.1960 World Series is the best analogy. There are runs, and meaningless runs.
Despite losing the series, the Yankees scored 55 runs, the most runs scored by any one team in World Series history, and more than twice as many as the Pirates, who scored 27.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_World_Series
They were racist, sexist bigots. I said it.The founding fathers were liberal slave owners.
They were conservatives.The founding fathers were liberal slave owners.