When they say get rid of the E.C., show them this.

Oh crap. You beat me to it.

Ah, of course they’re from California and New York.

scorched cats

The House of Representatives is SUPPOSED to represent the popular vote.

The popular vote doesn’t consist of the combined Democrat votes from CA and NY.

Actually communist dumbsss... the House of Reps , the Senate, and the Presidency is voted on separately.

Could you please explain exactly what law did he break and what evidence do you have.

So far the only thing I have seen is hearsay, supposition, and presumption. None of which is admissible in a court of law. It was so obvious that there was no evidence of a crime that even Schiff and Nadler did not pursue a Quid Pro Quo or bribery charge because they knew it was unprovable.

Abuse of power is a nebulous subjective term and is not a defined criminal offense. It is Nadler's opinion that he abused his power, others may not agree. A charge of Abuse of Power usually goes along with a charge of a provable crime, that demonstrates the abuse. Here there is no provable crime charge so when used by itself it lacks objectivity.

The Obstruction of Congress is also a stretch. The President asked the courts to decide if Congress was violating his Executive Privilege by subpoenaing his advisors. Congrees refused to wait for the courts to decide. Questioning the validity of a subpoena is perfectly legal and is his right.

No evidence of cheating?

From the IG's executive summary:

"In addition to repeating the 7 significant errors contained in the first FISA application and outlined above, we identified 10 additional significant errors in the three renewal applications, based upon information known to the FBI after the first application and before one or more of the renewals."

source: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

Two key points to make:

1. Horowitz stated quite clearly in his testimony to Congress today, that his report did not vindicate anyone. So, just like the Mueller boondoggle's report, nobody is proven innocent, right?

2. Upon repeated questioning, IG Horowitz stated he found no evidence of political bias.

How did he come to that conclusion? Because nobody admitted to it, and he found no evidence sufficient to prove he had been lied to. He didn't have anyone under oath.

And of course, the people he investigated are not stupid enough to leave a smoking gun... although Lisa Page and Strozk sure left a smoking gun with their email exchanges saying they would not let "it" happen, with "it" being the election of president Trump.

But I digress... now, back on point:

If these 17 "errors" were due to plain incompetence, as we are apparently expected to believe, why are they so specifically targeted against the Trump campaign?

Doesn't incompetence usually end up with a more random pattern? Wouldn't some of this incompetence have spilled over into the numerous investigations of HRC's campaign? The same people were investigating, so why were they only incompetent when investigating Trump?

I guess when the options come down to committing treason, or just having an 'against all odds' display of targeted incompetence, they'll go with the latter.

btw, the IG only investigates. The position has no actual legal power, like Barr and Durham have, and their report is still pending. They can subpoena people, they can impanel a grand jury. They can question people under oath.

So, I hate to whiz on your campfire, progressive libs, but this report doesn't let your cabal of conspirators off the hook in any way at all. Horowitz said so.

The point of the meme you're commenting on flew right over your head and out the widow. Popular vote means nothing in a Rule of law Republic like the USA. If it did, tyrannical majorities could oppress smaller minorities. That's the meme's very point and you missed it. We're a Rule of law Republic, not a mob rule Democracy.

remotely competitive? You do realize that less than 3 million votes isn't even 1% of the US population?

1% of the population but more like 2.5% of the people who actually voted — a gap that large is generally considered a comfortable victory. But because the U.S. has this completely unique among the world’s nations (as far as I know) electoral system, that didn’t translate to victory.

Generally considered a victory by whom? Socialist or direct Democracies where that applies? Or Rule of law Republics? Do you also go to basket ball games and apply the rules of baseball and declare " If this were a baseball game, they would have crushed the other team"

Your statement is patently absurd. We did not ratify the 12th amendment based on arbitrary preferences. The very fact that you even think a majority should have more power is THE very reason our founders ratified that amendment.

You don't seem to understand that your own desire that majorities should be able to impose their views on minorities is unethical and contrary to a rule of law constitutional government.

In the United States, majorities can and do "impose their views" on minorities, though: every time the Electoral College picks a winner that is consistent with the popular vote. That is how elections typically work. The one who gets the most votes wins, and gets to decide.

All that the Electoral College does is allow, in rare instances (though getting more common) an electoral minority to "impose its will" on a majority. If you oppose majorities imposing their will on minorities, then allowing minorities to impose their will on a majority makes even less sense.

Fortunately, our constitutional design allows a way out of this predicament which is not dependent upon the outcome of any one election.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The freedoms accorded to us in our Bill of Rights protect us as individuals from tyrannical legislative decisions, whether undertaken by a majority or a minority. The Electoral College has nothing to do with that process. Instead, it is a matter for the judicial branch.

“In the United States, majorities can and do "impose their views" on minorities, every time the Electoral College picks a winner that is consistent with the popular vote. That's how elections typically work”

Which is a patently false statement . The elections are decided by a representative population in each state. This is not the same thing as the total population of an entire nation. We are the United States - not the United peoples with no individual states or Constitutions.

“The one who gets the most votes wins, and gets to decide. “

Which a false statement within the context of a rule of law Republic.

“All that the Electoral College does is allow, in rare instances (though getting more common) an electoral minority to "impose its will" on a majority. “

Which is nothing but an empty claim. They are becoming more common precisely for the reasons our founders stated in their very prolific writing on the matter. If you have even an iota of historical knowledge you'd know this.

Our founders were well aware of the tendency of nations to become corrupt in populations and oppress minorities. This was the basis for the 12th amendment. Contrary to popular belief - our founders were not just a bunch of slave beating hill billies. They were legal geniuses.

“If you oppose majorities imposing their will on minorities, then allowing minorities to impose their will on a majority makes even less sense.”

Which begs the question. You would first have to argue this to be the case. You have not. You have simply claimed.

“Fortunately, our constitutional design allows a way out of this predicament which is not dependent upon the outcome of any one election.”

Yes, it does. It offers us the 12th amendment – which you and your Democrat friends want to shred based on election outcomes you don't like.

“I've said it before and I'll say it again: The freedoms accorded to us in our Bill of Rights protect us as individuals from tyrannical legislative decisions, whether undertaken by a majority or a minority. “

Not if they are ignored or trampled over like Democrats have done for decades - Or our Constitution is shredded all together.

“The Electoral College has nothing to do with that process. Instead, it is a matter for the judicial branch. “

It has everything to do with that process. The electoral college is one of the very reasons we have a Constitution. To protect minorities. Your statement is patently absurd

Your opinion that it is the only thing keeping them competitive is interesting.. but just an opinion.

How about this for an opinion? The founding fathers were acutely aware of the fact that the larger states would attempt to dominate the smaller states, and very likely trample their citizens' rights. They knew that selecting a president by popular vote would be about the worst thing that could happen to our country. To mitigate that as much as possible, they came up with a better, fairer solution, the electoral college.

Don't be so quick to hate the EC. About the time we switch to using the popular vote, and your candidate *would have won* if the EC had still been in effect, you'll wish it was still in effect. These things are cyclical, don't you think?

Scoring runs are the only thing keeping some baseball teams remotely competitive 🙄

I know you commietards desire a one-party state, but let me remind you that George W. Bush won over 3 million popular votes over John Kerry in 2004 (less than what Clinton got over Trump) and you still insist that Kerry won to this day. So you’re a hypocrite.

Also the 2.8 million margin Hillary got was still very close. Look at the number of votes other presidential candidates have got over opponents in the history of Presidential elections. Reagan got close to 20 million votes over Walter Mondale in 1984. Hillary didn’t even get a majority (50% of the vote). If it was the popular vote that took the presidency, there might have been recounts in certain states just like we have had with the electoral college. Especially since the only reason Hillary won the popular vote was because of Illegal-fornia.

The Electoral College is the metric by which the Race was Run... and thus the Metric by which the Race was Run...

Want the 'Popular Vote" to count... then change it in advance of the Race and watch how the candidates change the strategy by which they Campaign...

To Run for the EC and then declare Victory by the Popular vote is like playing the World Series and after Team B wins 4-3, saying 'Nope, we decided total runs scored in the Entire Series is the new yard stick, Team A are the World Champions ."