re: CNN reporting Clinton got 2.9 million more votes BUT

quote:

---

It is going to be a long four years for you.

---

Who are you to tell me or anyone what is worthy of discussing on a Political Talk forum?

Here is what I think is interesting:
We have a President who won the election by a substantial electoral college margin. This same person lost the popular vote by a non-trivial margin (millions). From a data science perspective, the correlation discrepancy between the two data points is HISTORICALLY disparate. As a science guy and as someone who has always been interested in politics I find that fascinating. As do many others.

Naturally and unsurprisingly, idiots on both sides are rushing into this discussion to protect their biased interests. Liberals who are already in mourning find the result even harder to swallow as a result of the popular vote despite knowing going in how the contest would be decided. Conservatives are practicing faux outrage, wondering how in the world anyone could ever care about a candidate not winning a plurality of the popular vote and yet still becoming President.

The truth is you are overreacting and making wild and childish accusations. I have already stated that the popular vote result does not delegitimize the results. You are just too busy bleeding into your tampon to read what I am saying. (See, I can talk like you assholes too)...

TLDR; If you aren't going to be civil go frick yourself guy. Your opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's.