You're right, California's votes did count, all 55.
I'm not arguing about EC votes. I'm responding specifically to the asinine statement of, "If you remove California's votes, Trump would win the popular vote." Why should California's be removed? Why not remove the swing states, or the middle of the country, or Texas, or every red state, or every state with only 3 electoral votes?
Frankly I agree with other posters here - the rules of the game were the Electoral College, for better or worse. Living in a rural area in a "flyover" state, I see the benefits of the EC; likewise I also think perhaps it's a little outdated, particularly given the fact that it's more and more failing to match the popular vote. Once in a while I don't have a problem with it not matching, but it shouldn't become a regular thing.
BUT - Hillary won the popular vote. She lost the election, but she won the popular vote. Saying, "Yeah, but if you take out California, she would've lost" is just as offensive as saying "The votes in flyover states don't really matter."