America - The Official Thread

[PocketZeven]

How can you be so sure? Clinton didn’t even bother with campaigning seriously in the swing states.

And for the record, he did disavow them, and he even disavowed Duke during that election cycle.

Trump lost the popular vote. If not for the electoral college he wouldnt be the president at all.

I was specifically talking about charlotsville. Disavowing duke, didnt stop Duke being a big Trump fanboy. When did he disavow duke by the way?

 

[TetsuKobura]

Trump lost the popular vote. If not for the electoral college he wouldnt be the president at all.

I was specifically talking about charlotsville. Disavowing duke, didnt stop Duke being a big Trump fanboy. When did he disavow duke by the way?

And if Clinton won the electoral college and Trump won the popular vote, no one would be whining about it. Do you even know why we have the electoral college? Andrew Jackson lost an election long ago because of it, but he didn’t whine about it, he understood why he lost.

Trump disavowed the acts by those at Charlottesville. He’s also disavowed Duke on numerous occasions before the general election in November ‘16 even took place, like here.

You do realize that just because you disavow someone doesn’t mean that person won’t be a hardcore fanboy, right?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Trump lost the popular vote. If not for the electoral college he wouldnt be the president at all.

I was specifically talking about charlotsville. Disavowing duke, didnt stop Duke being a big Trump fanboy. When did he disavow duke by the way?

You know who else lost the popular vote but still won 180/303 electoral college votes?

 

[huskeR32]

And if Clinton won the electoral college and Trump won the popular vote, no one would be whining about it

They most certainly would.

Do you even know why we have the electoral college?

Largely to remedy the issue of misinformed voters, which was an actual problem in the 1700s when people and news traveled slowly. That stopped being as much of a problem once radio and television came to be, let alone the internet. I'd say it's fair game to lament the fact that we only have Trump because of an arcane and unnecessary system.

 

[Danoff]

Do you even know why we have the electoral college?

I believe so, and it's not the "official" line.

Let's say you're a powerful individual living toward the beginning of the United States. You'd like your state to have the most influence in choosing a president as possible, but you don't want to allow the slaves, married women, unmarried women, and white male non-landowners to vote. You want to count them among your voting power, but you don't want to actually give them a say. If at all possible, you'd like your vote to count on their behalf. If you could also capture the votes of people who voted for the wrong person, or chose not to vote, and make those votes count on your behalf as well, that would be even better.

Thus, the electoral college was born. A way for the aristocracy to cast a vote on behalf of the disenfranchised population and the minority party. It is a vote-laundering system.

State leaders wanted as much say as possible in presidential elections, so they co-opted the voice of everyone in the state.

 

[TexRex]

And if Clinton won the electoral college and Trump won the popular vote, no one would be whining about it. Do you even know why we have the electoral college? Andrew Jackson lost an election long ago because of it, but he didn’t whine about it, he understood why he lost.

You're quick to refute one counterfactual (that Clinton would have won in the absence of the email scandal) and respond to it with another?

In fairness, I don't even believe a Clinton victory would have been secured in the event that the first counterfactual were...well...factual, not only due to the inherent division between supporters of the opposing parties, but because blemishes on a political career are arguably more damning than the lack of a political career, and Trump effectively had the innocence of a baby; pity he has the temperament of one as well.

But let's look at the counterfactual you posed. In the case of the former, one can't form an accurate prediction of events because we don't have data points stemming from a Clinton campaign sans email scandal, but we've got plenty of data for the latter thanks to the fact that Republicans whined incessantly throughout Obama's two terms, for both of which he was blessed with both the popular and electoral votes.

You can want to think the right wouldn't have whined had McCain or Romney been deprived of the presidency due to only an electoral college loss, but logic dictates that they would feel screwed by the system just as I felt twice in my adult life, and the whining that they ended up doing as a result of actual events wouldn't have been nearly as loud as it would have been if the win had seemingly slipped from their grasp.

Edit: Whoops! Left the comment about Jackson in the quote because I intended to say you can't possibly know he didn't whine, though the talk was of people in general whining rather than merely the candidate, and you have access to even less evidence to suggest that Jackson's supporters didn't whine.

 

[Dotini]

I believe so, and it's not the "official" line.



State leaders wanted as much say as possible in presidential elections, so they co-opted the voice of everyone in the state.

Yes, this country was founded upon the principle of compromise; a nod was given to the elites - the Senate, and a nod to the commons - the House of Representatives, and so forth down the line in other institutions such as the Electoral College. The founders were fearful of democracy because of its terrible power to exert destruction and tyranny. Yet they gave it to us anyway, because it was the right thing to do. Checks and balances showed up everywhere. Over time, through amendments, some of these have disappeared, and others haven't. It is an open-ended process of..."perfection"?

 

[ryzno]

I just love how everyone forgets Trump was a Democratic donor/supporter/voter for decades till(2016) this election.
Y'all gotta accept the fact Dems voters are feeling the NEW age Reps.
I'm definitely not your typical Rep. I don't care about abortion, I don't care about the LGBTQ debacle, I'm Atheist, I'm for smaller Government, I'm for less taxes. I'm pro guns/alcohol/drugs, I'm pro border control.
We need to get over all this crap.
Times have changed, this isn't the 60's KKK party anymore. As someone here said, you can denounce Duke and the KKK but you can't control if they support you.

Oh, whatever the electoral college was originally for, It's a good thing 4-5 states don't get to dictate what the other 45-46 states want.

 

[TexRex]

I just love how everyone forgets Trump was a Democratic donor/supporter/voter for decades till(2016) this election.

Do what now?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump

Trump registered as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987 and since that time has changed his party affiliation five times. In 1999, Trump changed his party affiliation to the Independence Party of New York. In August 2001, Trump changed his party affiliation to Democratic. In September 2009, Trump changed his party affiliation back to the Republican Party. In December 2011, Trump changed to "no party affiliation" (independent). In April 2012, Trump again returned to the Republican Party.

Or is it just your opinion that he was a Democratic donor/supporter/voter for decades prior to the 2016 election?

Times have changed, this isn't the 60's KKK party anymore.

...



...

Don't waste your finger tips, they'll say the parties have changed stance/views since then.
And don't forget Hillary calling a KKK Dragon her mentor!

As often as you flip-flop, you'd have a good shot at the presidency.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And if Clinton won the electoral college and Trump won the popular vote, no one would be whining about it. Do you even know why we have the electoral college? Andrew Jackson lost an election long ago because of it, but he didn’t whine about it, he understood why he lost.

Trump disavowed the acts by those at Charlottesville. He’s also disavowed Duke on numerous occasions before the general election in November ‘16 even took place, like here.

You do realize that just because you disavow someone doesn’t mean that person won’t be a hardcore fanboy, right?

The Republicans would have raised heck about it to be sure, but no one would have paid any attention on the MSM front except for Fox News. It would have been ignored by the rest of the MSM which leans left except for the odd condescending chuckle here and there. IMO of course.

 

[ryzno]

Do what now?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump


Or is it just your opinion that he was a Democratic donor/supporter/voter for decades prior to the 2016 election?


...



...


As often as you flip-flop, you'd have a good shot at the presidency.

That wasn't a flip-flop. I messed up with 'anymore'. Don't forget I just switched parties.
I doubt you'd want me as President.

 

[TexRex]

That wasn't a flip-flop. I messed up with 'anymore'.

Don't forget I just switched parties.

You know...you say that...like...a lot. You wouldn't happen to be familiar with Hamlet, would you?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

With repetition, the remark comes off as rather hammy--a ploy for consideration, if you will--as if saying "you should take me seriously, I used to be like you". I'm not buying it.

I doubt you'd want me as President.

Yeeeeaaahh...it wasn't a serious notion.

And don't go thinking the blatant dodge was missed, but I've come to expect it at this point.

 

[PocketZeven]

And if Clinton won the electoral college and Trump won the popular vote, no one would be whining about it. Do you even know why we have the electoral college? Andrew Jackson lost an election long ago because of it, but he didn’t whine about it, he understood why he lost.

Trump disavowed the acts by those at Charlottesville. He’s also disavowed Duke on numerous occasions before the general election in November ‘16 even took place, like here.

You do realize that just because you disavow someone doesn’t mean that person won’t be a hardcore fanboy, right?

It is a fact that the e-mail scandal lost Hillary a lot of votes.

Do you know why the electoral college was set up? Because they thought the public were not capable of making an informed decision. They did not trust democracy. Do you have faith in democracy? Or are you in favor of limiting democracy with the electoral college? Especially in the age of the internet? Its design origin is actually undemocratic and designed as a buffer to change the popular vote if deemed neccesary. Although these motivations have changed over time. The main fact is it is undemocratic to have your vote to be less/more worth then somebody else's in another state. Every Citizen should have an equal vote. There is no reason to still have it in place as it is seriously dated. Imagine how greatly it could reduce campaign spending when certain "swing states" will become less important.

Please read below articles:

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html


And more importantly were women or people of color able to vote during the election of both Andrew Jackson and Lincoln? You can not compare an election from the past to modern history. People were uninformed and a lot illiterate , there were no phones etc.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It is a fact that the e-mail scandal lost Hillary a lot of votes.

Do you know why the electoral college was set up? Because they thought the public were not capable of making an informed decision. They did not trust democracy. Do you have faith in democracy? Or are you in favor of limiting democracy with the electoral college? Especially in the age of the internet? Its design origin is actually undemocratic and designed as a buffer to change the popular vote if deemed neccesary. Although these motivations have changed over time. The main fact is it is undemocratic to have your vote to be less/more worth then somebody else's in another state. Every Citizen should have an equal vote. There is no reason to still have it in place as it is seriously dated. Imagine how greatly it could reduce campaign spending when certain "swing states" will become less important.

Please read below articles:

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html


And more importantly were women or people of color able to vote during the election of both Andrew Jackson and Lincoln? You can not compare an election from the past to modern history. People were uninformed and a lot illiterate , there were no phones etc.

Saying it's a fact that Hillary lost because of the email scandal is incredibly myopic. There are a multitude of other issues and problems surrounding her candidacy that led her to lose the general election, the email scandal just happened to be near the end of a long line of those issues. If it weren't for those other issues, the email scandal would have been glossed over as a smear on an otherwise good candidate.



Interesting little tidbit from the Wall Street Journal (paywall) via Mediaite:

Friend of Dr. Ford Felt Pressure to Revisit Statement

A close friend of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was reportedly pressured to revisit her statement about the attack that allegedly took place 36 years ago.

Leland Keyser, one of several people that Ford said was at the party where Brett Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her, did not corroborate her claim, saying she did not recall the event. However, according to The Wall Street Journal, she told the FBI that efforts were made to change her tune.

Keyser alleges that Ford’s friend Monica McLean, a retired FBI agent, had urged her to “clarify” her statement. Keyser submitted their text messages to the FBI as part of their investigation.

If Monica McLean rings a bell, that’s because she was the person Ford’s ex-boyfriend named in his letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, who he alleged relied on Ford’s help on taking polygraph exams while interviewing for jobs at the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney’s Office.

McLean's lawyer denied the allegation.

 

[PocketZeven]

Saying it's a fact that Hillary lost because of the email scandal is incredibly myopic. There are a multitude of other issues and problems surrounding her candidacy that led her to lose the general election, the email scandal just happened to be near the end of a long line of those issues. If it weren't for those other issues, the email scandal would have been glossed over as a smear on an otherwise good candidate.

There are facts out there on which I made my conclusion.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/11/14215930/comey-email-election-clinton-campaign

 

[Johnnypenso]

There are facts out there on which I made my conclusion.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/11/14215930/comey-email-election-clinton-campaign

Well you're ignoring 3 important things. Most of the polls were wrong leading up to the election and you're ignoring everything else that occurred before the email scandal. Given the type of candidate Donald Trump was, he shouldn't have been within 20 points of Hillary at any point. The fact that he was so close before the email scandal shows how weak Hillary was as a viable candidate for President and, as I already said, the email scandal was simply the last in a long line of issues that got her to that place to begin with. The third thing is, there's no cause/effect here. A lot of things are happening at once towards the end of an election campaign and there's no direct evidence I can see that validates this scandal as the sole reason for the sudden drop in the polls.

I'm sure it was a factor, but it was simply another factor in a long line of factors in a very long campaign.

 

[PocketZeven]

Well you're ignoring 3 important things. Most of the polls were wrong leading up to the election and you're ignoring everything else that occurred before the email scandal. Given the type of candidate Donald Trump was, he shouldn't have been within 20 points of Hillary at any point. The fact that he was so close before the email scandal shows how weak Hillary was as a viable candidate for President and, as I already said, the email scandal was simply the last in a long line of issues that got her to that place to begin with. The third thing is, there's no cause/effect here. A lot of things are happening at once towards the end of an election campaign and there's no direct evidence I can see that validates this scandal as the sole reason for the sudden drop in the polls.

You are correct in your assumptions, but my point was that the scandal tipped the scale to Trump's advantage. That what the whole russia investigation in election meddling is about. (I have yet to see conclusive proof they actually did) I understand your view, but the sudden drop in polls and the comey letter debacle can not be just coincidence.

Again I agree that the race shouldnt have been that close, but the facts point out that Clinton was in a lead, before the Comey letter. I have not found any data that show that I am wrong in my conclusion.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You are correct in your assumptions, but my point was that the scandal tipped the scale to Trump's advantage. That what the whole russia investigation in election meddling is about. (I have yet to see conclusive proof they actually did) I understand your view, but the sudden drop in polls and the comey letter debacle can not be just coincidence.

Again I agree that the race shouldnt have been that close, but the facts point out that Clinton was in a lead, before the Comey letter.

If have a scale with 10 kgs on one the left and 9.995 kilograms on the right, and and put 10 grams on the right side, it also "tips the scale". You're ignoring the 9.995 kgs that are already there.

 

[PocketZeven]

If have a scale with 10 kgs on one the left and 9.995 kilograms on the right, and and put 10 grams on the right side, it also "tips the scale". You're ignoring the 9.995 kgs that are already there.

I am not ignoring anything dear sir. I agreed with the statement you made, the race shouldnt have been that close. What you fail to agree on is that the minimum of 0.001+ kilogram that tipped the scale was caused by the e-mail debacle. The data shows that.

 

[TexRex]

If have a scale with 10 kgs on one the left and 9.995 kilograms on the right, and and put 10 grams on the right side, it also "tips the scale". You're ignoring the 9.995 kgs that are already there.

"You're ignoring the 9.995 kgs that are already there."

I think today's going to be a good day.

 

[Danoff]

If have a scale with 10 kgs on one the left and 9.995 kilograms on the right, and and put 10 grams on the right side, it also "tips the scale". You're ignoring the 9.995 kgs that are already there.

I agree, every gram can be just as easily said to be the one that tipped the scale. It's a pointless statement.

 

[PocketZeven]

I agree, every gram can be just as easily said to be the one that tipped the scale. It's a pointless statement.

Not if you objectively look at the facts.

On another note:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educ...ter-kavanaugh-hearing/?utm_term=.28d6d2a3c7de

As i stated earlier in this thread, that in my opinion his behaviour during the hearing was more important in my opinion then him being innocent/guilty. A judge on the highest judicial position should be impartial, show emotional restraint under pressure and not show partisanship. Apparantly some important people in the field of law seems to agree:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educ...ter-kavanaugh-hearing/?utm_term=.28d6d2a3c7de

 

[Danoff]

Not if you objectively look at the facts.

When you're adding one more stone to the scale, is it the last stone that tipped it or the first? Or one in between?

 

[PocketZeven]

When you're adding one more stone to the scale, is it the last stone that tipped it or the first? Or one in between?

In your example it is the last one, because the scale wouldnt have tipped if you didnt added it.

 

[Danoff]

In your example it is the last one, because the scale wouldnt have tipped if you didnt added it.

But the scale wouldn't have been tipped if you hadn't added the first one. Or the second one.

 

[Rallywagon]

My gosh, I think looking back at these last few days worth of pages shows the issues of this country. So hung up and grand pedantics and trifling semantics. No one on either side wants to listen to the context of what the other side is saying, they just want to tell them how they are wrong. And when that cant be achieved, then they will tell them how they said it was wrong.
This is insane. Others I'm sure wont agree, and I am positive someone is going to argue this, but my opinion, it's this mentality that is wrecking the US. It's what both sides are using to achieve their lobbyists agenda. We are arguing about some impudent brat of a man, or conniving woman. All the while both sides are pulling the sheets over the back room deals, laws and policies they are making. Not to mention the seeming innate ability each side has to make is "followers" shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[Danoff]

My gosh, I think looking back at these last few days worth of pages shows the issues of this country. So hung up and grand pedantics and trifling semantics. No one on either side wants to listen to the context of what the other side is saying, they just want to tell them how they are wrong. And when that cant be achieved, then they will tell them how they said it was wrong.
This is insane. Others I'm sure wont agree, and I am positive someone is going to argue this, but my opinion, it's this mentality that is wrecking the US. It's what both sides are using to achieve their lobbyists agenda. We are arguing about some impudent brat of a man, or conniving woman. All the while both sides are pulling the sheets over the back room deals, laws and policies they are making. Not to mention the seeming innate ability each side has to make is "followers" shoot themselves in the foot.

I don't know if this was directed at me but... I'll take it as directed at me.

When you're watching a football game, it's easy to say "if it weren't for that darned interception, we would have won". It's the whole game, everything that happens in the game, that contributes to the outcome. What's ridiculous is arguing about a single event in the insanity of the 2016 election as though it can be isolated from the complete dumpster fire the represented both parties the entire way through. It's not semantics, it's a fundamental misunderstanding about what happened.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not trying to tell anyone that one side is better than the other, and I'm not hiding behind semantics to accomplish that. If your response wasn't directed at me... then "oops... sorry, carry on then".

 

[Rallywagon]

I don't know if this was directed at me but... I'll take it as directed at me.

When you're watching a football game, it's easy to say "if it weren't for that darned interception, we would have won". It's the whole game, everything that happens in the game, that contributes to the outcome. What's ridiculous is arguing about a single event in the insanity of the 2016 election as though it can be isolated from the complete dumpster fire the represented both parties the entire way through. It's not semantics, it's a fundamental misunderstanding about what happened.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not trying to tell anyone that one side is better than the other, and I'm not hiding behind semantics to accomplish that. If your response wasn't directed at me... then "oops... sorry, carry on then".

It was directed at the conversation in general, not at anyone. I am sure I can click on any one of the near 600 pages of posts here and find examples galore of my point. For that matter though, I see it happen on some many levels across so many topics. And no doubt it has happened across all of history. It just amazes me how far people and groups are willing to go or allow things to go just because its their sides "policy." A point in case. Pollution. It doesnt take a rocket scientist, or a scientist of any sort, to understand that polluting the waters that hydrate our cities is a bad idea. And yet, we can clearly see the right's politicians pushing to reduce the very policies that protect aquifers, watershed and the alike. Further, their constituents, the very ones that stand to be poisoned by the reduction and remove of said policies, get behind it full board, because, well, thats what their party is doing. Another prime example is the Clean air act. Just look at pictures of NYC and LA before and after the enactment of the act, and you can clearly (pun intended) see the difference and thus the merits of the policies.
That is not to say there arent examples on the other side. I just happen to care more about the environment and making sure its still habitable for my children and grandchildren and so on, than I am for any of the imaginary constructs like the economy that we have made for ourselves.

 

[BobK]

It is a fact that the e-mail scandal lost Hillary a lot of votes.

It is indeed a fact. The fact that it happened can be laid squarely on HRC's doorstep. So what does it matter how important it was in her loss? If she hadn't done something illegal then tried to cover it up, it would not have been an issue. So she has nobody to blame but herself for the loss of votes.

 

[TexRex]

My gosh, I think looking back at these last few days worth of pages shows the issues of this country. So hung up and grand pedantics and trifling semantics. No one on either side wants to listen to the context of what the other side is saying, they just want to tell them how they are wrong. And when that cant be achieved, then they will tell them how they said it was wrong.
This is insane. Others I'm sure wont agree, and I am positive someone is going to argue this, but my opinion, it's this mentality that is wrecking the US. It's what both sides are using to achieve their lobbyists agenda. We are arguing about some impudent brat of a man, or conniving woman. All the while both sides are pulling the sheets over the back room deals, laws and policies they are making. Not to mention the seeming innate ability each side has to make is "followers" shoot themselves in the foot.

Much like the poster above* (at least as of starting this composition), I very much doubt I've been singled out, but as a contributor to the discussion it most definitely applies to me.

I couldn't agree more; it's sad. So much tit-for-tat and spewing of the prevalent narratives. Hypocrisy is inherent in the species because of an innate desire to have one's arguments be validated, and yet there's no cessation of the compulsion to indicate its implementation (*whistles and looks around innocently*).

Edit:

*Indeed, that description no longer applies.

I'll add that I really don't understand why so much energy is being put into arguing either side of a useless counterfactual.