Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on September 10, 2018, 03:05:51 pmQuote from: Mr C on September 10, 2018, 01:49:37 pmI didn't screw up a damn thing. The second part of gogators comment is not addressed by DeMartino's response, as he is claiming now. The fact that there was no winner of the "majority vote" completely moots his point. If a student tried that in a formal debate s/he would lose points.My point was that "The claim that she represents the American public is unsupported." because, in part, Clinton did NOT win a majority of the vote, nor can it be assumed that if she did, that the person in Trump's administration is acting on behalf of the American public. Nor does winning the popular vote confer "the will of the people" or authority on that person as that is not our system of elections and government. Much like people confuse "casualties" with KIA, so too do many people confuse "plurality" and "majority". I hope that clears things up. I admit, it wasn't the neatest post I made earlier. As far as debate- Get a clue. This is politics. Formal rules of debate are meaningless. This is about persuasion. Formal debate comeptitions are useless except for parliamentary style where the emphasis is on persuasion and wit. An American general meeting his counterpart, said "You never won a battle against us." The Vietnamese general thought for a moment and then replied, "Yes, that is true. It is also irrelevant."The same goes for formal debate rules. Applying logical rules to an illogical process undertaken by illogical creatures is an exercise in meaninglessness. All the debate in the world doesn't overcome a Checkers Speech or a Vietnamese girl being burned by napalm or Clinton being tossed in the back of a van like a sack of potatoes.You used that argument on dave's in other contexts as well. But it doesn't excuse your dishonesty. Give honesty a chance!
Quote from: Mr C on September 10, 2018, 01:49:37 pmI didn't screw up a damn thing. The second part of gogators comment is not addressed by DeMartino's response, as he is claiming now. The fact that there was no winner of the "majority vote" completely moots his point. If a student tried that in a formal debate s/he would lose points.My point was that "The claim that she represents the American public is unsupported." because, in part, Clinton did NOT win a majority of the vote, nor can it be assumed that if she did, that the person in Trump's administration is acting on behalf of the American public. Nor does winning the popular vote confer "the will of the people" or authority on that person as that is not our system of elections and government. Much like people confuse "casualties" with KIA, so too do many people confuse "plurality" and "majority". I hope that clears things up. I admit, it wasn't the neatest post I made earlier. As far as debate- Get a clue. This is politics. Formal rules of debate are meaningless. This is about persuasion. Formal debate comeptitions are useless except for parliamentary style where the emphasis is on persuasion and wit. An American general meeting his counterpart, said "You never won a battle against us." The Vietnamese general thought for a moment and then replied, "Yes, that is true. It is also irrelevant."The same goes for formal debate rules. Applying logical rules to an illogical process undertaken by illogical creatures is an exercise in meaninglessness. All the debate in the world doesn't overcome a Checkers Speech or a Vietnamese girl being burned by napalm or Clinton being tossed in the back of a van like a sack of potatoes.
I didn't screw up a damn thing. The second part of gogators comment is not addressed by DeMartino's response, as he is claiming now. The fact that there was no winner of the "majority vote" completely moots his point. If a student tried that in a formal debate s/he would lose points.
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on September 10, 2018, 11:02:04 pmQuote from: gogators! on September 10, 2018, 08:08:54 pmWhat is so hard to understand, trumpists?QuoteThe Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.That ain't fake news.That's not a majority of the vote. That's a plurality. That does NOT make Hillary the candidate of "the people". One could say that 50%+1 does, though I wouldn't agree with that. Regardless, she did not have a majority.More of the people than trump. And I never ever said majority; it's the risible right that brought it up to nitpick in their efforts to defend the indefensible.
Quote from: gogators! on September 10, 2018, 08:08:54 pmWhat is so hard to understand, trumpists?QuoteThe Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.That ain't fake news.That's not a majority of the vote. That's a plurality. That does NOT make Hillary the candidate of "the people". One could say that 50%+1 does, though I wouldn't agree with that. Regardless, she did not have a majority.
What is so hard to understand, trumpists?QuoteThe Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.That ain't fake news.
The Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Quote from: gogators! on September 11, 2018, 12:47:35 amQuote from: Mr.DeMartino on September 10, 2018, 11:02:04 pmQuote from: gogators! on September 10, 2018, 08:08:54 pmWhat is so hard to understand, trumpists?QuoteThe Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.That ain't fake news.That's not a majority of the vote. That's a plurality. That does NOT make Hillary the candidate of "the people". One could say that 50%+1 does, though I wouldn't agree with that. Regardless, she did not have a majority.More of the people than trump. And I never ever said majority; it's the risible right that brought it up to nitpick in their efforts to defend the indefensible.If she doesn't have a majority (and I think it should be clear cut), then the person in the administration can't be representing 'the will of the people'. Arguing 'will of the people' with a candidate that has less than 50%, and their closest challenger is within 2%, is a poor claim.
Are we forgetting that there were other parties involved during the election? There were 4 other parties that had votes counting towards those percentages. It's completely irrelevant that they didn't reach 50% since the "majority" is not between two parties. The 48% would still be the majority of the will of the people overall.
Quote from: JVPrice on September 11, 2018, 07:54:11 amAre we forgetting that there were other parties involved during the election? There were 4 other parties that had votes counting towards those percentages. It's completely irrelevant that they didn't reach 50% since the "majority" is not between two parties. The 48% would still be the majority of the will of the people overall.How would the 48% be the will of the majority of people overall? It's not a majority in any sense. As for the other parties, I doubt you'd find many Libertarian Party or McMullin-supporting Mormons who would back Clinton. I love how Democrats just assumed those people favored Clinton more than Trump out of sheer arrogance.
Did Hillary legitimately win the popular vote? That is a question that can't be answered with certainty."But just last week, President Obama told a whopper at his last news conference that went almost completely unnoticed, much less criticized."He promised he would continue to fight voter-ID laws and other measures designed to improve voting integrity. The U.S. is 'the only country among advanced democracies that makes it harder to vote,' he claimed."This is demonstrably false. All industrialized democracies — and most that are not — require voters to prove their identity before voting...."The real problem in our election system is that we don’t really know to what extent President Trump’s claim is true because we have an election system that is based on the honor system. "What we do know, despite assertions to the contrary, is that voter fraud is a problem, and both sides of the political aisle should welcome a real investigation into it -- especially since the Obama administration tried so hard for eight years to obfuscate the issue and prevent a real assessment...."About 2.8 million people are registered in more than one state, according to the study, and 1.8 million registered voters are dead. In most places it’s easy to vote under the names of such people with little risk of detection."The Obama administration did everything it could to avoid complying with requests from states to verify voter registration records against federal records of legal noncitizens and illegal immigrants who have been detained by law enforcement to find noncitizens who have illegally registered and voted...."A 2013 sting operation by official New York City investigators found they could vote in someone else’s name 97 percent of the time without detection."http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/25/john-fund-and-hans-von-spakovsky-why-trumps-probe-voter-fraud-is-long-overdue.html
These findings demonstrate that some ineligible individuals remain on the voterrolls. In relation to the approximately 2.1 million votes cast in the three elections, the 61votes cast by investigators and the sample of ineligible individuals identified by DOI isnot statistically significant, although it indicates vulnerability in the system. Thisinformation is not a finding of actual voter fraud, but rather, consists of snapshots ofdeficiencies in the voter rolls. (Emphasis mine)
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on September 11, 2018, 08:35:00 amQuote from: JVPrice on September 11, 2018, 07:54:11 amAre we forgetting that there were other parties involved during the election? There were 4 other parties that had votes counting towards those percentages. It's completely irrelevant that they didn't reach 50% since the "majority" is not between two parties. The 48% would still be the majority of the will of the people overall.How would the 48% be the will of the majority of people overall? It's not a majority in any sense. As for the other parties, I doubt you'd find many Libertarian Party or McMullin-supporting Mormons who would back Clinton. I love how Democrats just assumed those people favored Clinton more than Trump out of sheer arrogance.A majority, as well as being defined by a number greater than 50%, can also be defined as a the greatest number in whatever group you're counting. In this case, the Democratic party.
That's why you cannot take anyone seriously who uses a quote from Hans von Spakovsky.
Also, those on the left should do more than just look at the source and dismiss it.
Three million more than trump and that's after comey screwed the pooch and the rudskis interfered. Still failing at math, I see.
Quote from: gogators! on September 12, 2018, 02:23:32 amThree million more than trump and that's after comey screwed the pooch and the rudskis interfered. Still failing at math, I see.48% is not a majority. It is a plurality. You honestly think people changed their votes because of Russian facebook ads and the Podesta emails? Get a clue- the writing was on the wall when Trump won big in Michigan and Sanders stunned Clinton. Then you had Hillary getting tossed in the back of a van like a slab of beef. Russians didn't force Hillary not to campaign in Wisconsin.
Three million more votes is three million more votes, no matter how you try to slice it.
Try again. I love to see you run like a dog chasing its own tail.
Now, why would the Russians focus their attention on Facebook and not a simple leaflet through the door campaign?
That's not the point and it is not a relevant question to the point I made about your question...
Why would the Russians use a platform like Facebook to pedal ads like this to sway half-witted American voters?
Answer: Facebook is the most popular platform for Americans getting news and information. (Please see graph higher up)
Did it ever occur to you that this idea that Putin is all-powerful and playing the world, and that we need to spend billions of dollars to stop these ads IS the propaganda operation? That's right, YOU are the one falling for the propaganda. It wasn't about getting Trump elected. It's about freaking people out and getting them to overreact.
Quote from: Dave Stepz on September 12, 2018, 10:30:51 amThat's not the point and it is not a relevant question to the point I made about your question...Actually that is the point. You have to consider the volume of Russian ads/tweets in comparison to the rest of the information that was out there before you can even start to claim that they had a significant impact. Was there something magically more effective about the ads? Is Russian advertising superior to U.S. advertising? Why has this apparently only been effective in political advertising and not in say, being used to boost Russian exports? If what the Russians spent on facebook ads was truly that effective in changing voters minds, then corporations around the world would be flocking to Russia. They aren't. Get a clue and use some critical thinking.QuoteWhy would the Russians use a platform like Facebook to pedal ads like this to sway half-witted American voters? Because they're part of a bureacracy and military apparatus that gets chucked money and told to go do/try/experiment with stuff and see what works and that doesn't make it part of some massive, powerful, propaganda operation.QuoteAnswer: Facebook is the most popular platform for Americans getting news and information. (Please see graph higher up)97 Reactions. 15 Comments. 29 shares. Stunning. Clearly Clinton lost because of ads like this.Did it ever occur to you that this idea that Putin is all-powerful and playing the world, and that we need to spend billions of dollars to stop these ads IS the propaganda operation? That's right, YOU are the one falling for the propaganda. It wasn't about getting Trump elected. It's about freaking people out and getting them to overreact.
This relentless obfuscation and dishonestly are quintessential features of the Trump cult and its followers. That, and of course, unmitigated stupidity from likes of Jimbo and his ilk.
Quote from: Adel on September 13, 2018, 04:58:47 amThis relentless obfuscation and dishonestly are quintessential features of the Trump cult and its followers. That, and of course, unmitigated stupidity from likes of Jimbo and his ilk. 97 Reactions. 15 Comments. 29 Shares. That's not viral. That isn't even a sneeze.Who is obfuscating by screaming RUSSIA!!!!!