When will Trump be impeached?

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.

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!

I agree.
You can keep your insurance plan. 
Ask yourself .  What would Saul Alinsky do?

What is so hard to understand, trumpists?

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.

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.

What is so hard to understand, trumpists?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Well, first of all, quoting an article with Hans von Spakovsky's name on it in reference to voter law literally means you cannot be taken seriously.  He is an excremental liar and fraud.

Let's just look at one example working backward through this so-called article. Voting in someone else's name a whopping "97% of the time" sure sounds like an open-and-shut case that voter fraud is off the rails. 

Then you go and research what these lying scumbags are talking about, here:  https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/reports/pdf/2013/2013-12-30-BOE_Unit_Report.pdf
Turns out, there were 63 ineligible voters registered in local elections that year who were listed as eligible, and DOI investigators were able to cast a vote as 61 of them. That 97% is for the 61 of 63 ineligible voters on the rolls.  There were about 2.1 million votes cast.  That is 0.0029% of the votes.

These findings demonstrate that some ineligible individuals remain on the voter
rolls. In relation to the approximately 2.1 million votes cast in the three elections, the 61
votes cast by investigators and the sample of ineligible individuals identified by DOI is
not statistically significant, although it indicates vulnerability in the system. This
information is not a finding of actual voter fraud, but rather, consists of snapshots of
deficiencies in the voter rolls. (Emphasis mine)

0.0029% compared to 97% is a great big fat lie.

That's why you cannot take anyone seriously who uses a quote from Hans von Spakovsky.

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.

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.

Hillary has no majority no matter how anyone tries to jigger it, unless you're talking about the Democratic Primary. She has a plurality.

That's why you cannot take anyone seriously who uses a quote from Hans von Spakovsky.

Seriously. To my fellow Trump non-haters, please learn this lesson: If your source is FoxNews/TheFederalist/ZeroHedge/TheGatewayPundit/TheWashingtonExaminer/Breitbart/etc. NO ONE will take you seriously. Just stop using them. It's okay to read them and argue with other conservatives using them as sources, but they are NOT persuasive. This is why I always link to MSM when I cite sources. I know you think Wayne Allen Root or Sara Carter is the most impartial journalist alive who gets everything right, but just give it up. And DO read Alternet, HuffPo, Slate, Salon, TheNation, TheWeek, TheAtlantic, Vox, Mother Jones, etc.

Look, I read both sides and I can tell you this, although the MSM and the left media has fallen in quality significantly since Trump won, they are still better in terms of rigorousness than right-wing media. Now that I've said that a warning to the left- A lot of your trusted outlets have really let themselves go since Trump won and are losing objectivity. Be careful because while they're better, your sources are not impeccable and DO deserve scrutiny.

As far as somewhat conservative sources that the liberals will or should accept, I think the Wall Street Journal is still fairly regarded, as are some of the other business papers. I think liberals should accept National Review, even though they are opnely conservative, they nontheless have a higher journalistic standard. Also, those on the left should do more than just look at the source and dismiss it. Just because FOXNews and Breitbart are often wrong, does not mean they are ALWAYS wrong and can be dismissed out of hand. I've seeen people dismiss FoxNews stories that were linked that were little more than AP/Reuters reprints. The person just saw FOX in the link and didn't even read it.

But yeah, try to link to MSM stories and then express your own view, not just parroting what Virgil on Breitbart wrote. (Sorry, it's hard to take seriously writers who use pen names and then assign themselves some overly pompous and important name)

Also, those on the left should do more than just look at the source and dismiss it.

Yeah, I think this is actually a good point. A few years ago I started seeking more diverse sources and it's been good for me (I think). I'm still what most of you would call a leftist (perhaps even a radical by some of your accounts... yeah I'm a pretty "rad" leftist... nice), but trying to hear out the other side has been, at its best, informative and, at its worst, entertaining.

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.

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.

Three million more than trump and that's after comey screwed the pooch and the rudskis interfered.

Still failing at math, I see.

Three 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 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.

Three million more votes is three million more votes, no matter how you try to slice it.

But it is not a majority. It is a plurality.

And it does not follow that because someone has MORE votes that they have the will of the people. At a bare minimum you would need 50%+1 or Sub-50% but a coalition government in a parliamentary system. Hillary has neither. Therefore, she does not have the will of the people.

Hillary had a minority of the vote. So did Trump.

Try again. I love to see you run like a dog chasing its own tail.

You're the one who refuses to acknowledge the difference between a majority and a plurality.

   Now, why would the Russians focus their attention on Facebook and not a simple leaflet through the door campaign?

How much did the Russians spend, how much did the Republicans spend, and how much did the Democrats spend on those ads?

Over 2 billion was spent on the election.   100,000 or a million is a drop in the bucket.
“ gee I was gone vote fur Hillary, but I saw a Facebook ad sayin she dun like black people, so I think I’ll switch my vote to Trump. ”

The ads were not only pro trump, some were pro Blum and Hillary, so that would suggest the company Russian or not had other motives than to get Trump elected.

That'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.

Why 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.

Answer:  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.

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.

por que no los dos?

That'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.

Why 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.

Answer:  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.

The point on these threads appears to be whatever martini's last lie claims it to be.

One has to wonder if he has a side-job shilling for the repugs on discussion forums. That, at least, would be a reason other than mental illness for his incessant lies.

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.     

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. 

97 Reactions. 15 Comments. 29 Shares. That's not viral. That isn't even a sneeze.

Who is obfuscating by screaming RUSSIA!!!!!

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. 

97 Reactions. 15 Comments. 29 Shares. That's not viral. That isn't even a sneeze.

Who is obfuscating by screaming RUSSIA!!!!!

Russia interfered/is interfering.

trump does little to nothing to stop it. Why? Because they helped him win the election and he hopes it'll work in the mid-terms?

Sounds logical to reasonable folks.