tar

CharonY, One argument would be that we are predominately a Judeo/Christian country. The laws of Moses and the Laws of Jesus are entwined in our laws. The attorney general of the U.S. spoke of love being an important consideration. Love trumps hate, is a placard in the current street protests. Obama is pardoning drug offenders that were jailed when crack cocaine sentences were longer than cocaine sentences, he talks of forgiveness and second chances and repentance. My father is a retired psychologist and professor, he did not come to church when our mother took her daughter (my sister), and I. But his father took him to church. His father gave him his values, how one should be toward others, and it included all the teachings I learned from Sunday School and all the things my mother taught me about Jesus' love. My sister and I are both atheists, my father is atheist, my departed mother was Christian, through and through. My wife who is religious, took my daughters to Episcopal church, because we wanted to teach them the values associated with the religion. We were married in an Episcopal church, baptized our daughter there and live according to Christian principles of love and tolerance, respect for others and personal responsibility to do the right thing. When you walk down the street in the U.S. you know that the people around you believe in both the constitution and their religion. The two are compatable here, because the founders of the constitution were going by Christian values, that accepted people of other faiths. The separation of church and state works here, because both Jews and Christians can handle that separation. American Muslims can handle that separation, because they have seen the value of the constitution's separation of church and state, and of the Christian values of love and tolerance and the combination of workable religious values, with workable human laws, based on religious values, makes a workable framework, for all. Islam is compatible with Christianity and with Judaism because all three are based on Moses laws. Basic tenants of all the religions are similar, but Muhammed made some adjustment to the old testament, that talked about Christians being in error because they believed erroneously in Allah having associates, and Jews being in error because they charged interest on loaned money, and idol worshippers being in error because they worshiped graven images, and people that mocked Mohammed being in error, because mocking the prophet of Allah was mocking Allah. My father did not reject the teachings of his father, but did not go to church. I do not go to church. My daughters no longer go to church, but my one daughter believes in god and the other not so much. My sister and her husband and their son do not go to church, but everybody in my family is a good person, and tolerant of others and forgiving of others. I do not see those qualities in ISIS. The difference between the beliefs of ISIS and my beliefs and the beliefs of my children are the tenants of Christianity and the tenants of the constitution of the U.S. Regards, TAR

what are you talking about? I am the one that posted the article about the activists suggesting the evidence that would give reason for a recount and stated "maybe the election is not over"

it is already known to be true, that Hilary has not filed for a recount in any state IF she was president, you would trust her judgement. Why do you not trust her judgement on filing for a recount? IF she files I think we should go ahead. If she does not file, I trust her judgement. She's a smart lawyer and knows how and when to file, and IF she should.

I am not an expert on sharia law, but I understand it is the political half of Islam. Muhammed, as first Caliph of Islam decided all things legal and political. He was not just a spiritual leader, and a prophet of Allah. Muslims must learn the Quran by heart and travel to Mecca and circle the stone reciting such, as least once in their life. They must strive to live their lives as Muhammed did, and fight the disbelievers in Muhammed and Allah. ISIS has a Caliph and the main idea of ISIS is to establish a caliphate, initially around Raqqa in Syria, but including lands in Iraq. They have eyes on Libya and other locations around the Mediterranean. I saw a picture of the expected near term caliphate about three years ago, that had black pretty much surrounding the south and east of the sea. This was not religious in essence it was political. Sharia law would be the law of this caliphate, hence a law I do not want to see in my country. It is not compatible with our laws. Not the way it treats woman, not the way it treats gays, not the way it feels toward interest or Christians or Jews or apostates or idol worshippers or people that would mock Allah or Muhammed. It would not work here, it is not desirable here, and anyone bringing it here is not welcome here. That is, I will not accept a tower with a speaker calling me to prayer 5 times a day. It is not our way. What is left of Islam, if you take away sharia law? Not much. It is basically then just the old testament. Regards, TAR

ten oz, I was implying that if Hilary thought it wise to file for a recount, she would have filed for a recount. That means to me, that she is not concerned that mistakes or fraud cost her the state. If she has come to that conclusion, that should satisfy anyone that voted for her. regards, TAR If sufficient evidence is uncovered to suggest to Hilary that she might win a state she lost if a recount was held, I am pretty sure she would file. After all, she wants to be the president of the U.S. if a path to that end possibly exists, she would not ignore it.

No, not plausible. Regards, TAR I don't mind. Regards, TAR Shows I readily admit when I make mistakes. Makes me more believable when I am correct. the truth remains the truth, no matter what I say or what mistakes I make I will, by the way, gladly not post anymore on this topic. I have said my piece. Although I will respond if addressed. So if my rambling is of no value to you, and my opinion is worthless, then don't bother baiting me or asking why I feel the way I do about things. Or asking me to defend myself. I already have lost near 10 rep points on this thread, I think. And I hate losing rep points. Especially when I am bringing up valid points and attempting to determine facts and realities about the protests. Sorry for being honest and expressing my feeling, even when they are embarrassing, but I always have felt such an approach is useful. So I make mistakes and overthink things and put one poster's thoughts and words in someone else's mind by mistake. At least I respect you all as having minds, worth discussing stuff with. I absolutely though do not spout Fox talking points as John Cuthber suggests. I listen to all the network news channels and take them all minus the spin I expect from them, and come to my own conclusions about stuff. I know for instance when I hear something on Fox, that MSNBC won't even be covering that, and they will be covering some aspect of the situation that makes Trump look bad, so I turn to MSNBC and sure enough they are bashing trump or talking to someone that once saw Trump pick his nose, so I turn to CNN to see what is really going on. But let me retire from this thread. I am sick of the neg reps. Don't quote me, and I won't post.

Ten Oz, You really think the people with the not my president signs, would put them away if there were recounts that showed Hilary won a close state, but did not win the electoral college? Why go to the expense? If Hilary's team saw a chance that a recount would show she won, she would have filed. I am not sure we should scramble to placate activists and minority candidates on the slim chance the election will turn, based on "what would it hurt". How do you recount an electronic vote, anyway. Computers are sort of neutral when it comes to politics. The way they scanned your ballot the first time will be the way they scan it this time. And my electronic vote was cast when I pressed the "cast my vote" button. How do you recount that, and come up with me voting for Clinton? Each state has their own methods, but the methods used during the recount will be the same as were used during the election. Mostly same equipment, same officials, same workers, or maybe not, but there is expense and time involved that is wasted, unless big mistakes are unearthed. And there is the principle thing, that Trump was ready to challenge the election if he lost, and that was viewed as an un-American stance, and a slight to every ethical poll worker and election official in the country. Clinton may not be willing to repeat that slight. Stein doesn't mind, her party will probably never be in favor anyway, and the attempt may get her some Sanders supporters, next cycle. . There is no piece of paper anywhere to look at, that reflects my vote...how do you recount my district? What if a recount in Wisconsin shows computer irregularities and the recount in several states gives Hilary the election. Then Trump would file for recounting the recount, and recounts in all the states he lost, citing some statistics that several districts reported higher than usual republican support, but Clinton won the democratic county anyway and he suspects the democratic machine lost some republican votes and three democratic registrations had non-existent addresses, asking that every voter registration in NJ be checked. I know for a fact that my daughter voted in Virginia and could still be on the books here in New Jersey. I saw her signature page last election cycle and told the workers it should be removed. I don't know if they ever did, I did not check it. But if my daughter who is honest, could have voted twice,(and didn't) I would not be surprised if some dishonest person did vote twice. Back in my younger day, I remember a joke line that was mocking the corrupt practices in democratic districts in Chicago, that suggested the democratic election day mantra was "vote early, vote often". Maybe Hilary is afraid a careful recount will unearth a few more faulty registrations put in by her workers, and figures the recount won't change anything and just will add embarrassment, so why file. Regards, TAR

ten oz, I don't know where I got the idea that California was going to make the difference in this election. I thought they h ad changed the way elections went in the past, because election night it looked like their 55 would take Clinton over the 270 mark, regardless of all the little states that went red. It was a close election, and everybody thought Hilary would win it, and it looked like she would, if all the states she was ahead in in the polls went her way, then the California 55 would take her over the top. Well over. I thought this had happened before, you showed me it has not happened "all the time, as I remembered" In fact you showed me it NEVER matters what California says, the election is "almost always" decided by then. So forget the dropping California thing. It was only a device to show that Trump was not only ahead in electoral college votes, but also ahead in popular votes, before California. I never meant to disqualify California voters, only to take the temperature of the rest of country, looked at without California. As it turns out you have shown that the elections are usually settled before California votes come in and this year is no different. So the extra votes that Clinton is getting from California and Washington are wasted, non-meaningful votes. A plurality of 1 would have sent the 55 Hilary's way the extra 2 mlllion neither tell us how the rest of the country feels about Trump, nor changes the electoral college. So we can drop consideration of California as a guide to who the country wants as president in any case. Popular vote per state determines who gets the electoral college votes. So popular vote still decided the election, not the way you would like to look at it, but the way it actually worked. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, My mistake. I don't know why I have that feeling, you showed me wrong. So lets drop California because they used to ensure a victory for the red, and now they are superfluous and don't help the red at all, and the blues don't need them to win anyway. So who cares what those people out there on the left coast think...we don't even know what they were thinking because they were not at the polls and we couldn't talk to them on the way out. Can we know why the mail in voters voted for Hilary and what demographics they represented? Regards, TAR

Delta1212, Yes there is that ability, but what principle would cause someone to not vote for the candidate their state chose by popular vote? Sympathy for a voter in another state? Regards, TAR there is a funny theme I have been hearing on the cable news shows, that keeps suggesting that Trump hire dems and people he disagrees with, to unify the country. Funny, because it is like saying, even though you won, make sure you fulfill all the promises your opponent made to us.

except that usually in a close election California turns the country blue this did not happen this year, which indicates that the mood of the country was more red than usual, because Trump had a bigger electoral college lead, than 55 votes could overcome That means he swung the swing states. That means that states that usually determine the president by sometimes voting blue and sometimes voting red, voted red. California is nearly always blue, Texas is nearly always red, they don't count as swing states that can be used to judge the country's mood. However the rust belt and Florida, went red. Counting popular votes. Which makes Trump our next President.

Sorry, you are right. North Carolina bathroom laws and such do look like they are cutting off people's rights. But I have a couple buts. Trump's problems concerning renting to blacks and minorities was a business decision in a different time. We are more enlightened now than then and such practices are not accepted as they were then, at least not publically. Plus there are more wealthy blacks now, than there were, back in the years after the civil rights amendment. And I was thinking about the people that pulled their business out of NC based on the bathroom law...I was wondering what a fair rule about bathroom use would be. Going by birth certificate sex seems a good principle. Not that you have to show your certificate to use the bathroom, just that you should use the bathroom of the sex you were born with, unless you have a professional opinion that suggests your sex is the other. That is, your default bathroom should be that of the sex you were born as. If any facts actually contradict that and put you in the other class, then no problem, use the other. But choosing which bathroom you want to use, even though you are not the sex pictured on the door, is taking away the whole principle of having bathrooms dedicated to one sex or the other, in the first place. This is a silly argument, but I was thinking yesterday about the bathroom laws and why it might be alright to keep biological males out of female bathrooms, and I was wondering how long a sperm cell can live, outside a human body. If a male would leave seminal fluid on a toilet seat, is it possible for a woman to become impregnated from it getting inside her? Is it possible for a woman to be upset if the person in the stall before her peed standing up and left the toilet seat up? So, what is a good bathroom rule, other than girls go in the girls room and use the girls locker room, and boys go in the boy's room and use the boy's locker room. Should we demand all institutions and businesses build a gender neutral bathroom? Seems like an unfunded mandate, to me. Regards, TAR delta1212, OK, the rest of the country other than Texas, wanted Hilary, before we counted California. Why drop Texas voters from your consideration? It was a thought experiment, to show the preponderance of Trump votes outside California. We could look at each state separately and see how the popular vote went. and award the popular vote winner of each state a number of electoral college votes equal to that state's representation in congress...oh gee, we did that, and it showed the country favored Trump. Regards, TAR outside of a recount that would show the popular vote of a state that was for Trump actually had more votes for Hilary, in which case you couldn't say Trump won the popular vote in that state, because he wouldn't have won the popular vote in that state, Hilary would have other than Nebraska and Maine, every state awarded all their electoral college votes to the popular vote winner, IN THAT STATE. If any faithless electors come from a state where the popular vote went for Trump, yet they vote for Hilary, because California voted for Hilary they would be going against the wishes of the popular vote in their own state. Faithless indeed.

Delta1212, I am not cutting them off, as if they don't matter, I am just doing the thought experiment of considering what the country wants, without considering what California wants. They are a huge portion of our population, and by rights, what California wants is what we should do, all the time...but that is why we have an electoral college in the first place. To give equal say to the interests of every state, regardless of their population. Regards, TAR

swansonT, The general theme I saw in the population numbers was that since 1970 our county has added, percentage wise, Hispanics of all races, to the tune of a rough 10 percent and Asians and pacific islanders, to the tune of around 5 percent. The increase in blacks was only a few percent, so the new comers, or the people having a lot of kids are probably Asian/pacific islanders and Hispanics. These two groups are also very well represented in California and Washington, which are providing the huge plurality for Hilary in the continuing count. I know you forbid my thought experiment earlier, about leaving out California, because we can just as well drop Texas and get a different result, but the fact remains, that if you are interested in going by the popular vote, to really understand what a populace wants, before California was counted, Trump had that popular vote and the constantly increasing plurality for Clinton is coming from, in large part, the mail in votes, in California and Washington. Leaving an assessment of the popular opinion of the other 48 states, telling us, that the country, other than California and Washington, wanted Trump. Regards, TAR

SwansonT, And I am not sure you are right about our values changing, in a constantly upward Hegelian spiral, as my enlightened Aunt would talk about. If "us" is the population of the Earth, we have at least North Korea and ISIS to consider are bucking the curve. Yes I realize the thing about the different wives, and that he settled the court case, declared bankruptcy for several of the firms he purchased and has boasted about being smart to take advantage of the tax laws. And yes I think he is pulling his weight. He pays plenty of taxes, just not income tax, and pays the salaries of thousands of people, all over the country. He has employed many and built a lot of stuff. Now he has run for, and won the Presidency of the United States. I think taking on the responsibility for the lives and security of 320 million people is about as much weight as you could want a man to carry. Regards, TAR

swansonT, Yes, significantly more actual voters wanted Hilary than wanted Trump. This doesn't tell us a thing about what near half the registered voters that didn't come to the polls wanted. They probably wanted a better choice. Regards, TAR

swansonT, I did not realize that plus had an upper limit implied. Sorry for being inaccurate. I thanked you for your correction of the numbers. What is your point? Mine was only that the people that voted for Hilary, are the only ones allowed to claim that Trump is not their president. Everyone else, whether they stayed home, or voted for another candidate that had no chance of winning, or that wrote in their mother's name, failed to vote for Hilary. That is Hilary 69 million, people that did not want Hilary 224 million registered voters, minus 69 million, or 155 million. So there were more than twice as many people that didn't want Hillary, as voted for Hilary there is more than twice as many people that didn't want Trump than voted for Trump. Bottom line, the 10 million plurality that Clinton got, does not add up to "the country wanted Hilary". So it cannot mean the country didn't want Trump. Regards, TAR

CharonY, I understand that public works and public schools benefit society as a whole. My unfair claim is that some groups of people don't pull their weight. Some are white people in rural West Virginia, some are black people in the ghetto, some are immigrants from all over the world, that come here for school and work, and send their paychecks home to their mother country, some are Mexican drug gangs that not only have their women on the dole, but deal drugs and live a criminal code. It is not that I don't want to accept the help of my neighbors to build a safe and secure and comfortable and nice looking existence. It is that I don't want other people, other than those contributing, to take advantage of the system that contributing Americans have built, over the last few centuries...it is that I want them to understand they are expected to contribute and follow the laws of the land, not bring their own culture in with a sense of entitlement, and refuse to let their culture melt into the pot. There are rich communities in North New Jersey that are heavily Ethnic Asian that brought a sense of responsibility and hard work, that contribute greatly to our businesses and culture and schools. Then there are areas in Paterson and Newark were I am afraid to get out of the car. Who is being a better American? The Indian couple with high paying tech jobs and kids at the top of their class, or the gang banger in Paterson with who knows how many kids with how many women? Some get it. Some do not. Some I feel are my fellow citizens, some I feel are enemies of society. don't you feel the same? Regards, TAR

Delta1212 Well I don't know how you are slicing the numbers, but somebody has not been practicing replacement thinking. The county had a population of less than 200 million when I was growing up, and has a population of more than 300 million now. If white population did not grow, and black population did not grow, where did we get the extra 100 million from? Longevity rates? Immigration? Regards, TAR

it is the left coast

SwansonT, I said 62 million plus, meaning we know at least the count of 62 million and growing voted for Hilary, and in this, proved they did not want Trump. People that stayed home or voted for other candidates, did not help Hilary defeat Trump, and in this did not show us that they did not want Trump to be their president. If they felt strongly about not wanting Trump to be our president, they should have voted for Hilary. She was the only candidate that could win, instead of Trump. Regards, TAR Delta1212, Well then blacks are not practicing replacement numbers when it comes to planning their families. Should government programs reward this behavior, stressing our resources like that? Why do you vote democrat, automatically, if you are black? Regards, TAR Besides California has a lot of white democrats and pacific island democrats and Hispanic white democrats. The black vote I don't think turns California blue. I think liberal thinking turns California blue.

on this popular vote thing, I have an issue with the changing demographics of my country causing an increase in democratic registration on two scores One, how is it possible that the "real" values of democracy and American values, would come from people new to being American, and the people that have made America a place to come to, are now idiots? And two, I have always thought it unfair, that I married and had two children, the replacement number, fair to the world and to myself, and yet I must take care of other people's children because they had more than they could manage to raise in safety and comfort, for whatever reason. Are not children primarily the responsibility of their parents? If a catholic family has 5 kids and raises them all, with good ethics and schooling, to be contributing members of society, that is one thing. If a catholic family has five kids, when they couldn't afford the first, and the father is a drunk and the mother is on pain killers and government assistance...it seems unfair to me, that lack of responsibility, should transfer the burden of raising those kids, to me. Sure global warming is a threat, but so is overpopulation. People should not have babies they can't take care of. I am not proposing forced abortions or letting such babies suffer, but I can not reach into other family's lives and tell them what to do, so I expect others to take care of their own children, or not have children they cannot raise. Not assume they can suckle off the cow, and not help mend the fences and bail the hay.

delta1212, Would such unethical behavior be excused if the student defended themselves by saying they wanted to make sure a misogynist was not elected and the first woman president was? Regards, TAR

Delta1212, My intention was not to call democrats names, but to point out that the ascribing of the values of one section of the electorate of a party, to the whole party is not likely to be correct, and especially not correct if you have the tendency of ascribing decent values to your own party, and casting the other party as deplorable. It is just as likely in terms of voter fraud and Intimidation, and peer pressure and tampering, that a KKK member tied up some jew and black guy on their way to the polls, as some young unethical campaign worker "helped" an invalid at an old age home, cast their absentee ballot. These things, I think would balance out, and any complete and fair recount would cast both republican and democratic votes into question. Can you promise me, for instance, that there is not one case where that unethical student, cast an absentee ballot from their parent's address, and voted in person from the campus polling place? Regards, TAR

just a thought If Washington and California mail in ballots are counted if they are postmarked on or before election day, does it matter to fairness if post offices stayed open late and processed mail (knowing that the ballots were likely 2 to 1 Hilary.) just a question? what is the challenge process for mail in ballots? At my polls there is person there that sees my face and my signature, and how it jives with the last time I voted, and there are challengers sitting there to see that nobody inappropriately casts a vote. How do you challenge a mail in? Are you sent a notice that your vote was counted, and a verification that your vote was counted the way you voted? if for instance, you voted in person in one state, and mailed in in another, both with legal addresses, is there a database somewhere that would see your name twice? Or if you mailed in a ballot for somebody else, how is it determined that their will was reflected on the ballot? Or what if mail box pick up times and routes were adjusted on election day to favor late pickup and processing in areas likely to vote one way or the other? Were the post offices open in California and Washington on election day? Who processes the votes? Under what challenge system?