Trump protestors

[iNow]

And do you have any reason to believe or evidence to support your suggestion it's not being explored or considered? No, you do not. You're making shit up then elaborating on it as if it's veracity has been already established. Hell, even Jill Stein is filing recount requests in several states right now, so of course it's possible Clinton is doing same.

 

My point is that you rooted your argument entirely on an unfounded assumption. You speculated about something that you have no knowledge of, and then implicitly asked the rest of us to accept your conclusion without challenge. You do this a lot and that's a big part of the reason you get so many neg reps.

 

Let me make it simple. Your building castles in sand. Your argument is weak. I just want you to understand this and get better so we can benefit from your viewpoint and not get continually derailed by nonsense.

 

Recounts are being requested. The Clinton camp may be ready to request more. Until they tell us their plans one way or the other, I encourage you to cease from further speculation. Your prognostications do no favors for any of us. Your crystal ball is not appreciated here.

Edited November 24, 2016 by iNow

[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"

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/activists-urge-clinton-camp-to-challenge-election-results-in-three-states/ar-AAkDeYj?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

 

maybe the election is not over

[iNow]

Yes, you did. Several pages ago.

 

Then, 2 hours ago, you also said this:

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.

So I reminded you that it's not, in fact, satisfying since we have no idea what Clinton has decided or whether or not she plans to "file for a recount."

 

Directly implied by your comment was the suggestion that everyone else should shut up and accept the result...just like Clinton has.

 

What I'm saying, tar, is that we don't yet know whether or not she has. We are still in a "wait and see" status right now. You should stop implying we know, and you should stop suggesting others follow a lead she's not yet set.

Edited November 24, 2016 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

No, not plausible.

 

 

So, if it's not plausible that you were misled on California and on the idea that Muslims are going to take over you country and on the idea that a party whose central idea is "small government" will take away your social security and so on; then what is it?

How did you get to be so wrong on so many things?

 

How can you be sure that the lies that Trump and his colleagues are on record as telling, are not the reason that you believe the things they say?

[tar]

john, because I know why I fear Muslims, and I know democrats raided soc sec funds and put them in the general bucket years ago, I just don't know why I have the memory that California was important to presidential elections. Maybe it is just looking at that huge 55 when most others are like 10 or 15 or below. Perhaps I feared the 55 when I was a democrat, and it would always go red, maybe I feared it election night, because I knew the 55 was going blue this cycle and thought that would take Hilary over the top and erase the will of all the red in the center of the country. I told you I don't know why I thought California was important to elections. But I do know how I feel about other issues, and why I feel that way, and none of it has to do with Fox news solely. I listen to MSNBC and CNN as well, to get my news and facts about the world, and I form my own opinions based on a lifetime of input.

but, now that the 55 do go blue, it is an analogy to cities going blue, and one can associate the thinking in cities with the thinking on the coasts and New England. That association, of California going big blue late in the evening, was analogous to states that were early red, going blue as the city votes came in. I made an incorrect association, were I remembered late city votes turning what looked like a red victory in a state blue, and thought the same thing routinely would happen when the 55 came in. Sorry I misremembered. Glad I was corrected. Especially since it proves it usually doesn't matter what California thinks, so as Hilary's plurality in California and Washington grows it does not delegitimize the election.

[swansont]

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

No, it's not. California is not why we have the electoral college. Trump is why we have it. If the electoral college works as intended, Trump will not be chosen on Dec 19th. But I doubt that will actually happen.

And do you have any reason to believe or evidence to support your suggestion it's not being explored or considered? No, you do not. You're making shit up then elaborating on it as if it's veracity has been already established. Hell, even Jill Stein is filing recount requests in several states right now, so of course it's possible Clinton is doing same.

 

My point is that you rooted your argument entirely on an unfounded assumption. You speculated about something that you have no knowledge of, and then implicitly asked the rest of us to accept your conclusion without challenge. You do this a lot and that's a big part of the reason you get so many neg reps.

 

Let me make it simple. Your building castles in sand. Your argument is weak. I just want you to understand this and get better so we can benefit from your viewpoint and not get continually derailed by nonsense.

 

Recounts are being requested. The Clinton camp may be ready to request more. Until they tell us their plans one way or the other, I encourage you to cease from further speculation. Your prognostications do no favors for any of us. Your crystal ball is not appreciated here.

If Stein has requested recounts then Clinton doesn't have to. So not acting immediately may have been a waiting game for this very reason — Hillary doesn't have to rock the boat, which would have a stronger effect on peoples' perceptions of the legitimacy of the election. Hell, Clinton's campaign could have encouraged Stein to do it.

[Ten oz]

If Stein has requested recounts then Clinton doesn't have to. So not acting immediately may have been a waiting game for this very reason — Hillary doesn't have to rock the boat, which would have a stronger effect on peoples' perceptions of the legitimacy of the election. Hell, Clinton's campaign could have encouraged Stein to do it.

The inconsistancy of conservative is sad. Clinton has 2 million more votes but conservatives say "so what" and "there the wrong votes" and point to the law and demand we all just shut up. Now that Jill Stein is using the law to request a recount many conservatives are arguing that unless Clinton herself calls for a recount no recount should happen. Of course that isn't what the laws says. In MI the recount should be automatic because the vote was so close. In WI Stein as a candidate has the legal right to request a recount, and in PA Stein need to take individual counties to court and the court must request the recount.

 

If we must follow the law and accept the ellectoral college than we must also follow the law and accept recounts.

[tar]

iNow,

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-being-pushed-to-seek-vote-recount-in-3-states/ar-AAkHECO?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

 

says exactly what I have said in terms of the expense and trouble of a recount, and points out Hilary has not asked for one

 

routine audits should uncover any problems

No, it's not. California is not why we have the electoral college. Trump is why we have it. If the electoral college works as intended, Trump will not be chosen on Dec 19th. But I doubt that will actually happen.

 

If Stein has requested recounts then Clinton doesn't have to. So not acting immediately may have been a waiting game for this very reason — Hillary doesn't have to rock the boat, which would have a stronger effect on peoples' perceptions of the legitimacy of the election. Hell, Clinton's campaign could have encouraged Stein to do it.

What do you mean by saying that Trump will not be chosen if the electoral college works as intended?

 

Regards, TAR

I will remind you that a lot of republicans thought the same kind of thing at the convention, and hoped people that were supposed to vote for Trump because of the vote, would instead vote for someone else. Thing is, they voted for who the rules told them they should vote for.

[waitforufo]

No, it's not. California is not why we have the electoral college. Trump is why we have it. If the electoral college works as intended, Trump will not be chosen on Dec 19th. But I doubt that will actually happen.

California wasn't even a state when the founders selected the electoral college as our method of selecting presidents, so I agree that California is not specifically the reason why we have the electoral college. Trump did not exist however when the electoral college was selected so I don't see how Trump could be the reason "why we have it." Now we do know that many of the founders did not want the president to be selected by national election at all. Many wanted the president to be selected by a joint act of congress, with no voting at all. You see they didn't trust the popular vote due to their fear of mob rule. The electoral college was selected as a compromise with those that wanted a national election determined by the popular vote. Hence each state having as many electors as they have house and senate members. States could select their electors any way their State legislatures decided. Again, no voting necessary. The state legislatures could simply vote amongst themselves on how there electors should vote. The founders knew at the time that if all states chose there electors by popular vote, that the national popular vote winner could lose the electoral college election. Such divergent elections were in fact expected. The founders did not want small States to be overlooked by the mob rule votes of high population states during national elections. They considered this a benefit of the electoral college method.

 

So was California the reason for the electoral college? No, but the founders did not want large states overwhelming smaller states in choosing the president. Was Trump the reason for the electoral college? No, but the founders wanted candidates like Trump to win elections by appealing to a majority of States. This means that if the electoral college worked as intended, and Trump will properly be elected president on December 19. Well actually January 6, when the votes cast on December 19 are counted by congress.

 

 

If Stein has requested recounts then Clinton doesn't have to. So not acting immediately may have been a waiting game for this very reason — Hillary doesn't have to rock the boat, which would have a stronger effect on peoples' perceptions of the legitimacy of the election. Hell, Clinton's campaign could have encouraged Stein to do it.

Stein and cahoots with Hillary? Fantasy.

 

I the laws of the states involved are followed, recount all you want. Heck, I come from the great State of Washington, were votes are counted as many times as required to put a Democrat in office. Ask Christine Gregoire. I don't think the Democrats will have such luck this time around. By hey, good luck.

Edited November 24, 2016 by waitforufo

[tar]

Waitforit,

 

This is why swansonT says the electoral college is for situations like Trump.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/anti-trump-presidential-elector-suing-to-unbind-from-states-election-result/ar-AAkIxeU?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=edgsp

 

the election is not over until the electoral college decides who the president is going to be

or if they do not have a person with 270 votes, then

 

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/deadlock-over-presidential-election-ends

we could have president Clinton or Kaine or Trump or Pence or Johnson, or Stein, still

well maybe not Stein she I think would be the seventh highest vote getter, after Johnson's VP

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 24, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

California wasn't even a state when the founders selected the electoral college as our method of selecting presidents, so I agree that California is not specifically the reason why we have the electoral college. Trump did not exist however when the electoral college was selected so I don't see how Trump could be the reason "why we have it." Now we do know that many of the founders did not want the president to be selected by national election at all. Many wanted the president to be selected by a joint act of congress, with no voting at all. You see they didn't trust the popular vote due to their fear of mob rule. The electoral college was selected as a compromise with those that wanted a national election determined by the popular vote. Hence each state having as many electors as they have house and senate members. States could select their electors any way their State legislatures decided. Again, no voting necessary. The state legislatures could simply vote amongst themselves on how there electors should vote. The founders knew at the time that if all states chose there electors by popular vote, that the national popular vote winner could lose the electoral college election. Such divergent elections were in fact expected. The founders did not want small States to be overlooked by the mob rule votes of high population states during national elections. They considered this a benefit of the electoral college method.

 

So was California the reason for the electoral college? No, but the founders did not want large states overwhelming smaller states in choosing the president. Was Trump the reason for the electoral college? No, but the founders wanted candidates like Trump to win elections by appealing to a majority of States. This means that if the electoral college worked as intended, and Trump will properly be elected president on December 19. Well actually January 6, when the votes cast on December 19 are counted by congress.

 

 

The "founders" spoke on very few things in a single vioce. Everyone who claims the founders wanted, expected, thought, believed, or etc are generalizing to an almost dishonest extend. The founders (39 men who signed the Constitution) disagreed on many things. The 12th Amendment which you are discussing wasn't even part of the Consititution when "the founders" initially signed it. The 12th admendment was approved by Congress (House voted 83-42 and Senate 22-10).

 

The 12th Admendment came about because of issues in 1796 and 1800 where the President and Vice Presidents were spilt and created conflicts within the adminstration do to partisanship. A split between the pooular vote and the electoral college to specifically protect rural peoples was not the explicit purpose as you are stating. We are talking about a time in history when women couldn't vote and blacks were 3/5th a person. You cannot linerearly apply purpose to "the founders" from a 2016 perspective.

http://constitution.laws.com/american-history/constitution/constitutional-amendments/12th-amendment

[swansont]

What do you mean by saying that Trump will not be chosen if the electoral college works as intended?

federalist 68. The pupose of the EC is to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

California wasn't even a state when the founders selected the electoral college as our method of selecting presidents, so I agree that California is not specifically the reason why we have the electoral college. Trump did not exist however when the electoral college was selected so I don't see how Trump could be the reason "why we have it."

 

If you don't understand (and it's obvious you either don't or are being deliberately obtuse) you should ask for clarification. I also find it ironic that you are using the line of reasoning you objected to when I used it.

 

I was using them as representations rather than specific examples. A situation like California, and a person like Trump, i.e. a demagogue.

 

Do you see it now?

[iNow]

If Stein has requested recounts then Clinton doesn't have to. So not acting immediately may have been a waiting game for this very reason — Hillary doesn't have to rock the boat, which would have a stronger effect on peoples' perceptions of the legitimacy of the election.

I had a similar thought. With Stein making the request, the results are likely to be perceived as less tainted and more trustworthy than had the request come from the Clinton camp. Sad, but very likely true. It will be viewed as somehow more objective even though the process is exactly the same.

[mp][/mp]

iNow, [MSN] says exactly what I have said in terms of the expense and trouble of a recount, and points out Hilary has not asked for one

You seem to unfortunately have misunderstood my intended point. At no time did I claim Clinton has requested a recount. My comment was focused on the fact that neither of us can validly claim whether or not they plan to.

[John Cuthber]

john,... and I know democrats raided soc sec funds and put them in the general bucket years ago, ...

Like I said, you keep "knowing" things that are not true.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/social-security-bunk-again/

Yet you will not accept that you were misled by the people who told you those things.

Why not?

[rangerx]

From what I gather, the last several pages discuss the electoral college. While some may be, I'm certain that's not what is being protested, nor their actions in doing so.

[tar]

Like I said, you keep "knowing" things that are not true.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/social-security-bunk-again/

Yet you will not accept that you were misled by the people who told you those things.

Why not?

however Mr. Cuthber there is the possibility that you keep "knowing" things that are not true.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/2/#8c4beaa39764

 

Regards, TAR

From what I gather, the last several pages discuss the electoral college. While some may be, I'm certain that's not what is being protested, nor their actions in doing so.

Perhaps, but anything having to do with things that can still happen to make Trump "not my president" are solidly within the topic.

 

Regards, TAR

 

However, whether the soc sec trust fund has been borrowed for other purposes or not, is off topic.

[swansont]

however Mr. Cuthber there is the possibility that you keep "knowing" things that are not true.http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/2/#8c4beaa39764Regards, TAR

From page 1, rather than the page you linked to

"The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it"

 

The government "borrowed" it much the same way it borrows money from others: it issues bonds. Social security buys some of this bonds, which is what they have to do, by law. The goverment did not "raid" anything; that's a bad characterization of the situation. What's worse, and inexcusable, is to lay the blame on the democrats, as if the republicans were powerless to stop it. The system has run like this for a long time.

 

The reason check might not have gone out is that if the debt limit were reached, the govenment couldn't let anyone redeem bonds. Not me and my savings bonds, and not social security.

 

So yes, you were lied to, and you went and found an article that sort of agreed with your view rather than try and uncover the truth.

[John Cuthber]

however Mr. Cuthber there is the possibility that you keep "knowing" things that are not true.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/2/#8c4beaa39764

 

Regards, TAR

 

It's certainly a possibility, but not one supported by that article.

[Ten oz]

 

I think this is relevant to the conversation. The preception that whites are under threat or more rural areas are under threat is often expressed as a criminal justice issue. Trump campaigned on "law and order" and posters in this thread are complaining about drug dealers and gang bangers to justify their political positions. So lets be clear, crime in the United States is low as it has been in all our adult lifetimes. Crime in the United Stares is falling and has been falling for decades.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

You are saying two different things. Crime has dropped but people think there is more than there used to be. And that people erroneously blame the increase of crime on the city.

 

Huh?

 

Regards, TAR

 

Why can't you just admit there are blacks killing blacks in Chicago, at an alarming rate?

Edited November 25, 2016 by tar

[Delta1212]

Ten Oz,

 

You are saying two different things. Crime has dropped but people think there is more than there used to be. And that people erroneously blame the increase of crime on the city.

 

Huh?

 

Regards, TAR

 

Why can't you just admit there are blacks killing blacks in Chicago, at an alarming rate?

Chicago does have a serious gun violence problem. But Chicago is not the country. The country as a whole is the safest it has been in terms of violent crime rates for decades.

 

And it is Chicago in particular, not cities in general. New York City, for example, is at a historic low for violent crime this year and the overall trend, like the country's, has been downward.

 

America really is safer than it has been in decades.

[Memammal]

If Stein has requested recounts then Clinton doesn't have to. So not acting immediately may have been a waiting game for this very reason — Hillary doesn't have to rock the boat, which would have a stronger effect on peoples' perceptions of the legitimacy of the election.

Jill Stein filed a petition Friday with the state’s Election Commission, the first of three states where she has promised to contest the election result.

The move from Stein, who raised millions since her Wednesday announcement that she would seek recounts of Donald Trump’s apparent election victories in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, came just 90 minutes before Wisconsin’s 5 p.m. Friday deadline to file a petition. Now it will keep some hope alive for many Hillary Clinton supporters for another few weeks while Wisconsin recounts ballots before a Dec. 13 deadline.

Trump scored upset victories in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and seems on the path to declare a victory in Michigan as well, though the result of the election in that state will not be certified officially until Monday. Had Clinton won those three states, previously seen as part of the Democrats’ “firewall,” she would have secured enough electoral votes to win the election.

​(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/25/election-recount-underway-in-wisconsin-after-stein-files-petition/)

 

Interesting development and should answer a few lingering questions and resolve some conspiracy theories one way or the other.

[tar]

Memammal,

 

Yes it will answer the worries that there was hacking, or fraud, so there should be no objection to that.

 

But Stein was not close in any of the states she is filing. Why not ask for a recount in every state she was on the ballot? It looks more like she is filing as a public service, or at the request of Clinton. And it opens up the thought that you could in the future, file for a recount in any state you are on the presidential ballot in...if you have enough money. And the only reason you would file, is that you did not like the results. Understandable if you might be the winner. No rational other than not wanting Trump to be president, and wanting Hillary to be instead. She cannot possibly take any state unless there was massive fraud, or some incredible computer hack that took every Stein vote and turned it to a Hilary or Trump vote.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

You are saying two different things. Crime has dropped but people think there is more than there used to be. And that people erroneously blame the increase of crime on the city.

 

Huh?

 

Regards, TAR

 

Why can't you just admit there are blacks killing blacks in Chicago, at an alarming rate?

The murder rate in Chicago fell every year for decades along with the rest of the country until a couple years ago when it dramatically started back up. This year specifically has been terrible. There is a very serious problem in Chicago currently. However it is worth pointing out that the murder and violence numbers in Chicago today is still lower than it was in the 80's and 90's.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

 

Unfortunately there will always be crime. There will always be cities with more crime than others. Even as crime falls nationally there will always be a city doing worse than other cities. Everyone in this thread agress that murder, rape, assualt, theft, and a long list of other crimes at terrible. Same goes for education, poverty, employment, healthcare,and etc. We all wish the best. Chicago's struggles doesn't mean that the situation isn't better today. Chicago's problems don't justify your remarks about the way you personally feel as a white male. You do not live in Chicago, to my knowledge you do not own a business in Chicago, what is happening in Chicago has no impact on your life.

[tar]

maybe we need an anti hacking law that requires a special audit under certain conditions...but the privacy of the individual is still a protected thing

 

We have no way to know if the person that pulled the lever for Trump, was young or old, rich or poor, smart or dumb, man or woman, gay or straight, black or white, Mexican or Muslim, Jew or Christian. If the results are surprising to someone is no evidence of error in the count. Any statistical prognostication that turned out different from usual, or differently from what was expected, is not reason enough for a recount. Such rational assumes that people would think like you think they should, or you think they would, when they pulled the lever.

 

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

 

"what is happening in Chicago has no impact on your life."

 

That is a goofy statement. If such reasoning has any basis we shouldn't worry about other people at all. Why send money to the victims of a storm or Hurricane on the other side of the world. Why worry about global warming if your town is not experiencing a drought or being infringed upon by the sea? Why worry about the water in Flint Michigan? Why worry about ISIS if they mostly kill and take away liberties in some country you have nothing to do with?

 

And what is happening in Paterson and Newark, does affect my life. So thing are better than they were at some point in the past. I want things to work, everywhere in my world.

 

Especially in my house, and neighborhood and town and county and state and country. And the people in Chicago are my fellow citizens, I have served with them in the military, I have talked to them in the streets, while visiting Chicago.

 

Your reasoning is goofy.

 

 

Regards, TAR