Trump protestors

[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

[Delta1212]

And the country with California wanted Hillary. You can't just cut out portions of country you don't feel like counting as if they aren't "really" part of the population.

[Phi for All]

And the country with California wanted Hillary. You can't just cut out portions of country you don't feel like counting as if they aren't "really" part of the population.

 

Whoa, who are YOU to mess with the GOP platform?

[tar]

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

[Delta1212]

But like you said, we could do the same with Texas and the result flips. The only reason you've singled out California is that their votes get counted later than most because of a quirk of time zones. It's not related to what "the rest" of the country wants.

[tar]

 

Whoa, who are YOU to mess with the GOP platform?

 

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]

There's no reason to drop Texas. But that's my point. If you drop California, there is a preponderance of Trump votes outside it. But if you drop Texas, there is a preponderance of Hillary votes in the rest of the country. Pick a large section of the country that leans a certain way politically and then say that the average of the rest of the country swings the other way on average if you don't count it is a sort of meaningless tautology. There is nothing special about California in this regard other than that it is a particularly large portion of the country.

[tar]

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.

[Delta1212]

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.

Yes, that is why they are called faithless.

 

Of course, the ability to have faithless electors is literally the reason that the electoral college exists in the first place.

[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.

Edited November 23, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

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.

Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 (in 1988) all won CA. Meanwhile in 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012 Clinton & Obama won by so many Electoral votes they didn't even need CA's 55 to win. Saying CA "usually" turns the country blue in close elections requires some examples of what you are talking about. Recently as the 80's CA was a red state.

[iNow]

Perhaps you should read iNow's post 403, your post 405, ten oz's post 407, and Memammal's post 416.

My post did not imply Donald Trump hadn't won. If you think it does, then you have badly misunderstood it.

[tar]

Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 (in 1988) all won CA. Meanwhile in 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012 Clinton & Obama won by so many Electoral votes they didn't even need CA's 55 to win. Saying CA "usually" turns the country blue in close elections requires some examples of what you are talking about. Recently as the 80's CA was a red state.

 

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

[Ten oz]

 

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

Who did CA ensure victory for? Reagan, Nixon, and Bush 41 like Clinton and Obama won their elections buy well over a hundred electoral votes. CA's 55 votes has not be the deciding factor in any election I am know of. It doesn't ensure voctory for either party and has voted red.

 

I don't even understand you question about mail in voters and demographics. Hillary Clinton has over 64 million votes. CA only has 39 million people. More than people in california voted for Clinton.

 

60% of the Vote in CA has gone to Clinton. Why is that disqualifying, because you assume it is mostly minorities who voted for her? Donald Trump received at least 60% or more in : Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennesse, West VA, and Wyoming. Shall we disqualifying their vote too for being too uniform or does the demographics of those states count more in your opinion?

[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

Edited November 23, 2016 by tar

[Delta1212]

I'm still confused about why "the temperature of the rest of the country without California" matters in the slightest.

[Ten oz]

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

The popullation of California is 12% of the country. That is a healthy slice of the pie. In calculating a popular vote I don't understand why it would ever be useful to ignore 12% of the vote in an attempt to prove or explain something. If we were remove TX, Clinton won the population vote by 3 milion. So what?

 

Jill Stein has officially filed for recounts in WI,MI, and PA. Her reasons for doing so can be debated but I ask you, what does it hurt? There seems to be a notion implied by some in here that unless one can prove voter fraud or prove Trump didn't win no recount should happen. However that is what a recount should verify isn't it? Ideally there would be no evidence of fraud and the recount would match the initial count. That would (or should in my opinion) increase confidence in the system and fully legitimize Trump's win in the eyes of doubters. So what is the problem?

Edited November 23, 2016 by Ten oz

[John Cuthber]

 

 

My mistake. I don't know why I have that feeling, you showed me wrong.

 

I invite you to at least consider the idea that the reason why you had that feeling was that you had been misinformed by someone, or some system, which wants you to believe things like that, rather then the truth.

Is that plausible?

 

If so, should you keep listening to them?

[tar]

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

[Phi for All]

My mistake. I don't know why I have that feeling, you showed me wrong.

 

If you don't mind, I'm just going to read this statement every time you post one of your ramblers about how you were born a poor, black anecdote, uphill both ways in the snow.

[tar]

I invite you to at least consider the idea that the reason why you had that feeling was that you had been misinformed by someone, or some system, which wants you to believe things like that, rather then the truth.

Is that plausible?

 

If so, should you keep listening to them?

No, not plausible.

 

Regards, TAR

If you don't mind, I'm just going to read this statement every time you post one of your ramblers about how you were born a poor, black anecdote, uphill both ways in the snow.

 

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.

Edited November 23, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

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

Why you ask:

1 - people believe a recount may change the result

2 - people believe there was so illegal business at play

3 - Cliunton has a multi million vote lead and it shows due diligence out of respect for the majority of voters who did not vote for the candidate who has been declared the winner.

 

It won't satisfy every protester but will satisfy many of them and many of those who empathize with them. I know for myself, my wife, and many I know it would provide closure. I would like to know for sure what the numbers are regardless of Trump winning. It he won by 20 thousand votes vs 21 thousands votes I would like to know for sure that I can trust that number to be correct. Whether you are the person making a payment or receiving payment shouldn't you count every cent?

 

As for what happens if there are discrepancies I don't even know what to say. You seem to be implying that a recount could uncover wrong doing so we should avoid one. That makes no sense. A recount should verify the initial count. In a perfect world the recount should have the same result. If the result is different than we (the country) deserves to know why it is different.

[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.

Edited November 24, 2016 by tar

[iNow]

if Hilary thought it wise to file for a recount...

If she has come to that conclusion...

If sufficient evidence is uncovered...

if a path to that end possibly exists...

Even you acknowledge this remains unknown.

Embedded in your own word choice is the conditional.

Even you said IF.

 

Summarized: It remains an open question. It's not yet known to be true. Let's allow the exploration to unfold. Let's avoid shutting it down before it's even begun.

[tar]

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.