earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Welpee wrote:Also of interest, the four other elections in which the popular vote winner didn't win the election:

1824, John Quincy Adams vs Andrew Jackson - Jackson received 38,000 more votes.

1876, Rutherford B. Hayes vs Samuel J. Tilden - Tilden received 250,000 more votes.

1888, Benjamin Harrison vs Grover Cleveland - Cleveland received 90,000 more votes.

2000, George W. Bush vs Al Gore - Gore received 540,000 more votes.

Clinton has currently received 1,160,817 (and still counting) more votes than Trump. I know you have to allow for lower population numbers in the 1800s, but still...

We should never lose sight of the fact that the majority of American voters do not want Trump as president. Good luck believing he has a "mandate."

This is what the country looked like when the electoral college was implemented...

Well, we should have changed it a 100 years ago eh, anyway....

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798519600413601792

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Welpee wrote:Also of interest, the four other elections in which the popular vote winner didn't win the election:

1824, John Quincy Adams vs Andrew Jackson - Jackson received 38,000 more votes.

1876, Rutherford B. Hayes vs Samuel J. Tilden - Tilden received 250,000 more votes.

1888, Benjamin Harrison vs Grover Cleveland - Cleveland received 90,000 more votes.

2000, George W. Bush vs Al Gore - Gore received 540,000 more votes.

Clinton has currently received 1,160,817 (and still counting) more votes than Trump. I know you have to allow for lower population numbers in the 1800s, but still...

We should never lose sight of the fact that the majority of American voters do not want Trump as president. Good luck believing he has a "mandate."

This is what the country looked like when the electoral college was implemented...

Well, we should have changed it a 100 years ago eh, anyway....

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798519600413601792

This is delusional. If both candidates campaigned really hard in NY and California, it's hard to imagine that benefiting the Republicans. The states are reliably Democratic by huge margins. Trump campaigning there would be about as effective as Hillary campaigning in Mississippi and Wyoming. If we used the popular vote and Hillary focused on getting voters to the polls in CA and NY, she would have won by several million more votes.

Bonn, the bigger point is, we can't look at the popular vote as the "tell all". Campaigns are scientifically run to get the Electoral vote, not popular vote. That is clear.

Question, if this system is so great why do we not implement it for state elections to select governors? Instead of total votes assign electoral votes to each county. Small counties should have a strong voice and not be dominated by larger, more densely populated counties near major cities, right? It's the same exact principle as the national election, so why don't we do it? Because the Electoral College system is ridiculous! There's a reason no other country uses this method to elect their leaders.

And if the popular vote and the electoral college produced the same result 52 out of 57 elections over the span of 200+ years, why do we still have the electoral college in 2016?

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Welpee wrote:Also of interest, the four other elections in which the popular vote winner didn't win the election:

1824, John Quincy Adams vs Andrew Jackson - Jackson received 38,000 more votes.

1876, Rutherford B. Hayes vs Samuel J. Tilden - Tilden received 250,000 more votes.

1888, Benjamin Harrison vs Grover Cleveland - Cleveland received 90,000 more votes.

2000, George W. Bush vs Al Gore - Gore received 540,000 more votes.

Clinton has currently received 1,160,817 (and still counting) more votes than Trump. I know you have to allow for lower population numbers in the 1800s, but still...

We should never lose sight of the fact that the majority of American voters do not want Trump as president. Good luck believing he has a "mandate."

This is what the country looked like when the electoral college was implemented...

Well, we should have changed it a 100 years ago eh, anyway....

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798519600413601792

This is delusional. If both candidates campaigned really hard in NY and California, it's hard to imagine that benefiting the Republicans. The states are reliably Democratic by huge margins. Trump campaigning there would be about as effective as Hillary campaigning in Mississippi and Wyoming. If we used the popular vote and Hillary focused on getting voters to the polls in CA and NY, she would have won by several million more votes.

Bonn, the bigger point is, we can't look at the popular vote as the "tell all". Campaigns are scientifically run to get the Electoral vote, not popular vote. That is clear.

You have only two plausible scenarios

Electoral vote system: About 2 million more people preferred Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. They just didn't live in the states that count.
Popular vote system that gets out the vote in strong Democratic states like California and NY: Likely a much larger than 2 million vote advantage for Hillary

Not sure I get your scenario. Does the popular vote matter to the winner?

Like I said, not sure I understand you exactly, so take the following with that in mind:
Your two scenarios are a false dillemma - you give two "plausible" options.There are a whole lot more scenarios. Ask some who support Trump and Hillary, you will get variety. So, for this discussion, I would say there are not just 2 choices (and I don't really agree with your two scenarios). You are taking out of context a statistic that is not considered when they campaign now, as they are not working for a popular vote win, just Electoral. That is the rule in a way, the foundation, and on top of that is laid everything.

It is a number that has some importance though, as it shows detailed information about voter locations, geographic details, density, etc. And when you look at that picture and the voter relationship to geography, you can't fairly use a popular vote. There are a host of other reasons that the Founding Fathers took into consideration, and of course they were looking forward too.

I think this picture, if I understand it correctly, is showing the goegraphical layout of the votes (There are many others, take your pick btw, but this one gives a much better feel than just a blue or green state, it really goes into detail). You can see Trump had support all across America and Hillary in the densely populated cities (in large part). When you look at the map, it makes sense of why they came up with an electoral college system. Sort of looks at both sides with more equality as you don't want our system serving mostly the big cities. Sure, we can talk about how we could make it better in the next election, with the people in mind. We can' rush through something like this.

earthmansurfer wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:
I don't think I've had a strong stance against immigrants here. I'm not really even for building a wall separating us with Mexico, but at least fixing the fence.
What are you alluding too with my stance on immigrants? I do think that we need to vet/background check (as best we can) immigrants coming in from States where there are terrorists and America is involved with bombing, droning, etc. I'm pretty sure this happens anyway. Is there something wrong with this?

Hillary pushed Obama into Libya - 30,000 dead. She voted for Iraq and was for Afghanistan. She seems to have an aggressive stance in general. She has a very aggressive stance on Russia with the Wikileaks emails, and had no evidence. She might not start a war right away, but her cold war was already under way. Me and others, quite a few, really were worried about war with Russia eventually. Quite a few people here in Germany said the same thing, a bit of an undercurrent.

This thread gets pretty emotional (it seems) at times. And I do try to be careful usually, sometimes it is tongue and cheek with joking, I get that. But with protests happening, be it George Soros supported/funded or not, I do not want to help divide the country further. Me or anyone "for" Trump and what not, are not an enemy. We have to learn to get along better. Even though he may have policies and such that we don't like (and I've stated what I don't like), it seems things are starting to get out of control. I'll take responsibility in general, but where this may go is really ugly.

You have said immigrants are a problem. Legal immigrants are fully vetted when they enter the US. Illegal immigrants can't be vetted. If you want all illegal immigrants send back because they can't be vetted that's fine. It's a low priority problem to fixate on in my opinion.

You keep saying people dying in Lybia is Hillary'S fault. This is pure baseless right wing talking point. Without war Gaddafi would have slaughtered people. Libya's inability to govern itself after the war is not an US problem. The Libyan ambassador to the UN has said so himself. I have more faith in that country's ambassador than I have in your empty right wing talking points.

She voted for the war in Iraq because she was like everyone else intentionally lied to by Bush and the neocons ruining the country. It wasn't a smart thing to do, but it doesn't make her war happy it makes her gullible.

Your only accusation that had any substance is that she blamed the Russian Govt for wikileaks. To make that into a potential threat to start a war with Russia is just plain stupid.

Where have I said that immigrants are a problem? The only thing I remember saying is that it is dangerous to allow people into the country from States supporting or having terrorism.
And regarding illegal immigrants being sent back, even then I would put a condition on that - violent offenders, hate crimes, etc. (nothing small like Cannabis use, etc.)

We are not the world police. It is not our job to go into other countries and destabilize them. It is CLEAR that Obama didn't want to go in Libya and just as clear that Hillary was a driving force. Hillary was told by senior military people what would happen and it did. If my president can't listen to war experts, so to speak, no thanks. That IS war happy.
Who went to prison for those 1 million dead in Iraq, the false information? Exactly...

This is you on page 239

What is wrong with anecdotal evidence? (It is evidence you know.) What is wrong with an educated and well written article? So it doesn't agree with your "scholarly" article (that my article even references?.)
The scholarly article, btw, does claim there is a negative effect, only that it isn't so large. I'm all for helping people, but we need to be responsible when
having an open door policy (essentially) with nations that harbor terrorists (and that we or our allies happen to be bombing.)

Please tell me which countries that we are at war with and bombing that we have open door policies with? And while you are at it please define open for policy and point to when those were passed in congresS and Hillary is supposed to be responsible for it.

earthmansurfer wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:
I don't think I've had a strong stance against immigrants here. I'm not really even for building a wall separating us with Mexico, but at least fixing the fence.
What are you alluding too with my stance on immigrants? I do think that we need to vet/background check (as best we can) immigrants coming in from States where there are terrorists and America is involved with bombing, droning, etc. I'm pretty sure this happens anyway. Is there something wrong with this?

Hillary pushed Obama into Libya - 30,000 dead. She voted for Iraq and was for Afghanistan. She seems to have an aggressive stance in general. She has a very aggressive stance on Russia with the Wikileaks emails, and had no evidence. She might not start a war right away, but her cold war was already under way. Me and others, quite a few, really were worried about war with Russia eventually. Quite a few people here in Germany said the same thing, a bit of an undercurrent.

This thread gets pretty emotional (it seems) at times. And I do try to be careful usually, sometimes it is tongue and cheek with joking, I get that. But with protests happening, be it George Soros supported/funded or not, I do not want to help divide the country further. Me or anyone "for" Trump and what not, are not an enemy. We have to learn to get along better. Even though he may have policies and such that we don't like (and I've stated what I don't like), it seems things are starting to get out of control. I'll take responsibility in general, but where this may go is really ugly.

You have said immigrants are a problem. Legal immigrants are fully vetted when they enter the US. Illegal immigrants can't be vetted. If you want all illegal immigrants send back because they can't be vetted that's fine. It's a low priority problem to fixate on in my opinion.

You keep saying people dying in Lybia is Hillary'S fault. This is pure baseless right wing talking point. Without war Gaddafi would have slaughtered people. Libya's inability to govern itself after the war is not an US problem. The Libyan ambassador to the UN has said so himself. I have more faith in that country's ambassador than I have in your empty right wing talking points.

She voted for the war in Iraq because she was like everyone else intentionally lied to by Bush and the neocons ruining the country. It wasn't a smart thing to do, but it doesn't make her war happy it makes her gullible.

Your only accusation that had any substance is that she blamed the Russian Govt for wikileaks. To make that into a potential threat to start a war with Russia is just plain stupid.

Where have I said that immigrants are a problem? The only thing I remember saying is that it is dangerous to allow people into the country from States supporting or having terrorism.
And regarding illegal immigrants being sent back, even then I would put a condition on that - violent offenders, hate crimes, etc. (nothing small like Cannabis use, etc.)

We are not the world police. It is not our job to go into other countries and destabilize them. It is CLEAR that Obama didn't want to go in Libya and just as clear that Hillary was a driving force. Hillary was told by senior military people what would happen and it did. If my president can't listen to war experts, so to speak, no thanks. That IS war happy.
Who went to prison for those 1 million dead in Iraq, the false information? Exactly...

This is where it gets back to you leaving questions unanswered- I asked before and will ask again.

1. Do you seek Bush and Neocons being put in jail or is it Hillary that you are obsessed with? You have more than 20 posts about Hillary on Iraq war and zero posts asking for Republicans to be held accountable - looks a little lopsided to me

2. What expertise do generals have in deciding whether to go to war or not? Their expertise is military not political. We go to war for political reasons. When we are in war you can ask why we are nor listening to them

3. You even said the president should listen to senhor cabinet members about going to war. Then you criticize Hillary for giving that advice and Obama for taking it.

I have run out patience with this discussion, rehashing this with you is not very interesting. I

1. First, we got to go after Hillary. That is this current event, so to speak. That is the diamond in the rough, right in front of our noses, very good paper trail (emails). And yes, we need to have a justice team put together to look at Bush and the neocons, but this king of stuff gets presidents killed. Look at some of the changes Kennedy was doing when he was assassinated: US Treasury notes (quite a few billion in cirulation) then - interest paid back to the people (he knew economics, money), working with Russia to end cold war and be cooperative, talk of ending Vietnam, lowered the amount of oil to be kept in US oil reserves (that pissed off big oil), Going after the mafia with his brother as SOS (I think), Refused a false flag terror attack (Operation Northwoods), Said he was gonna break the CIA up into a million little pieces (as they were giving him false information), and more. But he went to far, tried to change a system that was much much deeper than he knew (or that he could do anything against.)

Trump is a businessman, the corruption going on really stands out to him as he is big time builder, he knows "business" at that level. I'm not sure what he did that might have been illegal, but if he really wants to change America, he knows the loopholes to take out, which he already has mentioned.

2. Well, I can say, war for political reasons really reminds me of that Krishnamurti quote, something like "It is no sign of health to be well adjusted to a sick society." If you give me an immoral law, I will use my heart to answer it, not the law. Sometimes you have to do what is right, like those people who don't want to fight for the State, or the like.

3.I think we should separate "listening to" from "near demanding" or "pushing". Hillary wanted that war badly. 30,000 people were killed, more destailization came to the middle east. More immigration problems, more death, more suffering, water treatment facilities destroyed, their gold backed currency destroyed and a western bank installed. I think that is all "legal" but I don't want to live in that world. And it is a waste of our money.

Patience is patience. It seems like I disagree with you, give some pretty common reasons for doing so, much of it verifiable. But you give some verifiable reasons too. We have to weigh this data. (E.g. - You seem to side with something being "technically legal" but don't look into the corruption that was behind it - e.g. Iraqi false information). That is ok, people disagree, after all, look at the vote, relative to our Country.

I reply to posts and post new information. Honestly, just don't converse with me if it is not to your liking (I'll still reply to your posts if stg catches my eye and if what I write really makes no sense, it isn't taken in anyway, no harm and vice versa.) Nothing personal. You don't even have to say anything derogatory like you just did about patience and this discussion, rehashing, not interesting. You don't need to degrade, just leave conversing with me.

First go after Hillary for the war on Iraq because it's her fault that Bush lied through his teeth and waged war? And then there is some incoherent babbling about treasury note and interest rate? Are you serious?

I asked what political expertise generals have and I got some completely irrelevant quote about being sick?

Dude put the bong down and slowly walk away from the keyboard.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/pharris830/status/798950139935109122

holfresh wrote:

martin wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/pharris830/status/798950139935109122

dang, didn't realize this was the math

Yes, been saying that and both put two senators to represent their constituency equally in the Senate..So a citizen in Wyoming have a more weight in choosing a Supreme Court Justice as well than one from California because they all vote to please their constituency...

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:EMS: surprised don't consider yourself an immigrant to Germany. How long have you been living there? In a certain sense you "emigrated" from the US, right? What do you consider yourself: a tourist? Retiree living abroad? You've been there a bunch of years, no?

I guess the "permanent" part of the definition you don't fit. At what point would your status in Germany would be considered immigration? A lot of immigrants to the US, particularly from the Americas, come with the idea that they will only be here for a couple years to earn X amount of money for themselves and their family to eventually return. Some do return to build that dream house, business, or retirement ... are they not immigrants if they are living and working for years abroad? Then of course many of these folks end up living here for the rest of their lives because of social ties and opportunities they create here versus what would be waiting for them back home.

Was surprised to see you read it as "name-calling" when I think it was just a way to describe your status as an American living abroad — not as a tourist but as a resident of some particular immigration status – with no apparent plans to return. What do you call it then?

It seems "permanent" is a big part of the definition (online). I see me coming back to the States - I miss my family and friends. Just in Germany for over 10 years now as that is where life has taken me. I'm not offended per se, with being called an immigrant, but I don't like putting another label on me. And the reasons for being here - I'm not exactly looking for a better life, being persecuted, etc. More like I am a traveler, Earthmansurfer, and currently surfing Germany. (I'm way too young - and poor - to be retired. ;-)

I guess I'm saying things are a bit Semantic. I don't exactly see the point. I've recently mentioning some of my ancestory and am pretty clear about my intentions. I (we) need to be more careful here though. Things are getting heated up, all over.

Peace out Doc.

10 years? Dude, sorry for slapping labels but you emigrated from the US and immigrated to Germany. Or how about calling you an American émigré? It's a fancy label!

The better life/persecution thing is definitionally irrelevant IMHO. The whole leaving one nation to settle in another is the important distinction. Because hey... <in my best hippie voice> there is nothing permanent in this world anyway...

That's all I got from the peanut gallery. Carry on.

PS — I'm certain that you'd be considered an (immigrant to Germany / emigrant from the US) for statistical purposes. If you don't met the strictest dictionary definition, I'm certain "permanent" isn't part of the working definition when we talk about stats and figures or generalize about an "immigrant" problem. Just saying.

PPS — Are you living/working over there illegally?!?

For some reason it skipped my mind before. But I have to ask you, why would you ask me an incriminating question on a public forum?
Mind sharing with us if you are involved in law or the like?
AFter hearing about prior problems with government agencies and people of certain opinions, I think it is better not to go down the path you are headed.
We are hear to talk about politics, not to get profiles on people.

You got me. I'm FBI. Been pretty busy lately!

It was kind of a joke, guess I should have put a winky face on there.

Or was it?

martin wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/pharris830/status/798950139935109122

dang, didn't realize this was the math

Is that the math, or that the tweet?
I trust nothing thru social media.

For the most part I am for the electoral college but that math opens me up to question it.
Not the undesired result (In my wheelhouse).
I can't imagine it gets changed anytime soon.