Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 2m votes

[Strange]

51 minutes ago, sgtsabai said:

Please define "snowflake". I can certainly come up with a definition of racist, misogynist, sociopath, bigot, homophobic, fascist,  but those certainly aren't "snowflakes". We do seem to have our share of them on TV and I don't mean snowflakes.

 

I think it came from some extremely liberal/feminist (possibly) group and something to do with the "resistance".

 

Like 1 snowflake is nothing but a bunch is an avalanche or some such stupidness. Could be wrong/too lazy to google. 

 

Could have done with out all the racist stuff though. 

[Strange]

45 minutes ago, Xircal said:

I wanted to do the same thing with Wisconsin, but can't figure out how to get the map view from your link ?

 

I just followed your link ^ then clicked my link in the post. That site is kinda glitchy & takes a minute to load & I'm on a Mac if that makes any difference. 

[Xircal]

Just now, Strange said:

 

I just followed your link ^ then clicked my link in the post. That site is kinda glitchy & takes a minute to load & I'm on a Mac if that makes any difference. 

 

The link loads OK, but only gives me the graphs view. I was hoping you could tell me how you managed to get the map view with all the counties. But maybe it loads differently on a Mac.

[tropo]

1 hour ago, sgtsabai said:

 I can't stand the Clintons, on the other hand the fascist will never in 1,000,000,000 years be my president. I swore an oath to the Constitution, not a fascist or anybody else.  

1

So who is your president?

[Saastrajaa]

On 11/23/2016 at 8:12 PM, JHolmesJr said:

For a rank novice like Mr Trump to garner even 10 million votes is amazing…so 62 million is absolutely a slap in the face of crooked hillary and her corrupt establishment.

 

Why even bother counting votes since he won legally?

 

Seems like they are just doing this to provide themselves with ammo for their 'resistance' or whatever quaint word they are using to describe their cry baby responses.

 

No one is even paying attention any more…so they could put any figure up.

 

From 2012. 

[lannarebirth]

11 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

 

You can argue till the cows come home, your first sentence already reveal you have no idea about democracy. You seem to believe a vote in California should not count equally to a vote in Florida.

 

the criticism towards the EC has been going on for decades, heck even Trump himself did so when he (incorrectly) believed Obama won the EC but lost the popular vote.

 

The EC is about throwing away votes on criteria that were written centuries ago. Time to change.

 

What makes America exceptional,is not its people. Partly it is due to it's Constitution and mythologies surrounding its founding, expansion and settling of its vast territories. But mostly what makes America exceptional is its geography. A geography when taken in total is almost impervious to invasion, makes it a maritime superpower, temperate climate,  has river and rail systems that allow for the entire country to be productive and get goods to market, natural resources that are the envy of the world.

 

States rights matter in the United States because if they didn't, a few highly populated states would dictate to the smaller states where America's wealth and resources lie for their own benefit. We have had our Civil War, we don't want another.

 

The EC was an amazingly prescient system because it came about even before the US was fully formed. It is fair and wise whether you see it that way or not. I understand your interest and lack of understanding of the US system. I feel the same way when I look at parliamentary systems. Party Lists? PM's nobody elected to lead? I admit I'm flummoxed but I'm not going to tell you that the citizens of your country should be doing it another way.

Edited November 26, 2016 by lannarebirth

[bendejo]

As the current president-elect cautioned continuously, right up to several hours before the polls opened,

THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED!

 

How about if we take his word for it and look in on it to see if it really was rigged, and then call the results accordingly?

I noticed he hasn't made the claim since Nov. 7th.  I guess it must have slipped his mind, after all he is a busy man.  Very busy.  The busiest.  No one busier than him.

 

 

[sjaak327]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

What makes America exceptional,is not its people. Partly it is due to it's Constitution and mythologies surrounding its founding, expansion and settling of its vast territories. But mostly what makes America exceptional is its geography. A geography when taken in total is almost impervious to invasion, makes it a maritime superpower, temperate climate,  has river and rail systems that allow for the entire country to be productive and get goods to market, natural resources that are the envy of the world.

 

States rights matter in the United States because if they didn't, a few highly populated states would dictate to the smaller states where America's wealth and resources lie for their own benefit. We have had our Civil War, we don't want another.

 

The EC was an amazingly prescient system because it came about even before the US was fully formed. It is fair and wise whether you see it that way or not. I understand your interest and lack of understanding of the US system. I feel the same way when I look at parliamentary systems. Party Lists? PM's nobody elected to lead? I admit I'm flummoxed but I'm not going to tell you that the citizens of your country should be doing it another way.

I appriciate the states argument. However, the reverse can easily be said as well, why would the populous states that contribute much more to the IRS suddenly matter less. It is certainly not a lack of understanding, I simply disagree with the argument. To be honest, not all states are equal, the fact that the senate consists of two senators per state, regardless of population or contribution is more than enough concession.

 

After all is said and done, this is the federal government, and no argument can explain away the fact that votes are not equal, they should be. The people have that right. Don't throw away votes, it is wrong. The founding fathers were wrong, the tyranny of the majority does not exist, what they gave you is a dishonest system, designed to keep voters home. When will you guys ask the question why turnout is so low, it's not due to the people, it's the flawed system.

 

No one has yet explained how Gore got over 550.000 more votes nationwide, yet 537 Floridians (and the supreme court) prevented him from getting into the White House, 2.9 million people that voted for Gore were ignored, this fact alone negates the whole argument, after all are these 2.9 million voters suddenly not Floridians ?

 

The US became the laughing stock of the world, parly due to the mess at the Florida election, mostly due to the flawed EC system.

Edited November 26, 2016 by sjaak327

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

I appriciate the states argument. However, the reverse can easily be said as well, why would the populous states that contribute much more to the IRS suddenly matter less. It is certainly not a lack of understanding, I simply disagree with the argument. To be honest, not all states are equal, the fact that the senate consists of two senators per state, regardless of population or contribution is more than enough concession.

 

After all is said and done, this is the federal government, and no argument can explain away the fact that votes are not equal, they should be. The people have that right. Don't throw away votes, it is wrong. The founding fathers were wrong, the tyranny of the majority does not exist, what they gave you is a dishonest system, designed to keep voters home. When will you guys ask the question why turnout is so low, it's not due to the people, it's the flawed system.

 

Turnout would be a better if a law was passed that prohibited Media networks from announcing results before all votes are counted and in some cases before some votes are even cast.

[sjaak327]

9 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Turnout would be a better if a law was passed that prohibited Media networks from announcing results before all votes are counted and in some cases before some votes are even cast.

no, the turnout is so low because votes don't matter. Why would a republican bother to vote in NY ? Utterly useless because it's winner takes all, and NY is traditionally a democratic state. See my edited post about the 2.9 million democrats which had their vote taken away. Yet they were as much floridians as the 2.9 million (+537) republicans.

 

Sorry but the EC is flawed, I have not seen a single compelling argument to suggest otherwise.

 

Incidentially the problem you describe is again a direct result of the EC. After all, if one candidate is ahead just far enough, there is not even a need to count votes, the candidate that is ahead will get all the electoral votes.

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2016 by sjaak327

[tropo]

8 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

 When will you guys ask the question why turnout is so low, it's not due to the people, it's the flawed system.

 

That's a theory. Another theory is that quite a large percentage of eligible voters are apathetic.

 

We have a similarly flawed system in Australia, where the winner of the popular vote doesn't always win the elections. The winning party has to win the majority of electorates, not popular votes. Voter turnout is over 90% even though many are wasting their time going to vote (such as Republicans in California). The reason for that high number is compulsory voting. Perhaps that's a better idea if you're going to use an electoral college system.

 

I'm by no means praising the electoral system in Australia. I think it's even worse the US system.

[sjaak327]

12 minutes ago, tropo said:

That's a theory. Another theory is that quite a large percentage of eligible voters are apathetic.

 

We have a similarly flawed system in Australia, where the winner of the popular vote doesn't always win the elections. The winning party has to win the majority of electorates, not popular votes. Voter turnout is over 90% even though many are wasting their time going to vote (such as Republicans in California). The reason for that high number is compulsory voting. Perhaps that's a better idea if you're going to use an electoral college system.

 

I'm by no means praising the electoral system in Australia. I think it's even worse the US system.

Right, I must admit, I know nothing about how things are done in Australia. Not a fan of compulsory voting, I believe any citizen should take things in their own hand. What I can say is that in my country (where popular vote is king) the turnout is almost always around the 75-80% mark, no compulsory voting.

Edited November 26, 2016 by sjaak327

[lannarebirth]

21 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

 

Sorry but the EC is flawed, I have not seen a single compelling argument to suggest otherwise.

 

 

And you're not going to because you are blinded by your own flawed argument and seem to have little understanding of how the the American nation came into being.

 

There is a process whereby the EC can be changed or implemented, either at a Constitutional level or by individual states. I trust in those processes no matter how it shakes out.

Edited November 26, 2016 by lannarebirth

[sjaak327]

3 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

And you're not going to because you are blinded by your own flawed argument and seem to have little understanding of how the the American nation came into being.

 

here is a process whereby the EC can be changed or implemented, either at a Constitutional level or by individual states. I trust in those processes no matter how it shakes out.

Yet, still no explanation why votes need to be discarded, again, how are those 2.9 million people that voted for Gore not Floridians ?

 

I know, the answer will not be given, as the EC must remain, against all odds.

[lannarebirth]

7 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Yet, still no explanation why votes need to be discarded, again, how are those 2.9 million people that voted for Gore not Floridians ?

 

I know, the answer will not be given, as the EC must remain, against all odds.

 

The answers have been given over and over and over again. Those votes DO matter. IN FLORIDA! And whoever wins Florida's vote's has a better chance of winning the nationwide Electoral College. I think you are being intentionally obtuse and for that reason I'm done responding to you.

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

The answers have been given over and over and over again. Those votes DO matter. IN FLORIDA! And whoever wins Florida's vote's has a better chance of winning the nationwide Electoral College. I think you are being intentionally obtuse and for that reason I'm done responding to you.

No I'm not. Pray tell how do those votes matter ? 2.9 million votes for Gore are thrown away, the 537 additional votes for Bush suddenly make Florida a republican state, all 25 electoral votes (at the time) going to Bush.

 

Do you really not see the problem here ?

 

I have been civil in all of this, so find it extremly disapointing and weak that you feel the need to accuse me of being obtuse. Fine, you don't understand or don't want to understand my point, there is no need for <deleted> I would think...

[F4UCorsair]

2 hours ago, tropo said:

That's a theory. Another theory is that quite a large percentage of eligible voters are apathetic.

 

We have a similarly flawed system in Australia, where the winner of the popular vote doesn't always win the elections. The winning party has to win the majority of electorates, not popular votes. Voter turnout is over 90% even though many are wasting their time going to vote (such as Republicans in California). The reason for that high number is compulsory voting. Perhaps that's a better idea if you're going to use an electoral college system.

 

I'm by no means praising the electoral system in Australia. I think it's even worse the US system.

 

Ya know tropo, I don't think the preferential voting system, as in Australia, is all bad, but what I do have a problem with is second preference votes have the same value as first preference, so it's like putting 50 on a horse for first place and being paid out at the same odds if it runs second.

 

I think that if preferential voting is to be used, the votes should have a diminishing value the further down they go, so, for example, if five candidates stand, every first preference is worth five points, second, etc., down to fifth preference is worth only one.  That may slightly change the way people vote, but would be a much fairer system.

 

If we had a system of greatest number of votes wins, the labor party would never get a run, ever, and I suppose that's why we have the system we do.

 

Then, of course, there is the other curiosity in Australia, where we never vote for the Prime Minister; he's selected by the party that wins the greatest number of seats, which may not be the party with the greatest number of votes!!!

 

 

[SaintLouisBlues]

1 minute ago, F4UCorsair said:

Ya know tropo, I don't think the preferential voting system, as in Australia, is all bad, but what I do have a problem with is second preference votes have the same value as first preference, so it's like putting 50 on a horse for first place and being paid out at the same odds if it runs second.

Second preference votes have NO value if your first preference vote is counted. If your first preference is eliminated, all its votes are then allocated to the second preferences, and so on http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/counting/hor_count.htm

[metisdead]

An offensive post has been removed as well as the replies. 

[lannarebirth]

2 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

No I'm not. Pray tell how do those votes matter ? 2.9 million votes for Gore are thrown away, the 537 additional votes for Bush suddenly make Florida a republican state, all 25 electoral votes (at the time) going to Bush.

 

Do you really not see the problem here ?

 

I have been civil in all of this, so find it extremly disapointing and weak that you feel the need to accuse me of being obtuse. Fine, you don't understand or don't want to understand my point, there is no need for <deleted> I would think...

 

I would find your argument a little more substantive, though I'm still not sure I'd agree with it, if your were to stipulate that the election must be won by a majority rather than a plurality of votes. When the winner of popular vote totals less than a majority, to my way of thinking the EC makes even more sense.  

[boomerangutang]

20 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

There is no point in being rational. The reaction of the snowflakes is the equivalent of a young child throwing a wobbly and crying on Xmas day because they didn't get the pony they wanted.

 

         Anti-Trumpsters have accepted the election results.  That's in contrast to Trump and his supporters who said they would not accept the results if their guy didn't win.  Trump often said; if he didn't win, then the election would certainly be rigged.  Remember that?

 

                 Some demonstrated against it because they're sad and angry that a very flawed person was voted in. But that's one of the great things about the US: we're allowed to demonstrate. Wait until Trump begins trying to instate his harmful policies - that's when you'll really see demonstrations which will dwarf the anti-VN war or the current demonstrations.   Trump is contrary to what the vast majority of Americans want for their country to go forward.  Examples:  he's against tolerance of people who are different. He's against sane gun laws, and continued protection of the environment, as well as compelling very rich to pay their fair share, and against getting big money out of politics, to name a few.  Even Trump fans can admit that, if they're honest.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

         Anti-Trumpsters have accepted the election results.  That's in contrast to Trump and his supporters who said they would not accept the results if their guy didn't win.  Trump often said; if he didn't win, then the election would certainly be rigged.  Remember that?

 

                 Some demonstrated against it because they're sad and angry that a very flawed person was voted in. But that's one of the great things about the US: we're allowed to demonstrate. Wait until Trump begins trying to instate his harmful policies - that's when you'll really see demonstrations which will dwarf the anti-VN war or the current demonstrations.   Trump is contrary to what the vast majority of Americans want for their country to go forward.  Examples:  he's against tolerance of people who are different. He's against sane gun laws, and continued protection of the environment, as well as compelling very rich to pay their fair share, and against getting big money out of politics, to name a few.  Even Trump fans can admit that, if they're honest.

 

Anti Trumpsters accepted eh? Now thats a stretch. 

 

The thing is, honestly that you clearly miss throughout all of this, is that people that voted Trump feel the same way about HRC. 

 

Here is the problem - Trump would have never won if the DNC picked a better person than HRC. That said, HRC might have beaten Trump (maybe) if her campaign was inclusive of not only Illegal Immigrants, minorities, gay communities, feminists, but those groups PLUS everyone else - the choked working class backbone of America. 

 

Seriously a US president campaigning on ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, when the working middle class is stagnant and choked by the ACA & Taxes? What is up with that? 

 

He not against 'sane gun laws' he's PRO 2nd Amendment and enforcing the laws that are already on the books. There is a difference and you should look into it before getting all jihadist about it. 

 

This whole deal is the fault of not only the DNC, but HRC herself. 

 

I really wish you would reflect on why HRC lost and get it out of your head that everyone is a racist because there are more things a play here than your 'feelings' 

[CMNightRider]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

 

         Anti-Trumpsters have accepted the election results.  That's in contrast to Trump and his supporters who said they would not accept the results if their guy didn't win.  Trump often said; if he didn't win, then the election would certainly be rigged.  Remember that?

 

                 Some demonstrated against it because they're sad and angry that a very flawed person was voted in. But that's one of the great things about the US: we're allowed to demonstrate. Wait until Trump begins trying to instate his harmful policies - that's when you'll really see demonstrations which will dwarf the anti-VN war or the current demonstrations.   Trump is contrary to what the vast majority of Americans want for their country to go forward.  Examples:  he's against tolerance of people who are different. He's against sane gun laws, and continued protection of the environment, as well as compelling very rich to pay their fair share, and against getting big money out of politics, to name a few.  Even Trump fans can admit that, if they're honest.

 

Huh!!!  What???  "Anti-Trumpsters have accepted the election results."???  You have got to be kidding me.  Who are all those hysterical, liberal, anti-police, American flag burning, left-wing wacko's, in the streets of American cities rioting? 

 

I'll tell you who they are.  The rioters are "anti-Trumpsters" (your words) who can not accept the election results.  

 

Why you ask?  Well, it is probably because these people lack the common sense God gave a goose, and couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the directions were on the heel and there was a hole in the toe, or they wouldn't be hysterical, liberal, anti-police, American flag burning, left-wing wackos.  

Edited November 27, 2016 by CMNightRider

[Dagnabbit]

 
Jill Stein is saying that the reason she wants a recount is not because she does not Trump as president, but because she is concerned about voter fraud/hacking. The "evidence" is something like "Pre-election polling vs Voter Turnout" or some such. 
 
So basically Stein is doing this as an integrity check. Nothing to do with Trump or Clinton and neither have made a comment yet. 
 
Of course thats what she is "saying" anyway. Reading between the lines she is just playing the long game. 
 
Majority of MSM agrees the chance is virtually non-existent.
 
So again, its not about Clinton but you think it is. 

If her reasons are true, why only request a recount in these 3 states?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Dagnabbit said:

If her reasons are true, why only request a recount in these 3 states?

 

 

Its a joke. Her reasons benefit her weather Trump wins or Hillary wins. In other words, a long game publicity stunt. 

 

[Diplomatico]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

 

*Sigh*

 

You are being obtuse. You are a foreigner trying to force your self perceived 'better way' onto people that are not interested. 

 

We pretty much told you guys what what to do with your way in 1776.  

 

LMAO at non-American citizens getting their panties all in a bunch over American election results and then ranting about it on a Thailand-centric forum.  

 

As you state, few are interested in what non-Americans think about American (insert word or phrase here).

 

[55Jay]

17 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

If her reasons are true, why only request a recount in these 3 states?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Believe those are the 3 that used electronic voting systems, which present a potential vulnerability to manipulation. 

 

[55Jay]

Clinton splits from White House on Jill Stein recount push rejected by Trump

"Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign said on Saturday it would help with efforts to secure recounts in several states, even as the White House defended the declared results as “the will of the American people”.

 

The campaign’s general counsel, Marc Elias, said in an online post that while it had found no evidence of sabotage, the campaign felt “an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/26/hillary-clinton-attorney-jill-stein-wisconsin-recount

Edited November 27, 2016 by 55Jay

[sjaak327]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

 

*Sigh*

 

You are being obtuse. You are a foreigner trying to force your self perceived 'better way' onto people that are not interested. 

 

We pretty much told you guys what what to do with your way in 1776.  

I am not trying to force anything. This is a forum where discussion is the main business. YOU might not be interested, fine, ignore it or oppose it.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

Now you're being childish.

 

It stands to reason that there wouldn't be any point in contesting all three states if there was no chance that Clinton could gain from it. The fact that there is is something you need to accept like an adult; not like a spoilt little child who has just had his favorite teddy-bear taken away from him.

Trump should put in for a recount in states where Clinton won by a small margin. Be good if he won by a greater margin.