Hotdog
Well-Known Member
And your rhetoric isnt normal. Thats why his rhetoric is needed. See post above.
Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
And your rhetoric isnt normal. Thats why his rhetoric is needed. See post above.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
And you are nobody. You just blend in with the rest of the baby killers
And yet she had more people vote for her than against her. More people voting against her is straight up factually wrong. Period.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
I think you are misunderstanding what he's trying to say. I think he's saying that most people who voted for Trump saw it as less a vote for him and instead a vote against Hillary. Which kind of checks out, a lot of people I talked to thought Trump had no chance so they voted for him in protest. Not too dissimilar to Brexit iirc.
Last edited:
He’s says “most people voted against HR ...”
I get what you’re saying, I’ve been addressing that. Even if every Trump vote was a vote against Clinton instead of for Trump, he’s factually wrong. More people voted for HRC than against her. It’s simple numbers.
But this is a silly argument and one not worth pursuing anymore.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
One way to combat Russian disinformation and encourage more democratic participation would be to adjust how states divide out their electoral college electors. I think Maine and Nebraska might be onto something. In a normal state, it’s winner take all. Trump only needed the most votes out of all candidates to win all of utah’s six electoral college votes. This means that all non-trump votes were essentially wasted. This has encouraged the “abolish the EC” crowd to be more vocal.
I’m not for abolishing the EC. However, I don’t think it’s Working well for democracy. And I think it’s leavijg us vulnerable to foreign attacks. Think about it, all Russia needed to do was blitz key states with disinformation and as long as they could prevent Hillary from obtaining a majority vote, she’d lose all the EC votes to Trump.
However, the two states I mentioned above, give their votes by the proportion of who voted for candidates. For example, Utah has six EC votes. If 50 percent voted for Trump and the remaining 50 percent voted for Hillary and a third party candidate, under Maine or Nebraska rules, trump would only obtain three EC votes while Hillary and the third party candidate would he left to divide the remaining three rather than Trump obtaining all six.
I like this because:
1. It encourages everyone to vote. You can’t just brush off an election by claiming (correctly) “well my state is red/blue and I’m the opposite of that so my vote will be wasted.” It won’t. Even utah could potentially provide a democrat with an electoral college vote. Even California could potentially provide republicans with votes. It encourages Voters to vote and politicians to campaign everywhere.
2. It encourages third party candidates. Not that I believe this will guarantee a third party win. But it certainly makes them more relevant.
3. It diminishes the effects of a massive disinformation campaign. Even if 1/100th of the population of Wisconsin falls for the crap. The winner no longer is the candidate who gets the most votes in any given state. If Hillary had gained a proportional amount of votes from the Midwest, she would’ve won.
I’m not for abolishing the EC. However, I don’t think it’s Working well for democracy. And I think it’s leavijg us vulnerable to foreign attacks. Think about it, all Russia needed to do was blitz key states with disinformation and as long as they could prevent Hillary from obtaining a majority vote, she’d lose all the EC votes to Trump.
However, the two states I mentioned above, give their votes by the proportion of who voted for candidates. For example, Utah has six EC votes. If 50 percent voted for Trump and the remaining 50 percent voted for Hillary and a third party candidate, under Maine or Nebraska rules, trump would only obtain three EC votes while Hillary and the third party candidate would he left to divide the remaining three rather than Trump obtaining all six.
I like this because:
1. It encourages everyone to vote. You can’t just brush off an election by claiming (correctly) “well my state is red/blue and I’m the opposite of that so my vote will be wasted.” It won’t. Even utah could potentially provide a democrat with an electoral college vote. Even California could potentially provide republicans with votes. It encourages Voters to vote and politicians to campaign everywhere.
2. It encourages third party candidates. Not that I believe this will guarantee a third party win. But it certainly makes them more relevant.
3. It diminishes the effects of a massive disinformation campaign. Even if 1/100th of the population of Wisconsin falls for the crap. The winner no longer is the candidate who gets the most votes in any given state. If Hillary had gained a proportional amount of votes from the Midwest, she would’ve won.
It was ambiguous, not factually wrong. By adding your assumption that “people” meant “all voters” it became factually wrong in your mind. If you had assumed that “people” was “trump voters” (which from context is much more sensible) then you might have not started the silly argument
If you hadn't said most voters voted against HRC we wouldn’t have this silly argument. Lol
But yet here we are.
But sure, my fault because I don’t care. Cheers
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
You’re not wrong if you’re talking about the GOP primary. Trump won the most votes in the republican primary.
While the focus should be on the Russian attack on our democracy and Trump’s willingness to use their help (and later try and cover up the investigation), let’s not forget that republicans gave us trump.
He competed against 10+ other republicans. At any point during 2015, republican voters could’ve come to their senses and given us someone much more qualified to vote for in the general. Instead, they gave us Trump.
Imo, trump isn’t an aberration either. Those of us who study this stuff could see it coming. The GOP long ago gave up any attempt to govern in a bi-partisan basis. We saw 8 straight years of obstruction. They whined about the deficit under Obama but many of us knew their concerns were strictly political. Look at what has happened too, since Obama their concerns over deficits has gone out the window. For years the GOP has spewed “alt facts” on am radio and Fox News. It’s garbage that’s then fed to the dumbest and most gullible in society. We wonder why such a large segment of the population still supports Trump? They’ve been brainwashed by Fox News. Many of these alt facts were spewed by Trump. Remember, birtherism paranoia? Since the Willie Horton ad, the GOP has been playing footsies with white supremacists. We should’ve also put a stop to the NRA after Sandy Hook.
To me, trump is the result of a political party devoid of real grounded principles, a moral compass, and an unhealthy allegiance to gun nuts and racists.
Even when trump resigns, is impeached, voted out, politics in DC and beyond is going to be rough. Just look at what republicans are doing in Virginia and Wisconsin to clip the wings of democratic governors and suppress voters. How the GOP will return to its more conservative and moderate roots is beyond me. But it’s needed in order for the country to return to “normal” (whatever that means).
How do you rationally explain emotional appeals?
I did not say "most voters voted against HRC." That would be clear, unambiguous and wrong.
My statement was "Most people voted against HRC" in a discussion about whether Trump voters voted for Trump or whether they voted against HRC. You see the difference? I'm not sure how to spell it out more clearly.
You chose to interpret "people" to mean "voters" instead of "Trump voters," which has been previously explained ad nauseum by me and others.
Some unsolicited advise: sometimes it is better to just simply say "sorry, I thought you meant X, thanks for clarifying for me!" and move on instead of doubling down. Not to be too insulting, but it is a typical Trump tactic.
Instead you choose to misquote me, undermining your integrity.
Have a nice day. smile.