Russian interference with the 2016 election

[rogue06]

Sour grapes? It doesn't matter who wins by the electoral college only - in my book that is winning by technicality.

That isn't a "technicality." That is by definition how the winner is decided and always has been. It wasn't some underhanded trick, fine print or loophole which it seems you are implying when you call it that. Both candidates were fully aware that is how it works. It matters not a whit that you think it is "goofy."

Again, using my baseball analogy, it is no different than someone whining that the team they supported should have won because they got more hits when the winner isn't decided by that but by who has more runs scored. And just because typically the side that has the most hits also has more runs doesn't matter either.

[Tassman]

B-but, but... it was "Her Turn." It didn't matter if the rank and file base wanted her, it was her turn.

...the majority of the people voted for her.

[Terraceth]

You could have tried googling it.

I did try looking for information on anything that could be considered a genocide. Things didn't turn up. The cases I did find were too early or too late.

Here's a reasonably decent looking article on the topic...

The problem is the difficulty in ascribing these events to the "Founding Fathers". Things done by non-American powers can't be counted, nor can events that occurred before the US was founded or things that occurred after the Founding Fathers had died (for example, the Indian Removal Act was issued in 1830--and Andrew Jackson was certainly no Founding Father). Killing soldiers in war doesn't count, and vigilante groups killing Indians (e.g. the Paxton Boys) can't count. Of the remaining cases, I don't see anything there that can be ascribed to any "Founding Father." There's a part with George Washington, but that occurred in the context of the Revolutionary War where the Native Americans (mostly) sided with the British and were actively attacking the American army; if that's genocide, then the British were trying to genocide the Americans. No one died in the attack he led anyway, as they all abandoned their homes.

Simply put, I don't see anything to warrant your claim that the "Founding Fathers" genocided the natives. That's why I was asking for examples. The things people point to as examples generally occurred before or after the time period in question.

UN definition since 1948: "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group..."

Again, even if we include it as "in part" the claim doesn't hold up. Unless killing people in war counts as "in part" in which case any conflict is genocide...

[Terraceth]

...the majority of the people voted for her.

48.2% isn't a majority.

EDIT: I apologize, I mistook this as describing the full election, not the primary. Ignore this message.

[psstein]

His knowledge of US history and the Constitution is sub-par.

[psstein]

B-but, but... it was "Her Turn." It didn't matter if the rank and file base wanted her, it was her turn.

Funny thing about this, if you look at the book Shattered, an inside look at Hillary's presidential campaign, she was so incapable of articulating why she was running that the campaign considered "Because It's Her Turn."

[Tassman]

48.2% isn't a majority.

EDIT: I apologize, I mistook this as describing the full election, not the primary. Ignore this message.

http://time.com/4608555/hillary-clin...ar-vote-final/

[Cow Poke]

...the majority of the people voted for her.

That's not how presidential elections on won in this country, and both sides knew that, and played to it.

[oxmixmudd]

That isn't a "technicality." That is by definition how the winner is decided and always has been. It wasn't some underhanded trick, fine print or loophole which it seems you are implying when you call it that. Both candidates were fully aware that is how it works. It matters not a whit that you think it is "goofy."

Again, using my baseball analogy, it is no different than someone whining that the team they supported should have won because they got more hits when the winner isn't decided by that but by who has more runs scored. And just because typically the side that has the most hits also has more runs doesn't matter either.

I am entitled to my opinion. When Bush won this way a good deal was made about him not having a majority mandate. It is a win by technicality, I didn't say it was not the way the system works, and there are real problems with that system as referenced in the quote I posted.

But in that system - and this is key - tactics like Putin used have a greater probability of success because he only needs to influence a small number of winner take all markets, and only just enough to takeep the majority and get that states deligates. The circumstances of this election and our system allowed him a greater probability of success.

It also allowed Comey's late election announcement to have more influence than it otherwise might.

So to be clear: we are having this sidebar discussion because you tried to use the ec numbers as some kind of indicator of the strength of Trump's Victory.


Trump's victory was not a strong victory, it was a weak Victory, a weak victory that leveraged an oddity in our system. He did not convince the majority of people to vote for him. And I sincerely hope that same majority will bust his balloon this fall and maybe before 2020 he'll be living in at an address more appropriate for the sort of abuser that he is.

Jim

[rogue06]

I am entitled to my opinion. When Bush won this way a good deal was made about him not having a majority mandate. It is a win by technicality

00000000000000ars1a2.jpg

Trump's victory was not a strong victory

Better. But getting 304 Electoral votes when all you need is 270 is by no means weak

[lilpixieofterror]

Sour grapes? It doesn't matter who wins by the electoral college only - in my book that is winning by technicality. I've always thought that aspect of the system was goofy. IF they didn't do the 'winner take all' thing, then I might buy the standard explanation of it balancing highly populated areas against less populated ones. But winner take all is just bizarre. And I have good company. None other that James Madison was dead set against the idea.

Further, a candidate I supported (Bush) served as president under such a win, but had the grace to be conscious of what it meant (and his popular vote percentage was much closer as well). He did not have a popular vote mandate, and neither does trump.

In the case of DT, the electoral college as put the nation in a grave and dangerous place. And against the will of the majority of its people.

And thus the rest of the country gets pushed out. Hillary won the popular vote based on California. Without California, Clinton loses the popular vote too. The election would have been decided by a single state.

[lilpixieofterror]

I am entitled to my opinion. When Bush won this way a good deal was made about him not having a majority mandate. It is a win by technicality, I didn't say it was not the way the system works, and there are real problems with that system as referenced in the quote I posted.

But in that system - and this is key - tactics like Putin used have a greater probability of success because he only needs to influence a small number of winner take all markets, and only just enough to takeep the majority and get that states deligates. The circumstances of this election and our system allowed him a greater probability of success.

It also allowed Comey's late election announcement to have more influence than it otherwise might.

So to be clear: we are having this sidebar discussion because you tried to use the ec numbers as some kind of indicator of the strength of Trump's Victory.

Those are the rules.

Trump's victory was not a strong victory, it was a weak Victory, a weak victory that leveraged an oddity in our system. He did not convince the majority of people to vote for him. And I sincerely hope that same majority will bust his balloon this fall and maybe before 2020 he'll be living in at an address more appropriate for the sort of abuser that he is.

[oxmixmudd]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28852[/ATTACH]

Better. But getting 304 Electoral votes when all you need is 270 is by no means weak

It is a weak win. As noted by the referenced reaction on both sides of the similar, but stronger, technical win by Bush. Bush's win was stronger because it was a significantly closer majority vote. And yet his EC numbers were 'worse' than Trumps (271-266). All acknowledged he did not have a public mandate because as close as he was, his win was a technical win. He did not gain the majority vote.

As evidenced by the comparison to the Bush EC win, a STRONGER win that Trumps, the use EC numbers is misleading, not a valid metric in terms of gauging the strength of a presidential win. It is in fact a dishonest and misleading use of them.Trumps victory was about as weak a victory as is possible while still gaining the presidency.

And it leverages an aspect of our system that is in fact inherently unfair. When a state can be allowed to use 'winner take all' in its delegate assignment, those delegates effectively steal the voice of millions of people in other states that do not ascribe to such an inherently unfair practice. Yes those states could adopt the same practice. And yes, the clean riders in the tour def france can also chose to do drugs to level the playing field there as well.

The issue here is not to necessarily try to correct the system (though clearly this election magnifies its problems to the point of absurdity). My purpose here is actually very different from that - it is your misuse of the numbers to try to claim trump has some sort of significant win in 2016.

The issue is that 304 to 270 does NOT reflect the facts of this election in terms of the true strength of Trumps win or popular support. It reflects an anomaly in our system that lets a person almost 3 million votes down still win. Out of a turnout of about 130 million, that is a little more than 2%. That is - in fact - just not right no matter how you look at it. When its a few 10ths of a percent (0.51%) as it was in the Bush case, one can say that's just the way it is. When it gives a potential >2% advantage, its a problem.


Jim

[rogue06]

It is a weak win.

*SIGH*

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Charles]

It is a weak win.

It was such a weak win that if it was not for the Russians it probably would not have been a win at all.