(05-16-2017 11:25 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You suggested that they would vote for the other party.

No that's what bullet was suggesting, that Dems would vote GOP to spite the DNC for failing to impeach Trump.

(05-16-2017 11:25 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  'not voting' isn't AT ALL the same as voting for the other.

Same outcome, so it's the same in my book.

(05-16-2017 11:25 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's the fringe that stayed home and you lost as a result.

HRC lost because of Comey's 11th hour re-investigation, which is proven from exit polls.

Even then, HRC actually won the popular vote. So more Americans voted for her than Trump.

(05-16-2017 11:25 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The lesson to be learned from 2016 is that LARGE swaths of both political parties are tired of the 'party' BS.

I don't think any party candidate outside of GOP and DNC candidates got even 5% of the popular vote? (I think that's right, off the top of my head)

Parties are irrelevant. Candidates are what matters, and what people vote for.

(05-16-2017 12:01 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:23 AM)fsquid Wrote:  right now Trump is only guilty of being a loon. He isn't even close to impeachment.

If Trump is a loon then pelosi, Schumer, warren, waters and even schiff are full on, bonified, batshite crazy. As long as we are making subjective observations...

So because they are it makes it right? Only one is the figurehead for our country.

(05-16-2017 04:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 11:25 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You suggested that they would vote for the other party.

No that's what bullet was suggesting, that Dems would vote GOP to spite the DNC for failing to impeach Trump.

That's not at all what he said. The only person who read it that way was you.

Quote:

(05-16-2017 11:25 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  'not voting' isn't AT ALL the same as voting for the other.

Same outcome, so it's the same in my book.

But it's NOT the same outcome. That's precisely the point.

There is a clear difference between one candidate getting 4,500 votes and the other, 5,500.... (candidate A wins) and 5,500 votes for B and 4,500 for the first (B wins) because 1000 people switched parties and 4,500 for both (a tie) because those same 1,000 people stayed home. Of course I chose the numbers for effect, but it should be obvious that there are VAST differences in almost every scenario.

Quote:

(05-16-2017 11:25 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's the fringe that stayed home and you lost as a result.

HRC lost because of Comey's 11th hour re-investigation, which is proven from exit polls.

No it's not. You just argued that Hillary's supporters stayed home. If people stayed home, you wouldn't capture that in an exit poll now would you. Besides, I thought it was the Russia leaks? That's what Hillary and others said (and still say). It's not as if the left hadn't floated a dozen 'conspiracy theories' about Trump out there before the election, and the fact remains that 'what was leaked' is exactly what happened. The only difference is that she didn't get away with the deception. You can CHOOSE to believe whatever you'd like... but that doesn't make it so.

Quote:Even then, HRC actually won the popular vote. So more Americans voted for her than Trump.

Same tired old (and wrong) argument. No such vote was cast.

You can't (honestly) argue that the outcome would have been different under different circumstances (the comey thing) and then argue that a vote measured under circumstances other than the one being used (the EC) wouldn't have mattered. That's intellectually dishonest. I know for a fact that in Cali, at 6pm, Democrats were going door to door to try and shore up what was obviously a disappointing night while Republicans were partying in the street. While you might not think that one state would matter, look at the state... and I'm sure that Oregon and Washington saw similar events.

Quote:

(05-16-2017 11:25 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The lesson to be learned from 2016 is that LARGE swaths of both political parties are tired of the 'party' BS.

I don't think any party candidate outside of GOP and DNC candidates got even 5% of the popular vote? (I think that's right, off the top of my head)

Parties are irrelevant. Candidates are what matters, and what people vote for.

Parties don't matter, candidates do... but 90+% of the votes went to just two parties? How do you reconcile that? Especially how in light of the fact that Bernie (and Cruz and all sorts of other candidates with far more than 5% of the pre-election vote) saw their people change their votes to someone they didn't support until they became the 'party' nominee?

This is pure lunacy, imo.

(05-16-2017 10:17 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  They do look like nuts. They should calm down, chill out, shut up, and wait for Trump to impeach himself...which he seems like might be inclined to do if you get out of his way.

Yup.

Two mottos I try to live by:

• When your enemy is charging head-long down the path to their destruction, get the < bleep! > out of their way.
• When you find yourself in a hole and can't find a way out, step one is to drop the shovel.
  

(05-16-2017 05:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  That's not at all what he said. The only person who read it that way was you.

"Or maybe they are afraid they will lose in the primaries when they can't deliver impeachment"

There ain't no two ways to read it ...

(05-16-2017 05:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  it should be obvious that there are VAST differences in almost every scenario.

So let me ask: if you "only" win by 1% of the votes, does that restrict your powers in office, and if you win by over 30% does that give you super powers in office??

Of course you know the answer is that it doesn't matter.

(05-16-2017 05:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If people stayed home, you wouldn't capture that in an exit poll.

Meaning that just the people who did vote would have put HRC over, if it hadn't have happened. That's regardless of whomever stayed home.

(05-16-2017 05:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You can't (honestly) argue that the outcome would have been different under different circumstances (the comey thing) and then argue that a vote measured under circumstances other than the one being used (the EC) wouldn't have mattered.

I am saying without the Comey re-investigation news, just the people who did vote would have had HRC winning.

I do agree with you that we can't say it would be exactly the same under a pure popular vote. But I doubt it would change more than 1%.

(05-16-2017 05:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  but 90+% of the votes went to just two parties? How do you reconcile that?

Obviously, the only two electable candidates happened to be running for those two parties.

And this is true, actually. The LP and GP candidates were both unelectable kooks.

(05-16-2017 05:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Especially how in light of the fact that Bernie (and Cruz and all sorts of other candidates with far more than 5% of the pre-election vote) saw their people change their votes to someone they didn't support until they became the 'party' nominee?

If you're advocating for the end of parties, or the end of having only one POTUS candidate per party, or something along the lines for just giving public campaign funding to the top five or 10 most popular candidates in the country ... I would not necessarily disagree with that.

Will never happen, though.

(05-16-2017 04:44 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 12:01 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:23 AM)fsquid Wrote:  right now Trump is only guilty of being a loon. He isn't even close to impeachment.

If Trump is a loon then pelosi, Schumer, warren, waters and even schiff are full on, bonified, batshite crazy. As long as we are making subjective observations...

So because they are it makes it right? Only one is the figurehead for our country.

I never agreed to the premise but hoped to illustrate its absurdly.

You have two drinks...Democratic Hemlock or Republican Cyanide.

Nothing is going to change until the interest payments eat our capacity to pay our debts. Then everything will change.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(05-16-2017 05:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 05:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  That's not at all what he said. The only person who read it that way was you.

"Or maybe they are afraid they will lose in the primaries when they can't deliver impeachment"

There ain't no two ways to read it ...

Wow... After the most recent election, you think the only way to lose an election is to have people switch parties?

So Hillary lost because people switched parties? Didn't you just argue the opposite? I can't keep it straight anymore.

Anyone who actually studied that election AT ALL wouldn't read it that way.

Quote:

(05-16-2017 05:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  it should be obvious that there are VAST differences in almost every scenario.

So let me ask: if you "only" win by 1% of the votes, does that restrict your powers in office, and if you win by over 30% does that give you super powers in office??

Of course you know the answer is that it doesn't matter.

Odd, that's precisely what Democrats are arguing... that despite winning a large EC majority, Trump didn't win the mythical pop vote so he has no mandate.

Besides, you've chosen the one scenario where it didn't change the outcome. I gave three where it did.

Again, based on the most recent election, my FACTS are self-evident.

Quote:

(05-16-2017 05:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If people stayed home, you wouldn't capture that in an exit poll.

Meaning that just the people who did vote would have put HRC over, if it hadn't have happened. That's regardless of whomever stayed home.

So now YOU are saying they switched votes? Make up your mind.

Quote:I am saying without the Comey re-investigation news, just the people who did vote would have had HRC winning.

I do agree with you that we can't say it would be exactly the same under a pure popular vote. But I doubt it would change more than 1%.

Great. And if frogs had wings they wouldn't hop. 'what you doubt' is immaterial. The entire campaign would have been different and Hillary's 'end coal' would have been an asset, not a liability. Trump wouldn't have been the Republican nominee either.

If the rules were different, Trump probably doesn't win the Republican nomination on his platform. Instead the winning platform would be one that promised to 'rob from small population states' and 'give to the large ones'. No Republican ran on such a platform because those aren't the rules.

(05-16-2017 05:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  but 90+% of the votes went to just two parties? How do you reconcile that?

Obviously, the only two electable candidates happened to be running for those two parties.

And this is true, actually. The LP and GP candidates were both unelectable kooks.
[/quote]

Wow... Apparently Trump was the ONLY electable candidate by your logic, since he won. How is it that the only two electable candidates ALWAYS seem to come from only those two parties?? Obviously numerous polls had Bernie beating him handily... I mean, let's be honest... If Bernie gets the nod over Hillary (and he wasn't that far away) are you suggesting that establishment democrats would have stayed home and only fringe democrats would have shown up?

NO polling supports that theory.

Quote:If you're advocating for the end of parties, or the end of having only one POTUS candidate per party, or something along the lines for just giving public campaign funding to the top five or 10 most popular candidates in the country ... I would not necessarily disagree with that.

Will never happen, though.

What I'm advocating for isn't at issue. I'm pointing out the flaws in your logic about what 'is'. Your logic is flawed at its core and you routinely argue against your own points.

I see Hillary being impeached before Trump!

(05-16-2017 05:28 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  You have two drinks...Democratic Hemlock or Republican Cyanide.

Nothing is going to change until the interest payments eat our capacity to pay our debts. Then everything will change.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

somebody has a clue...

#margincall

(05-16-2017 10:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 09:59 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  That makes perfect sense, when you think about it.

"You wouldn't impeach Trump, so I'm going to vote for the GOP to spite you!"

How about, you wouldn't impeach trump, so I'm not excited to go out and support you... Instead I'm going to either stay home or split the party vote with a more 'aggressive' progressive. Did you guys learn nothing from Bernie/losing?

In a word, no.

(05-16-2017 05:14 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:17 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  They do look like nuts. They should calm down, chill out, shut up, and wait for Trump to impeach himself...which he seems like might be inclined to do if you get out of his way.

Yup.

Two mottos I try to live by:

• When your enemy is charging head-long down the path to their destruction, get the < bleep! > out of their way.
• When you find yourself in a hole and can't find a way out, step one is to drop the shovel.
  

Pearls of wisdom, lost on liberals.

(05-17-2017 12:49 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 05:14 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:17 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  They do look like nuts. They should calm down, chill out, shut up, and wait for Trump to impeach himself...which he seems like might be inclined to do if you get out of his way.

Yup.

Two mottos I try to live by:

• When your enemy is charging head-long down the path to their destruction, get the < bleep! > out of their way.
• When you find yourself in a hole and can't find a way out, step one is to drop the shovel.
  

Pearls of wisdom, lost on liberals.

no doubt....

I agree 100% with Pelosi.

If Trump gets impeached and found guilty of whatever, Pence steps in and gets the republican agenda passed.

The longer Trump is in power, the less republicans get done.

(05-16-2017 06:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  After the most recent election, you think the only way to lose an election is to have people switch parties?

If you're trying to pretend that bullet was suggesting that Dems will stay home en masse to punish the DNC for not impeaching Trump, then at the very least he (bullet) chose his words poorly.

And it would result in the same outcome as if they switched their votes to GOP, so it really doesn't matter.

(05-16-2017 06:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Odd, that's precisely what Democrats are arguing... that despite winning a large EC majority, Trump didn't win the mythical pop vote so he has no mandate.

No Dem ever suggested that Trump be denied the full powers that are provided to the POTUS, simply because he didn't win the popular vote.

Any quote you pull up to the contrary -- if one exists -- will be in the context of denying powers to Trump because he is an imbecile and a fraud, not because he didn't win the popular vote.

(05-16-2017 06:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So now YOU are saying they switched votes?

OK - at best, all you have me on is that I may have made a mistake by saying exit polls. Perhaps it was surveys of people who stayed home.

Whichever is the source of the information, we know that Comey's 11th hour re-investigation is the sole reason HRC was not elected.

(05-16-2017 06:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Trump wouldn't have been the Republican nominee either.

No need to pretend that GOP masterfully planned to have Trump be the nominee all along based on the Electoral College.

Many prominent GOP leaders made organized, heavily monied efforts to sink Trump before he got the nomination ... multiple times. Mitt Romey's attack comes to mind, for example.

(05-16-2017 06:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Apparently Trump was the ONLY electable candidate by your logic, since he won.

We were talking about the candidates on the ballot for POTUS. Of that set, only HRC and DJT were electable.

(05-16-2017 06:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Obviously numerous polls had Bernie beating him handily

You complain harshly about popular vote meaning it was different circumstances, then turn around and pretend that such a poll perfectly predicts that outcome in that circumstance?

Bernie would have been bashed over and over on his age and the extremism of his views. He would have lost to DJT, by more than HRC did. That is the very likely reality.

(05-16-2017 06:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What I'm advocating for isn't at issue.

It seemed like you were advocating that Cruz or another GOP candidate would've beaten out DJT for the nomination, if the rules were "better".

I get tired of arguing with people who behave in intentionally obtuse ways...

(05-17-2017 09:59 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If you're trying to pretend that bullet was suggesting that Dems will stay home en masse to punish the DNC for not impeaching Trump, then at the very least he (bullet) chose his words poorly.

That's precisely what happened to Hillary... and precisely how everyone EXCEPT you read his comment. It was VERY clear to everyone but you.

Quote:And it would result in the same outcome as if they switched their votes to GOP, so it really doesn't matter.

I've demonstrated that this isn't necessarily true, yet you persist in ignoring the facts.

It's math, Amigo... Getting 5,000 votes out of 9,000 isn't in ANY way the same thing as getting 5,000 votes out of 10,000.

Quote:

(05-16-2017 06:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Odd, that's precisely what Democrats are arguing... that despite winning a large EC majority, Trump didn't win the mythical pop vote so he has no mandate.

No Dem ever suggested that Trump be denied the full powers that are provided to the POTUS, simply because he didn't win the popular vote.

Any quote you pull up to the contrary -- if one exists -- will be in the context of denying powers to Trump because he is an imbecile and a fraud, not because he didn't win the popular vote.

You might try reading. I said mandate... not powers.

Also, once elected, you can't deny someone the powers of that election just because you think they're an imbecile or fraud.... even if 99% of the people think he is. You have to prove it in a 'court'.

Either way, the argument is BS.

Quote:OK - at best, all you have me on is that I may have made a mistake by saying exit polls. Perhaps it was surveys of people who stayed home.

Whichever is the source of the information, we know that Comey's 11th hour re-investigation is the sole reason HRC was not elected.

Lol...

Maybe the problem is you think I'm trying to 'get' you... perhaps because that's what YOU do? I'm merely responding to what you said. You said exit polls. I'm saying it couldn't possibly have been exit polls... so we're just guessing at what sort of a poll it was??

first, go ahead and show me that survey so we can know. I'm calling BS on it because it makes no sense to me. It's certainly not a 'common' poll.

Second, if that were the case, why doesn't Hillary know that? That's not why she says she lost... certainly not the SOLE reason. In other words, you're making a claim as if everyone knows it/it's self-evident, and even the people involved don't seem to agree with you.

Good lord, Bison... if you're going to make such bold statements, you're going to have to at least be consistent with the person who 'lost' and what SHE claims happened.

Quote:No need to pretend that GOP masterfully planned to have Trump be the nominee all along based on the Electoral College.

Many prominent GOP leaders made organized, heavily monied efforts to sink Trump before he got the nomination ... multiple times. Mitt Romey's attack comes to mind, for example.

Yeah, once again... you come up with the most insane interpretation of what anyone said possible.

I clearly said Trump's position doesn't win WITHOUT the EC... without smaller, disaffected states like Pa turning on single issues/frustrations. In a popular vote, this wouldn't have mattered at all. All that would have mattered was what was happening in the larger states.

I never said the GOP planned it. I even said that the GOP worked against him.

Quote:[quote]

We were talking about the candidates on the ballot for POTUS. Of that set, only HRC and DJT were electable.

(05-16-2017 06:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Obviously numerous polls had Bernie beating him handily

You complain harshly about popular vote meaning it was different circumstances, then turn around and pretend that such a poll perfectly predicts that outcome in that circumstance?

Another ridiculous interpretation of what i said. The only person who was demonstrably electable was the one who demonstrably WAS elected. Your opinion that Hillary was electable but Bernie was not is your opinion, and not a fact. Polling had him beating Trump and her in a fairly close election with him. Since the election by many measures actually WAS close (with Trump winning the EC but losing the totals)... but they broke in poorly predicted ways against the EC, it's hard to know if Bernie would have won the EC... But the polling that showed she barely beats Trump, showed that Bernie beats him 'worse'.

Quote:Bernie would have been bashed over and over on his age and the extremism of his views. He would have lost to DJT, by more than HRC did. That is the very likely reality.

That's your opinion. Bernie supporters correctly point out that he engaged the disaffected on the left, and of course would have carried the DNC just as Trump did the RNC, despite being VERY unpopular with a lot of them. I suspect Trump was less popular with the RNC than Bernie would have been with the DNC, since Trump literally called them out and they him at the convention.

Quote:

(05-16-2017 06:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What I'm advocating for isn't at issue.

It seemed like you were advocating that Cruz or another GOP candidate would've beaten out DJT for the nomination, if the rules were "better".

That's not advocating, that's opining. MASSIVE difference.

I also didn't say 'better', merely 'different'.

I would advocate for the EC and not a popular vote. That's not at issue here though.

My opinion is that under different rules, a different campaign strategy would be employed. Whether that means a different candidate or merely a different strategy is a guess at best... but I don't think 'frustration with their voices not being heard'.. which is a very simple description of Trump's victory would have been a winning strategy in a straight popular vote.

(05-17-2017 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I get tired of arguing with people who behave in intentionally obtuse ways...

I encourage you not to punish yourself. This board is just for entertainment.

(05-17-2017 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Getting 5,000 votes out of 9,000 isn't in ANY way the same thing as getting 5,000 votes out of 10,000.

The result is exactly the same.

(05-17-2017 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  once elected, you can't deny someone the powers of that election just because you think they're an imbecile or fraud.... even if 99% of the people think he is.

Fair enough

(05-17-2017 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Either way, the argument is BS.

It's BS to claim that Trump has no mandate because fewer Americans selected him than selected HRC? I guess it depends what you mean by mandate ...

(05-17-2017 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  if that were the case, why doesn't Hillary know that?

She was on television claiming exactly what I stated. I didn't make it up out of thin air.

(05-17-2017 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I clearly said Trump's position doesn't win WITHOUT the EC... without smaller, disaffected states like Pa turning on single issues/frustrations. In a popular vote, this wouldn't have mattered at all. All that would have mattered was what was happening in the larger states.

Grossly exaggerating the effect of the EC vs a popular vote. Maybe Wyoming's voters, collectively, would have less statistical influence than they do in the EC, but to suggest PA wouldn't matter at all??

(05-17-2017 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The only person who was demonstrably electable was the one who demonstrably WAS elected.

On the POTUS ballot, both HRC and DJT were electable. The rest weren't.

(05-17-2017 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Your opinion that Hillary was electable but Bernie was not is your opinion, and not a fact.

Yes, of course. I never stated otherwise.

(05-17-2017 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Polling had him beating Trump and her in a fairly close election with him.

Yeah, sure, the "anti-establishment" poll. Bunch of people who were angry about ... something, not sure what, but they know they're angry! So fire all politicians and elect people who spout populism! Rawr!

(05-17-2017 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  That's your opinion. Bernie supporters correctly point out that he engaged the disaffected on the left, and of course would have carried the DNC just as Trump did the RNC, despite being VERY unpopular with a lot of them.

Your entire opinion about this seems to rest on your belief that HRC lost the election because some Dem voters stayed home. It all makes sense now ... your whole slant on this conversation.

That sounds like a feel-good fantasy, to me.

(05-17-2017 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  My opinion is that under different rules, a different campaign strategy would be employed. Whether that means a different candidate or merely a different strategy is a guess at best... but I don't think 'frustration with their voices not being heard'.. which is a very simple description of Trump's victory would have been a winning strategy in a straight popular vote.

Fair enough