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 1637 Pequot War when Puritan leaders authorized military action to punish Pequots for killing English traders. Supported by Naragansett and Mohegan allies, a colonial force set fire to a village of several hundred Pequots on the Mystic River and killed most of those who tried to escape. The colonists hunted down surviving Pequots, killing some and selling others into slavery, and then imposed a treaty that abolished the Pequot nation...

Discussions of genocide in American history generally highlight a few other episodes that occurred prior to 1776, such as King Philip’s War (1675–1678), the effort of British general Jeffrey Amherst to dispense smallpox-infected items to rebellious Indians in western Pennsylvania in 1763, and the Paxton Boys’ slaughter of peaceful Conestogas that same year...
The most frequent charge is that the army or fur traders distributed smallpox blankets to Indians on the upper Missouri River in 1837.

War, 1776–1815...

Removal, 1815–1840...

California Gold Rush...

The Indian Wars...

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]

Interesting considering the French have been through 5 republics and two empires in the same time and the British constitution had had several ‘amendments’, 46 to be exact. It’s always amusing listening to another Starlight rant considering the US had among the oldest governments in the world.

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.

I'm not sure of the point you're making. I was referring to the popular vote. "In the final count, Hillary Clinton’s lead in the popular vote of the 2016 presidential election was nearly three million votes."

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.

That’s your opinion based on nothing more than sour grapes. The electoral college has been the way a president has been voted for since the days of Washington. History books even tell you that Washington is the only president to ever be elected with every single vote despite the fact it’s technically every single electoral vote. The second problem is you have no idea how the contest would go if it was a popular vote because voting would be different. California has a lot of consertive areas, but they are locked behind the big costal population centers. Switching to popular vote would unlock these voters in the presidential level. Bottom line is that is how the rules have always been and whining how a rule that has existed for 240 years is sour grapes.

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.

Source: https://www.history.com/news/the-history-of-the-electoral-college-debate

Critics of the Electoral College system call it a relic of the 18th century—when only three-fifths of a black person was counted, and black men, women and white men who didn’t own property couldn’t vote—and argue that it doesn’t fairly represent our nation as it exists today. In recent elections, national campaigns have increasingly focused on a small handful of “battleground” states whose electoral votes are up for grabs, effectively depriving millions of citizens (as many as four out of every five Americans, according to some analysts) of their voice in the electoral process.

© Copyright Original Source

That’s nice and Bush was still vilified and said to be worse than Hitler anyway. Sorry, but there is nor ever has been a ‘popular vote mandate’.

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.

Sorry, but there is not has ever been a ‘popular vote mandate’. That’s a made up term that the left made up to deal with their sour grapes. Trump won playing by the same rules that everyone had played by since George Washington. There’s no technical nonsense nor popular vote mandiate. This is how the contest has worked for 240 years.

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.

There’s no evidence that Putin influenced a single vote. Just more sour grapes by mad leftist angry that the rules that have existed for 240 years didn’t help them win.

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

And maybe if Clinton wasn’t busy breaking federal law Comey would never need to have announced anything. Sorry, but Clinton brought it all upon herself and if her criminal activity caused her to lose, that is her own fault. Whining that a letter brought down Clinton and ignoring that such a letter existed because of her own actions is yet again sour grapes and great A hypocrisy. You don’t care that Clinton ignored proper care of classified information that has landed plenty in the slammer says your assertions against Trump are based on biasness, not fact.

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.

Clinton’s popular vote win disappears once you remove California. Using your logic, she only won by a single state.

[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.