Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
If people are that concerned about the emotional and/or physical well being of this child, they could probably stop using him as a tool to score points about whatever political candidate they supported.

Using him to score points against liberals, while making sure his public humiliation gets shared to as many people as possible, surely helps him immensely.

You're right. We should just keep quiet when stuff like this happens. But congratulations on yet another strawman to add to your already impressive collection.

 skyth wrote:
Now here I thought the Republican position was that he should grow up and pull himself up by his bootstraps instead of complaining about it...

Be careful. Wouldn't want you to be condemned by d-usa for using this kid to score points against conservatives.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Yeah, but no points scored means no points gained! What kind of loser attitude is that?

Yours, apparently. I didn't post that to score points. I posted it because it was out there and I decided it was something I wanted to comment on and share here on Dakka. In that post I wrote, "I have no words for this. A joke? How is emotionally torturing your child a joke?" But you and d-usa somehow decided it was just an attempt to "score points". That says a lot about the two of you.

Especially since illegal immigration does provide a net positive to our economy. Most pay taxes in some form or another (state income, property, ect), and provide a cheap and ready labor base for businesses that need them (such as farming).

It's one of the reasons that there is friction between the nationalistic conservatives and the economic conservatives. In general, the more open the boarders, for both trade and labor (skilled and unskilled), the better it is for the economy.

Everyone cool it on the personal stuff. Again. I'm not kidding, if you want to discuss the video fine, but "I posted because X, you posted because Y, yah huh nuh uh" isn't what we're doing here.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Ustrello wrote:Oh boy look at those false equivalences

Breotan wrote:It isn't just him. If we removed all the logic fallacies from this thread, it would only be eight or nine pages long, or at least it seems like it would.

So where is the false equivalency? Was a law in place in every instance? Yes. Were there clear ramifications for breaking said law? Yes. Is one group being basically advocated to have an "out" for their punishment, an elimination of them having committed the crime in the first place, AND getting tax payer backed help that some people who never BROKE that law get? Absolutely. So I don't see a false equivalency. I wonder if Casey Chadwick or Kathryn Steinle would, other than the fact that they are both dead now.

Because you somehow think that illegally entering a country is on par with the worst crimes humans can commit and why you were called out for it by both sides

Well, he did mention stealing a car is like entering the country illegally. That is about the same, monetarily speaking. The average illegal alien in this country has a net impact of about $6000 per year on the US. That's the price of a sub-par used car every year they are here.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Ustrello wrote:Oh boy look at those false equivalences

Breotan wrote:It isn't just him. If we removed all the logic fallacies from this thread, it would only be eight or nine pages long, or at least it seems like it would.

So where is the false equivalency? Was a law in place in every instance? Yes. Were there clear ramifications for breaking said law? Yes. Is one group being basically advocated to have an "out" for their punishment, an elimination of them having committed the crime in the first place, AND getting tax payer backed help that some people who never BROKE that law get? Absolutely. So I don't see a false equivalency. I wonder if Casey Chadwick or Kathryn Steinle would, other than the fact that they are both dead now.

Because you somehow think that illegally entering a country is on par with the worst crimes humans can commit and why you were called out for it by both sides

Well, he did mention stealing a car is like entering the country illegally. That is about the same, monetarily speaking. The average illegal alien in this country has a net impact of about $6000 per year on the US. That's the price of a sub-par used car every year they are here.

He tried to equate child rape with illegal immigration

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Especially since illegal immigration does provide a net positive to our economy. Most pay taxes in some form or another (state income, property, ect), and provide a cheap and ready labor base for businesses that need them (such as farming).

It's one of the reasons that there is friction between the nationalistic conservatives and the economic conservatives. In general, the more open the boarders, for both trade and labor (skilled and unskilled), the better it is for the economy.

According to the government, the average illegal immigrant that files their taxes not only doesn't pay anything, they actually get more back than they ever paid. For every dollar an illegal immigrant pays in income tax, they $5.40 back on their returns.

If you are talking about total taxes (income, sales, propterty, cigarette, gasoline tax, cell phone, etc.) the estimated total is $11 billion per year. However, with a population of 13 million that comes out to just $900 per person. That's significantly less than I pay in just property tax every 6 months.

Now add it the cost of education, welfare, rise in medical costs, strain on infrastructure, additional law enforcement costs, incarceration costs, etc.

Yes, they do keep the cost of new housing down, but they also inflate the cost of rentals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Ustrello wrote:Oh boy look at those false equivalences

Breotan wrote:It isn't just him. If we removed all the logic fallacies from this thread, it would only be eight or nine pages long, or at least it seems like it would.

So where is the false equivalency? Was a law in place in every instance? Yes. Were there clear ramifications for breaking said law? Yes. Is one group being basically advocated to have an "out" for their punishment, an elimination of them having committed the crime in the first place, AND getting tax payer backed help that some people who never BROKE that law get? Absolutely. So I don't see a false equivalency. I wonder if Casey Chadwick or Kathryn Steinle would, other than the fact that they are both dead now.

Because you somehow think that illegally entering a country is on par with the worst crimes humans can commit and why you were called out for it by both sides

Well, he did mention stealing a car is like entering the country illegally. That is about the same, monetarily speaking. The average illegal alien in this country has a net impact of about $6000 per year on the US. That's the price of a sub-par used car every year they are here.

He tried to equate child rape with illegal immigration

That would be a false equivalent. However, not all of it was.

 Peregrine wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Alan Grayson had commissioned a poll that shwed Bernie would have had 56% over Trump at 44%

Polls like this are really misleading because the republican party didn't much much effort into opposing Sanders. They knew Clinton was going to be the nominee, so they made her the primary target and ignored Sanders just like the democrats ignored all the irrelevant fringe candidates in the republican primaries. It's certainly possible that he could have won, but it's not really fair to compare his unopposed poll numbers to what he would have had after months of being the primary target.

True, but the polls were from just before the election night, a few days, granted at just 1600 people sampled, it is fair sized, but makes me wonder just what a larger sample might have added. As for who the Republicans planned for? you might have a point, but then again, had Bernie won instead of Hillary, he had less ammo for them Hillary had a entire ammo train with her.

My vote in West Frigging Virginia for Stein was a safe thing as the state was fired up against Hillary. There were adds that reiterated her "We're gonna put a lot of coal companies and coal miners out of work" over and over, the Republican Attorney Generals of the different districts paid for that ad and it worked here. and that electoral college wise WV is a small state of 5 electoral votes. Not one Hillary seemed to worry about.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Ustrello wrote:Oh boy look at those false equivalences

Breotan wrote:It isn't just him. If we removed all the logic fallacies from this thread, it would only be eight or nine pages long, or at least it seems like it would.

So where is the false equivalency? Was a law in place in every instance? Yes. Were there clear ramifications for breaking said law? Yes. Is one group being basically advocated to have an "out" for their punishment, an elimination of them having committed the crime in the first place, AND getting tax payer backed help that some people who never BROKE that law get? Absolutely. So I don't see a false equivalency. I wonder if Casey Chadwick or Kathryn Steinle would, other than the fact that they are both dead now.

Because you somehow think that illegally entering a country is on par with the worst crimes humans can commit and why you were called out for it by both sides

Well, he did mention stealing a car is like entering the country illegally. That is about the same, monetarily speaking. The average illegal alien in this country has a net impact of about $6000 per year on the US. That's the price of a sub-par used car every year they are here.

Source?

And then there's the other side of the story.

Most arguments against illegal immigration begin with the premise that the illegal don't pay income taxes, and that they therefore take more in services than they contribute. However, IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants...more than half the estimated total in the U.S....file individual income tax returns each year. Research reviewed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that between 70 percent and 80 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes. Illegal immigrants are estimated to pay in about $7 billion per year into Social Security. Over the years, undocumented workers have contributed up to $300 billion, or nearly 10 percent, of the $2.7 trillion Social Security Trust Fund. In addition, they spend millions of dollars per year, which supports the US economy and helps to create new jobs. The Texas State Comptroller reported in 2006 that the 1.4 million illegal immigrants in Texas alone added almost $18 billion to the state's budget, and paid $1.2 billion in state services they used.

That's right, Illegal Immigrants pay taxes, unlike a certain POTUS-elect.

Ustrello wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Ustrello wrote:Oh boy look at those false equivalences

Breotan wrote:It isn't just him. If we removed all the logic fallacies from this thread, it would only be eight or nine pages long, or at least it seems like it would.

So where is the false equivalency? Was a law in place in every instance? Yes. Were there clear ramifications for breaking said law? Yes. Is one group being basically advocated to have an "out" for their punishment, an elimination of them having committed the crime in the first place, AND getting tax payer backed help that some people who never BROKE that law get? Absolutely. So I don't see a false equivalency. I wonder if Casey Chadwick or Kathryn Steinle would, other than the fact that they are both dead now.

Because you somehow think that illegally entering a country is on par with the worst crimes humans can commit and why you were called out for it by both sides

Peregrine wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Because you somehow think that illegally entering a country is on par with the worst crimes humans can commit and why you were called out for it by both sides

Yeah, let's make a different comparison, with smoking pot. Is it a crime? Yes. Are the police making every attempt to catch pot smokers, and never letting them off with a warning? No. Do reasonable people support the abuses of the war on drugs, including sending people to prison with felony convictions for pot? Hell no. Illegal immigration is arguably in the same category. It's technically illegal, but getting caught up in "PAY THE PRICE FOR YOUR CRIMES" is hardly a productive way to deal with the problem.

Ustrello wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Ustrello wrote:Oh boy look at those false equivalences

Breotan wrote:It isn't just him. If we removed all the logic fallacies from this thread, it would only be eight or nine pages long, or at least it seems like it would.

So where is the false equivalency? Was a law in place in every instance? Yes. Were there clear ramifications for breaking said law? Yes. Is one group being basically advocated to have an "out" for their punishment, an elimination of them having committed the crime in the first place, AND getting tax payer backed help that some people who never BROKE that law get? Absolutely. So I don't see a false equivalency. I wonder if Casey Chadwick or Kathryn Steinle would, other than the fact that they are both dead now.

Because you somehow think that illegally entering a country is on par with the worst crimes humans can commit and why you were called out for it by both sides

Well, he did mention stealing a car is like entering the country illegally. That is about the same, monetarily speaking. The average illegal alien in this country has a net impact of about $6000 per year on the US. That's the price of a sub-par used car every year they are here.

He tried to equate child rape with illegal immigration

cuda1179 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Ustrello wrote:Oh boy look at those false equivalences

Breotan wrote:It isn't just him. If we removed all the logic fallacies from this thread, it would only be eight or nine pages long, or at least it seems like it would.

So where is the false equivalency? Was a law in place in every instance? Yes. Were there clear ramifications for breaking said law? Yes. Is one group being basically advocated to have an "out" for their punishment, an elimination of them having committed the crime in the first place, AND getting tax payer backed help that some people who never BROKE that law get? Absolutely. So I don't see a false equivalency. I wonder if Casey Chadwick or Kathryn Steinle would, other than the fact that they are both dead now.

Because you somehow think that illegally entering a country is on par with the worst crimes humans can commit and why you were called out for it by both sides

Well, he did mention stealing a car is like entering the country illegally. That is about the same, monetarily speaking. The average illegal alien in this country has a net impact of about $6000 per year on the US. That's the price of a sub-par used car every year they are here.

...


What I said EXPLICITLY is that a law was violated, broken intentionally, and there is a large camp that does not want it enforced, in fact wanting an essential pardon plus benefits. All I did was point out that it becomes DRASTICALLY different when you apply that same principle to other broken laws. I look at the principle behind the law, not whether or not someone broke it for good reasons in their mind. If that was the case, knocking over a bank if you're laid off and have a family to support should be swept under the rug. See? It's a principle behind it. without rule of law we have anarchy, and that isn't nearly as cool as people think it is. And make no mistake, once one law gets this treatment, more will follow as soon as you set that precedent.

 Just Tony wrote:
All I did was point out that it becomes DRASTICALLY different when you apply that same principle to other broken laws.

That's because you're applying it to laws where breaking it causes much greater harm. Like I said, compare it to smoking pot: the police don't put much effort into catching people, are often willing to look the other way when they do see something, and the times when they give the full punishment the law specifies are considered a horrible injustice. So your idea that anarchy inevitably follows from not enforcing every law is rather clearly wrong.

I am honestly shocked that clinton couldnt win fort wayne indiana.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Ustrello wrote:Oh boy look at those false equivalences

Breotan wrote:It isn't just him. If we removed all the logic fallacies from this thread, it would only be eight or nine pages long, or at least it seems like it would.

So where is the false equivalency? Was a law in place in every instance? Yes. Were there clear ramifications for breaking said law? Yes. Is one group being basically advocated to have an "out" for their punishment, an elimination of them having committed the crime in the first place, AND getting tax payer backed help that some people who never BROKE that law get? Absolutely. So I don't see a false equivalency. I wonder if Casey Chadwick or Kathryn Steinle would, other than the fact that they are both dead now.

Because you somehow think that illegally entering a country is on par with the worst crimes humans can commit and why you were called out for it by both sides

Well, he did mention stealing a car is like entering the country illegally. That is about the same, monetarily speaking. The average illegal alien in this country has a net impact of about $6000 per year on the US. That's the price of a sub-par used car every year they are here.

Source?

And then there's the other side of the story.

Most arguments against illegal immigration begin with the premise that the illegal don't pay income taxes, and that they therefore take more in services than they contribute. However, IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants...more than half the estimated total in the U.S....file individual income tax returns each year. Research reviewed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that between 70 percent and 80 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes. Illegal immigrants are estimated to pay in about $7 billion per year into Social Security. Over the years, undocumented workers have contributed up to $300 billion, or nearly 10 percent, of the $2.7 trillion Social Security Trust Fund. In addition, they spend millions of dollars per year, which supports the US economy and helps to create new jobs. The Texas State Comptroller reported in 2006 that the 1.4 million illegal immigrants in Texas alone added almost $18 billion to the state's budget, and paid $1.2 billion in state services they used.

That's right, Illegal Immigrants pay taxes, unlike a certain POTUS-elect.

I see that you skipped what I posted. I specifically mentioned that illegal immigrants pay taxes, specifically income tax. Remember that of those 6 million illegals that "pay" income tax, very few actually pay (kind of like Trump). just because 6 million file taxes does not mean 6 million pay. It seems you totally ignored that the get more back than they ever pay in. 5.4 times the amount in fact. It would actually be better if they DIDN'T file income tax.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
All I did was point out that it becomes DRASTICALLY different when you apply that same principle to other broken laws.

That's because you're applying it to laws where breaking it causes much greater harm. Like I said, compare it to smoking pot: the police don't put much effort into catching people, are often willing to look the other way when they do see something, and the times when they give the full punishment the law specifies are considered a horrible injustice. So your idea that anarchy inevitably follows from not enforcing every law is rather clearly wrong.

What punishment would you give for stealing a low-end used car? That's equivalent to what an illegal immigrant takes every year they are here.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
All I did was point out that it becomes DRASTICALLY different when you apply that same principle to other broken laws.

That's because you're applying it to laws where breaking it causes much greater harm. Like I said, compare it to smoking pot: the police don't put much effort into catching people, are often willing to look the other way when they do see something, and the times when they give the full punishment the law specifies are considered a horrible injustice. So your idea that anarchy inevitably follows from not enforcing every law is rather clearly wrong.

Let's see, breaking a law is still breaking a law, no matter how you frame it. If you think the punishment is too severe, become a legislator and change it, or petition your legislator to do so. And yes, when laws are allowed to be violated without enforcement, that further laws get broken until a line is drawn.

 Just Tony wrote:
Let's see, breaking a law is still breaking a law, no matter how you frame it. If you think the punishment is too severe, become a legislator and change it, or petition your legislator to do so. And yes, when laws are allowed to be violated without enforcement, that further laws get broken until a line is drawn.

So it's ok to change the laws, but ignoring the laws to get the exact same result is unacceptable? You seem to be far too concerned with some weird moral purity thing about obeying laws and not nearly concerned enough about the practical consequences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
What punishment would you give for stealing a low-end used car? That's equivalent to what an illegal immigrant takes every year they are here.

{citation needed}

Hillary believes the main reason she lost the election is because of Comey.

“There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful,” Mrs. Clinton said, according to a donor who relayed the remarks. But, she added, “our analysis is that Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum.”

I'm not one of the "undecided" so I can't speak to this. Is there anyone on Dakka who was genuinely undecided or knows someone? Did Comey's letter about the emails sway their decision? I'm genuinely curious.

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm sorry... but I gotta share this:

Hillary: “I don’t want a pardon. It makes me look like I did something wrong.”
Obama: “Ok, then I won’t.”
Trump: “Here’s your pardon”

Don't diss it, given how 2016 is turning out... would this surprise you?!?!

Would she not have to actually be convicted of something to get a pardon?

No. The only requirements for a Presidential pardon is that it be for a federal offense, and that the subject is not currently under impeachment. No conviction needed (see: Ford's pardon of Nixon), or even charges.

Correct... the problem with a Presidential Pardon, is that it's essentially an admission of guilt.

Couldn't she just...reject it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
Hillary believes the main reason she lost the election is because of Comey.

“There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful,” Mrs. Clinton said, according to a donor who relayed the remarks. But, she added, “our analysis is that Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum.”

I'm not one of the "undecided" so I can't speak to this. Is there anyone on Dakka who was genuinely undecided or knows someone? Did Comey's letter about the emails sway their decision? I'm genuinely curious.

One of the reasons, certainly. But I strongly doubt it was the main reason.

 Breotan wrote:
Hillary believes the main reason she lost the election is because of Comey.

“There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful,” Mrs. Clinton said, according to a donor who relayed the remarks. But, she added, “our analysis is that Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum.”

I'm not one of the "undecided" so I can't speak to this. Is there anyone on Dakka who was genuinely undecided or knows someone? Did Comey's letter about the emails sway their decision? I'm genuinely curious.

I'm not convinced that it did.

Bottom line, she was a horrible candidate... things like the email scandal and pay-to-play scheme just reinforced the shady perception of the Clintons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm sorry... but I gotta share this:

Hillary: “I don’t want a pardon. It makes me look like I did something wrong.”
Obama: “Ok, then I won’t.”
Trump: “Here’s your pardon”

Don't diss it, given how 2016 is turning out... would this surprise you?!?!

Would she not have to actually be convicted of something to get a pardon?

No. The only requirements for a Presidential pardon is that it be for a federal offense, and that the subject is not currently under impeachment. No conviction needed (see: Ford's pardon of Nixon), or even charges.

Correct... the problem with a Presidential Pardon, is that it's essentially an admission of guilt.

Couldn't she just...reject it?

...I don't know. Not sure if you could reject a pardon.

Would it really matter at this point if she was guilty or not? Does Hillary Clinton have a realistic hope of further political offices, given her age and how this incredibly well funded campaign turned out? Somehow I can't see her being advanced as a presidential candidate again.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
All I did was point out that it becomes DRASTICALLY different when you apply that same principle to other broken laws.

That's because you're applying it to laws where breaking it causes much greater harm. Like I said, compare it to smoking pot: the police don't put much effort into catching people, are often willing to look the other way when they do see something, and the times when they give the full punishment the law specifies are considered a horrible injustice. So your idea that anarchy inevitably follows from not enforcing every law is rather clearly wrong.

But, but, Peregrine, can't you see all the anarchy around you caused by almost nobody actually obeying the speed limit laws?

 Breotan wrote:
Hillary believes the main reason she lost the election is because of Comey.

“There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful,” Mrs. Clinton said, according to a donor who relayed the remarks. But, she added, “our analysis is that Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum.”

I'm not one of the "undecided" so I can't speak to this. Is there anyone on Dakka who was genuinely undecided or knows someone? Did Comey's letter about the emails sway their decision? I'm genuinely curious.

Without the ability to peak into an alternate universe where Comey didn't act, we'll never truly know how much of an impact his actions had. I certainly agree that Comey's actions did, indeed, stop (or was at least a speed bump to) her momentum, but so close to election day, it's really hard to say how many voters it swayed.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Would it really matter at this point if she was guilty or not? Does Hillary Clinton have a realistic hope of further political offices, given her age and how this incredibly well funded campaign turned out? Somehow I can't see her being advanced as a presidential candidate again.

It probably doesn't matter. Keep in mind that Hillary is politically connected and heads a powerful political machine so you'd better have more than "he said, she said" before taking her to court. With her political career effectively over, unless there's proof of a felony with a 10+ year sentence, I doubt anyone will even try.

 Breotan wrote:
With her political career effectively over, unless there's proof of a felony with a 10+ year sentence, I doubt anyone will even try.

And even then I'd doubt it. Prosecuting Clinton after the investigation has already said "no crime" and Trump ran on a promise of "throw her in prison" would come across as pretty blatant abuse of power against political enemies and hand the democrats some effective ammunition in 2018/2020. Even if there's legitimate proof of a crime and a good chance of conviction it just isn't going to look good. As much as it might disappoint the angry mob the smart thing to do is to drop the whole thing and let Clinton quietly disappear from politics. The only question is whether or not the republican party is smart enough to do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
I'm not one of the "undecided" so I can't speak to this. Is there anyone on Dakka who was genuinely undecided or knows someone? Did Comey's letter about the emails sway their decision? I'm genuinely curious.

Not personally, but it did seem to have an effect in the polls. And given the narrow margin of Trump's win it's plausible that it did have an effect. Even if it didn't convince many Clinton voters to vote for Trump this was an election where the main reason the democrats lost was poor turnout, and it's a lot easier to make someone apathetic about going out to vote than it is to turn them to the other side.

I am beginning to see sources that say Clinton lost the popular election, now that the votes have all been counted. I don't really trust the sources, though, since they are right wing with an axe to grind.
Has anybody seen anything about it in a more reliable news source?

Relapse wrote:
I am beginning to see sources that say Clinton lost the popular election, now that the votes have all been counted. I don't really trust the sources, though, since they are right wing with an axe to grind.
Has anybody seen anything about it in a more reliable news source?

I've been following the CNN Tracker which currently stands at...

Trump
290 EC
47.3% votes | 60,313,528

Clinton
232 EC
60,937,697 | 47.8% votes

http://edition.cnn.com/election

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fox News has identical numbers currently.

As a Brit, I do find it remarkable that almost a week later, you're still counting votes and still don't have a final count.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I stand by my "sea of red".

Then you are wrong. The "sea of red" idea ignores the fact that many of those visually prominent red areas have very low population. So yeah, visually it's a sea of red with a small dot of blue, but that dot of blue has more people than the whole red area by a large margin. And it also makes everything binary red/blue instead of representing the fact that many red/blue areas were much closer to 50/50 than 100/0. Much of that "sea of red" could be more accurately described as "sea of red-tinted purple".

That's a good point. The map shows the counties that Trump won but not the margin of victory in the county. However, the important thing I take away from that map is the fact that Trump won counties in every state except Massachusetts and Vermont. That map shows just how widespread support for Trump was and just how low support for Hillary was. Some of those counties were never going to be won by Hillary but a lot of those counties could have been won by Hillary if she had been able to motivate people to go to polls and vote for her. The polls missing the amount of support Trump had seems to be the story people want to focus on but I think the bigger story is that the pollsters vastly overestimated the support Hillary had. Trump got fewer votes than McCain or Romney he clearly was a weaker candidate than they were in terms of motivating Republicans to vote. Pundits were commenting about how big of an advantage Hillary's ground game would be but instead her turnout was abysmal.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I am beginning to see sources that say Clinton lost the popular election, now that the votes have all been counted. I don't really trust the sources, though, since they are right wing with an axe to grind.
Has anybody seen anything about it in a more reliable news source?

I've been following the CNN Tracker which currently stands at...

Trump
290 EC
47.3% votes | 60,313,528

Clinton
232 EC
60,937,697 | 47.8% votes

http://edition.cnn.com/election

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fox News has identical numbers currently.

As a Brit, I do find it remarkable that almost a week later, you're still counting votes and still don't have a final count.

That's pretty normal here. Some states will still be counting into December. Technically speaking, the election isn't actually over until January 6, when the House meets and "officially" counts the votes from the Electoral College and recognizes the results.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I am beginning to see sources that say Clinton lost the popular election, now that the votes have all been counted. I don't really trust the sources, though, since they are right wing with an axe to grind.
Has anybody seen anything about it in a more reliable news source?

I've been following the CNN Tracker which currently stands at...

Trump
290 EC
47.3% votes | 60,313,528

Clinton
232 EC
60,937,697 | 47.8% votes

http://edition.cnn.com/election

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fox News has identical numbers currently.

As a Brit, I do find it remarkable that almost a week later, you're still counting votes and still don't have a final count.

To discount in any way those that voted for Clinton is foolishness. The object of the game should be to reunite the country and respect each other in order to build something worth having for us and our children.

Prestor Jon wrote:
However, the important thing I take away from that map is the fact that Trump won counties in every state except Massachusetts and Vermont.

Sure, but that happens every year. It means nothing at all.

Ok, So, Aftermath of Thursdays protests near my house.
1: One old man(around 50) got pulled off his Harley, beaten and the Harley got destroyed.
2: Teachers where punched and assaulted.
3: Police cars where Keyed, Vandilized and Tires Slashed.
4: Nearly 200 students missed or walked out of class( in my district)
5: Quite a few of those got suspended or expelled.
4: One man, after making a withdrawel from his bank, Got assaulted by a coupld of local mexican gang yelling "#$%# Trump" and got his wallet taken.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
As a Brit, I do find it remarkable that almost a week later, you're still counting votes and still don't have a final count.

We do have a slightly larger population than you. And the final count doesn't actually matter 99% of the time. What we're talking about here is a handful of votes (absentee ballots that were postmarked in time but arrived late, provisional ballots, etc) that require a little extra work. There aren't enough of them to change the outcome, but technically they still have to be counted. The votes that mattered were dealt with by wednesday morning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, So, Aftermath of Thursdays protests near my house.
1: One old man(around 50) got pulled off his Harley, beaten and the Harley got destroyed.
2: Teachers where punched and assaulted.
3: Police cars where Keyed, Vandilized and Tires Slashed.
4: Nearly 200 students missed or walked out of class( in my district)
5: Quite a few of those got suspended or expelled.
4: One man, after making a withdrawel from his bank, Got assaulted by a coupld of local mexican gang yelling "#$%# Trump" and got his wallet taken.

Just out of curiosity, do you have (mainstream) news sources for these incidents?

Relapse wrote:
To discount in any way those that voted for Clinton is foolishness. The object of the game should be to reunite the country and respect each other in order to build something worth having for us and our children.