• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob001 said:
I'm not convinced that the DNC emails themselves were really all that significant. They were mildly embarrassing, but not enough to turn Clinton voters to Trump. If they had come from Wikileaks or a disgruntled ex-staffer, they would have been forgotten pretty quickly. But the fact that a foreign dictator actively tried to interfere with our electoral process is a big deal, and it should be a particularly big deal to people who call themselves conservatives in the Ronald Reagan mold. It would be the same issue if Putin had endorsed Trump and urged "peace-loving" Americans to vote for him. It's a related big deal that the FBI apparently knew about the DNC hacking for months without telling the DNC, and it was investigating Trump's Russian connections before the election without telling the American people.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't your argument suggest that Russia's interference would hurt Trump's campaign?
 
Fudbucker said:
I think anyone that would give Trump a pass on the stuff he was caught on camera saying is not someone I want to be around. Trump bragged about assaulting women, said pervy stuff about dating little girls, said pervy incestuous stuff about his daughter, said a talk show host could call his daughter a "piece of ass", etc.

People that support a person like that are not what I would consider "nice" people. They might not be evil, but I don't want much to do with them. I understand things are bad in the rust belt. Neither party has done much to help. That doesn't justify supporting someone like Trump.
Click to expand...

Looks like you don't want to be around approximately half of the people you interact with on a daily basis, I guess.
 
Emily's Cat said:
How did Trump cheat?
Click to expand...

Unclear. It will probably come out if we have a little patience.

Umm... let's talk math here for a minute. Clinton won fewer popular votes overall than she won in California alone. She won CA by 3.4 million votes, but had only 2.9 million more votes in aggregate. Trump won significantly more than a "small lead in three states".
Click to expand...

For the life of me I have no idea what you were trying to say there. It reads as if you're saying she only won California or ???

She only won California?
:confused:
 
NoahFence said:
For the life of me I have no idea what you were trying to say there. It reads as if you're saying she only won California or ???

She only won California?
:confused:
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying.

The argument keeps being made that she won by almost 3 million votes in aggregate. Skeptic Ginger added to that by implying that Trump only won a couple of states. But the margin in CA was higher than the overall margin by which Trump won.

Effectively, if you exclude CA from the tallies, then Trump would have won both the popular and the electoral vote by a reasonable margin. CA alone, all by itself, is responsible for the margin by which Clinton won. Clinton didn't have a widespread popular margin - she had extremely narrow margins in the states she won except for CA. Her margin was so narrow that not even the margin in CA could counteract it.

Mathematically, acting as if it's some massive travesty that Trump won, on the basis of the popular vote, is effectively saying that in this specific case, CA should have been the only one voting for president.

And again, I don't believe that CA is representative of the US as a whole.
 
Emily's Cat said:
What, by disagreeing with your politics? :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Hit my Facebook feed today, and seems apropos:

31976778790_d48d198d9f_z.jpg
 
Emily's Cat said:
Looks like you don't want to be around approximately half of the people you interact with on a daily basis, I guess.
Click to expand...

You would have a point if the country was uniformally politically divided. It's not. I live in California, specifically L.A. County. Hillary got 70% of the vote here. I don't run into that many Trump supporters.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Hit my Facebook feed today, and seems apropos:

[qimg]https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/576/31976778790_d48d198d9f_z.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

If your friend confided in you they admire the KKK, would that change your opinion that person? It would me.

I'm not saying Trump is the KKK, but his views and conduct are just as reprehensible to me. Supporting Trump is supporting someone who bragged on tape about sexually assaulting women because he was powerful enough to do it. Nevermind the hundred other terrible things he said. How does someone support a person like that? I can't.
 
Emily's Cat said:
That's not what I'm saying.

The argument keeps being made that she won by almost 3 million votes in aggregate. Skeptic Ginger added to that by implying that Trump only won a couple of states. But the margin in CA was higher than the overall margin by which Trump won.

Effectively, if you exclude CA from the tallies, then Trump would have won both the popular and the electoral vote by a reasonable margin. CA alone, all by itself, is responsible for the margin by which Clinton won. Clinton didn't have a widespread popular margin - she had extremely narrow margins in the states she won except for CA. Her margin was so narrow that not even the margin in CA could counteract it.

Mathematically, acting as if it's some massive travesty that Trump won, on the basis of the popular vote, is effectively saying that in this specific case, CA should have been the only one voting for president.

And again, I don't believe that CA is representative of the US as a whole.
Click to expand...

I'm sure a bunch of weird results happen if you exclude any specific 11% if the population.
 
Emily's Cat said:
That's not what I'm saying.

The argument keeps being made that she won by almost 3 million votes in aggregate. Skeptic Ginger added to that by implying that Trump only won a couple of states. But the margin in CA was higher than the overall margin by which Trump won.

Effectively, if you exclude CA from the tallies, then Trump would have won both the popular and the electoral vote by a reasonable margin. CA alone, all by itself, is responsible for the margin by which Clinton won. Clinton didn't have a widespread popular margin - she had extremely narrow margins in the states she won except for CA. Her margin was so narrow that not even the margin in CA could counteract it.

Mathematically, acting as if it's some massive travesty that Trump won, on the basis of the popular vote, is effectively saying that in this specific case, CA should have been the only one voting for president.

And again, I don't believe that CA is representative of the US as a whole.
Click to expand...

And what state do you consider "representative of the U.S. as a whole?" Texas? Ohio? Idaho? Or isn't every one different from "the whole" in many important ways? A majority of states don't have cities larger than half-a-million or so. Are they more or less representative of the whole? Most don't have seaports or even beaches. Most don't have oil refineries or steel plants or aircraft factories. Etc., etc., etc. And that's before you get to demographics. So what? The President serves all Americans. I think you could make a strong argument that because of the size of its economy, California is the most representative state: Big population centers, large rural areas, major industrial facilities and seaports, entertainment capital, huge agricultural base, ethnic diversity, varied weather, border with Mexico, etc., etc., etc. What does any other state have that's missing from California?

And again, so what? Trump had "extremely narrow" margins in many of the states he won too. If 90,000 or so of his voters had gone the other way in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Clinton would have won. Or aren't they "representative" either?
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
And what state do you consider "representative of the U.S. as a whole?" Texas? Ohio? Idaho? Or isn't every one different from "the whole" in many important ways? A majority of states don't have cities larger than half-a-million or so. Are they more or less representative of the whole? Most don't have seaports or even beaches. Most don't have oil refineries or steel plants or aircraft factories. Etc., etc., etc. And that's before you get to demographics. So what? The President serves all Americans. I think you could make a strong argument that because of the size of its economy, California is the most representative state: Big population centers, large rural areas, major industrial facilities and seaports, entertainment capital, huge agricultural base, ethnic diversity, varied weather, border with Mexico, etc., etc., etc. What does any other state have that's missing from California?

And again, so what? Trump had "extremely narrow" margins in many of the states he won too. If 90,000 or so of his voters had gone the other way in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Clinton would have won. Or aren't they "representative" either?
Click to expand...

It looks like the answer is Illinois.
 
Bob001 said:
And what state do you consider "representative of the U.S. as a whole?" Texas? Ohio? Idaho? Or isn't every one different from "the whole" in many important ways? A majority of states don't have cities larger than half-a-million or so. Are they more or less representative of the whole? Most don't have seaports or even beaches. Most don't have oil refineries or steel plants or aircraft factories. Etc., etc., etc. And that's before you get to demographics. So what? The President serves all Americans. I think you could make a strong argument that because of the size of its economy, California is the most representative state: Big population centers, large rural areas, major industrial facilities and seaports, entertainment capital, huge agricultural base, ethnic diversity, varied weather, border with Mexico, etc., etc., etc. What does any other state have that's missing from California?

And again, so what? Trump had "extremely narrow" margins in many of the states he won too. If 90,000 or so of his voters had gone the other way in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Clinton would have won. Or aren't they "representative" either?
Click to expand...

When I say representative, I mean statistically representative without bias. No single state would qualify as being representative on its own. In this case, we know that California as a whole has a significant political skew within very dense urban areas (much as Seattle dominates Washington), but that the beliefs, views, and policies of the residents of those dense urban regions don't reflect the aggregate view of the state as a whole. Similarly, we know that California doesn't accurately reflect the viewpoint of pretty much the rest of the country. Representative in this context would then mean that it represents the aggregate viewpoint of the whole nation.

Given that the margin by which Clinton won the popular vote is less than the margin by which she won California, it's clear that CA is a bit of an outlier in this distribution.

More than anything, it's a reflection of regional biases within any social analysis. It's a good learning moment for sampling and for the kinds of things that need to be considered when you're trying to nail 3.8 million square miles down to one single view.
 
Trump Tweets criticise CIA Director Brennan, says he doesn't understand Russia and couldn't be much worse.
Accuses him of leaking 'Fake News'


"Outgoing CIA Chief, John Brennan, blasts Pres-Elect Trump on Russia threat. Does not fully understand.' Oh really, couldn't do...much worse - just look at Syria (red line), Crimea, Ukraine and the build-up of Russian nukes. Not good! Was this the leaker of Fake News?"


http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/15/politics/john-brennan-cia-donald-trump/index.html
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom